Light Penalty for Judge Who Had Sex in Chambers Draws Criticism

The judiciary’s private reprimand of a federal judge for having sex at the workplace and lying about it is raising questions about that penalty’s effectiveness.

The unnamed US district judge, in a court within the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, was blocked from holding leadership roles in the judiciary and ordered to write apology letters to law clerks after the jurist was found to have had sex with a law enforcement officer in chambers, in earshot of staff. The judge was also found to have initially lied to investigators about the misconduct before later admitting to it, and to have improperly attended a partisan political event.

The federal judiciary has revised how it handles workplace misconduct issues in recent years, and a working group has suggested further changes to make it easier for court employees to come forward with claims. But the private reprimand “illustrates why many ethics experts lack confidence in the judiciary’s handling of judicial misconduct cases,” said Susan Saab Fortney, a Texas A&M law professor.

“When faced with the complaint, the judge falsely denied allegations and questioned the motivation of the clerk who filed the complaint,” Fortney said in an email. “Although the judge later admitted the sexual conduct in the workplace, the initial denial contributed to the judiciary devoting considerable time and resources to investigating the allegations.”

Fortney suggested that judges should potentially have to cover the costs of investigating their behavior when they’re found to have committed misconduct.

A special committee created in response to the allegations retained counsel to help with the investigation. Investigative steps taken included reviewing courthouse security footage to see the same officer visiting the judge, and sending a stained cushion in chambers to an out-of-state lab for same-day testing to determine if the substance was semen.

Charles Geyh, an Indiana University judicial ethics expert, said that while he isn’t sure if the conduct meets the bar for impeachment, it clears the standard for releasing the judge’s name.

“It’s not enough for this judge to go under the radar when the order itself concludes this judge is essentially unfit to lead,” Geyh said. The order said the judge had agreed to not serve as chief judge in the future, and to not serve on any committees within the Judicial Conference, the courts’ policy-making body.

Geyh said he suspected that investigators knew the judge would lose credibility and may have to resign if the jurist’s identity was made public.

But, he said, the misconduct laid out in a special committee report “at a minimum I would have thought deserving of a public reprimand.”

A Judicial Conference committee said in a May 22 order that the penalties issued against the judge “are appropriate and proportionate” to the misconduct findings.

Law Clerk Impact

Law clerks overheard the unnamed judge having sex in chambers, as part of an extramarital affair the jurist was having with a law enforcement officer, according to a special court committee report.

The report said “there was a conflict-of-interest risk,” as the officer was a commander at a police department. The report said that, from 2022 through October of 2025, the judge hadn’t presided over any cases in which the officer or police department were a party, and that other officers from that police department hadn’t testified in other criminal trials the judge presided over during that period of time.

Geyh said that the conduct would justify a public reprimand, “if only to enable litigants to protect themselves if they are victims of a conflict with the law enforcement officer.”

The allegations stand apart from other findings of sexual misconduct by judges, as it appeared to be a consensual relationship between two adults and not the judge directly abusing staff. For example, Judge Joshua Kindred in Alaska resigned in 2024 after he was found to have had inappropriate contacts with a former law clerk. Kindred has since been disbarred.

The judge in this instance initially denied allegations of misconduct after a law clerk raised them. The judge suggested that the clerk came forward with the claims as retaliation for being chastised for performance issues, according to the report.

The report noted that several court staffers were impacted even if they didn’t hear the judge and the officer.

“A former career clerk, who functioned as a quasi-supervisor of the term clerks, recalled two different term clerks asking for advice after hearing the judge and the visitor. The former career clerk described feeling powerless to prevent the term clerks from exposure to the relationship,” the report reads. “Another term clerk said that the clerk’s colleagues frequently discussed what the judge and the officer were doing behind closed doors, leading to an awkward working environment.”

That law clerk also alleged that the judge improperly supervised the clerks and acted inappropriately toward them in chambers. The special committee that investigated the judge didn’t make misconduct findings in response to those claims.

Part of the penalty handed down to the judge was a requirement to write letters of apology to six former law clerks who were interviewed as part of the investigation. A footnote in the report said the judge “asked to be allowed to word the letters of apology vaguely so as to ensure that a letter could not be ‘used against [the Subject Judge] in some way.’”

“The special committee recommends that the Judicial Council instruct the Subject Judge to use the judge’s best judgment in drafting letters of apology that communicate the judge’s sentiments without risking undue embarrassment to the Subject Judge or the judiciary,” the footnote continues. “Any apology should be sufficiently specific so as to make clear to the recipient the sexual misconduct for which the judge is apologizing.”

Geyh said that it could be an effective form of remediation, if the apology is genuine.

He said it won’t be “if it is kind of like Bart Simpson being forced to go to the blackboard and write 100 times ‘I won’t be a bad judge.’”