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
© 2025 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 AllRetiring AOC Director Judge Glenn A. Grant Walks Away From Judiciary 'Tremendously Impressed' by New Jersey's Judges
5 minute readDisciplinary Board Criticizes Ethics Panel for Dismissing Charges Over Improper Firm Name
4 minute readFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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