Court Censures Ocean County Judge Who Griped About Child Support Payments to Staff
"Though there is no indication that any influence was actually exerted, the mere fact that such a potential exists constitutes a misuse of the judicial office in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct," the ACJC said in the case.
November 08, 2018 at 06:02 PM
5 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court has censured a trial judge for complaining to court staff about his child support obligations, conduct that could be construed as exerting his judicial influence on a personal matter, even if he didn't intend it that way.
In an order signed Nov. 7, the court said Ocean County Superior Court Judge James Palmer Jr. had agreed to accept the recommendations and findings of the court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.
A censure was the discipline recommended by the ACJC in a presentment in the case, dated Sept. 27 and released along with the court's order on Nov. 7. The presentment was signed by the committee's chairwoman, former Supreme Court Justice Virginia Long.
Palmer, the ACJC concluded, “made multiple references to his judicial office while interacting with various Somerset County Probation Department personnel on March 21, 2017, about his personal Family Part matter.
“Such conduct, irrespective of respondent's professed lack of intent to do so, created the potential for respondent's judicial office to influence the manner in which the Probation Department handled his concerns in respect of emancipation and child support,” the ACJC said. “Though there is no indication that any influence was actually exerted, the mere fact that such a potential exists constitutes a misuse of the judicial office in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
Palmer's attorney, Mitchell Ansell, said the judge has “apologized and wants to move on with his life.
“Judge Palmer is a respected jurist with many years of service to the citizens of Ocean County,” said Ansell, of Ansell Grimm & Aaron in Ocean. “This did not involve any litigants. It was a misunderstanding.”
The original complaint filed in January by the ACJC said Palmer “created the risk that his judicial office would be an influential factor” in the handling of his family matter. In so doing, he “impugned the integrity of the judiciary.”
The complaint charged Palmer with violating three cannons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including rules requiring judges to “observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved,” as well as to “promote public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” and to “avoid lending the prestige of their office to advance a personal interest.”
The complaint detailed an incident on March 21, 2017, when Palmer appeared at the Probate Division at the Somerset County Courthouse to discuss his child support obligations under a 2011 divorce and request to emancipate his daughter. According to the complaint, he used his judicial identification and introduced himself as “Judge Palmer” to a series of employees, who each passed him up to a supervisor when they were unable to find the emancipation consent he said his ex-wife had filed. The ACJC charged that each employee said Palmer complained about having a cost-of-living increase in his child support payments when he had not been given a raise in his judicial salary, and that he told them his daughter “should have been emancipated a long time ago.”
In his answer, Palmer acknowledged that, during his visit, he was wearing his judicial identification badge on a lanyard and that he identified him as a judge. He said he verbally “identified himself as 'Judge Palmer' only after [an office employee] noted it was her first day and that she was a new Probation Officer, in an attempt to put her at ease.” He admitted that the “conduct in identifying himself as a judge to judiciary employees in the Probation Division had the potential to be perceived as an attempt at deferential treatment, however, this was not the intent of the respondent.” He denied that he knowingly violated ethics rules, and disputed some of the facts laid out in the complaint, including some of his alleged remarks about judicial salaries.
The ACJC's Sept. 27 presentment said there were two aggravating factors that warranted censure for Palmer.
The first was for his “lack of integrity and probity” in the matter.
The second was for his two prior ethics infractions, for which he received private reprimands.
Palmer was privately reprimanded in October 2015 for being arrogant and aggressive toward two litigants in separate matters. The second occurred in January 2017, when he exhibited the same behavior toward two other litigants, the presentment said.
“Respondent's continued inability to conform his conduct to the Codes of Judicial Conduct over the past several years, despite the recent receipt of prior discipline and his more than nine-year tenure on the bench, necessarily aggravates his abuse of the judicial office in this instance and must be met with enhanced discipline,” the presentment said.
Palmer was admitted in New Jersey in 1985. He has a law degree from Indiana University and master's degrees from Columbia University in New York and Roosevelt University in Chicago. He spent 27 years in private practice, including as a solo in Jackson and as an in-house counsel to several corporations, before his December 2008 confirmation. Palmer was first assigned to the Family Part in Burlington County, then moved to the Criminal Part in 2010. In 2014, he was assigned to his current position in the Ocean Vicinage's Civil Part. He was granted tenure in late 2015.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readConstruction Worker Hit by Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute readEagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250