Judges and public trust

On Monday in Atlanta, Judge Ural Glanville indefinitely stayed the criminal extortion case against rapper Young Thug. Glanville created his own problem when he met ex parte with a witness and prosecutors on June 10, then charged Young Thug’s lawyer with contempt of court for questioning the judge about the meeting.

In response, Young Thug’s lawyer and Doug Weinstein, the attorney for rapper and co-defendant Yak Gotti, filed a motion to have Glanville disqualified. Weinstein argued that Glanville’s actions “insult the public trust” in the judiciary and “that the appearance of impropriety and bias (hung) over the current trial.”

Our legal system is built on public trust in the judiciary. Our clients deserve a fair chance. We, as lawyers, should be able to tell our clients that they can expect a fair trial. If we can’t tell them that, then little else should matter.

Maryland believes in promoting public confidence in the judiciary. Title 18 of the Maryland Rules governs judges and judicial appointees and includes the Code of Judicial Conduct (Md. Rules 18-100 and next.) and the process of investigating and punishing judges (Md. Rule 18-400) and next.).

The purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct is threefold: to recognize the importance of “an independent, fair, competent, and impartial judiciary composed of men and women of high standing” (Md. Rule 18-100.4(a)); to “maintain the dignity of the judicial office in order to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” (Md. Rule 18-100.4(b)); and to “establish standards of ethical conduct for judges and judicial candidates” (Md. Rule 18-100.4(c)).

The devil is of course in the details.

Georgia and Maryland have adopted versions of ABA Rule 2.9 governing ex parte communications. The rules are similar and prohibit ex parte communications except in limited circumstances, Georgia Rule 2.9, entitled Ensuring fair hearings and preventing ex parte communications goes further, emphasizing the importance of the parties’ right to be heard: “Judges shall accord to every person having a legal interest in the proceeding, or to that person’s attorney, the right to be heard according to law.” Ga. Code. Jud. Cond. 2.9.

I haven’t found many cases where judges have faced charges similar to the one Glanville faced, but states have disciplined judges for violating Rule 2.9. A Utah judge was disciplined in 2018 for having numerous out-of-court conversations with court personnel, including a social worker, without disclosing those conversations to other parties or keeping them in the record.

Similarly, a Minnesota judge was subject to private discipline for answering jury questions outside the presence of the parties. Similarly, an Arizona judge was publicly reprimanded for issuing an involuntary psychiatric admission order after an ex parte interview with a nurse that was not disclosed to the person subject to the order or his attorney. And a Pennsylvania judge was recently cited for multiple violations of Rule 2.9, including for going to the location where a criminal defendant was performing community service.

I hope I can’t find similar cases, because few judges have done what he apparently did.

Indeed, as I see it, under both rules, Glanville created a mess. Regardless of whether the meeting was proper under Rule 2.9 (I don’t have enough information to judge that), the optics are horrifying. Glanville essentially failed to look at his own conduct, refusing to even address the appearance of impropriety. Instead, he demanded that Young Thug’s lawyer reveal his source, and when the lawyer refused, he found him in contempt of court.

Glanville’s conduct endangers us all. The legal system serves as a check and balance on abuses of power. Judges who abuse power are no better than anyone else who abuses power. The robe is not a license to intimidate.

In addition, the trial itself is a massive extortion racket involving significant gang activity in Atlanta. The issue is public safety. The judge simply should not take steps that jeopardize the integrity of the trial. Monetary costs are also an issue. The trial, which was scheduled to begin in January 2023, has been put on hold.

Our clients expect justice from judges. My experience tells me that most judges care about justice. But judges are human, and I have concerns about whether some of them have the strength to look inside themselves and understand how their actions can create the “appearance of impropriety.” This is often just as important to our clients.

Craig Brodsky is a partner at Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann LLP in Baltimore. For more than 25 years, Brodsky has represented attorneys in disciplinary and negligence matters and has served as ethics counsel for numerous clients. His column appears monthly. He can be reached at (email protected).