NJ Judge Russo Reinstated and Reassigned, But Ethics Charges Remain
New Jersey Superior Court Judge John F. Russo Jr., off the bench for nearly 20 months and accused of courtroom impropriety in his questioning of a sexual assault victim on the witness stand, is back on the job.
December 06, 2018 at 02:06 PM
4 minute read
New Jersey Superior Court Judge John F. Russo Jr., off the bench for nearly 20 months and accused of courtroom impropriety in his questioning of a sexual assault victim on the witness stand, is back on the job—though his disciplinary case, and his civil suit against the state judiciary, remain pending.
State Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner signed a one-paragraph order assigning Russo to the Civil Division in Burlington County.
The order, dated Nov. 30 and released Tuesday, offered no explanation as to why Russo was reinstated.
A judiciary spokesman, Peter McAleer, said he could not comment further.
Russo's attorney, Keyport solo David Corrigan, also said he did not know why Russo was ordered to return to work and reassigned from Ocean County.
“I would have to speculate to answer, and I'm not going to do that,” Corrigan said. “Judge Russo is thrilled to be back on the bench. Judge Russo was placed on administrative leave 20 months ago. We believe that was unwarranted, and we are pleased that the judiciary … has fully agreed with our position.”
Russo is still facing charges that he violated ethics rules while assigned to the Family Part in Ocean County—allegations that he has disputed.
Before the ethics case began, Russo sued the judiciary. He claimed in a suit filed in April of last year that, while sitting, he was harassed over the amount of time he spent caring for his disabled son. He had been on paid administrative leave since April 2017.
The civil suit was stayed over the summer pending the resolution of Russo's ethics case.
This March, Russo was the subject of a complaint issued by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, in connection with four separate cases.
The first incident, which has garnered widespread media attention, occurred on May 16, 2016, while Russo was sitting in the Family Division in Ocean County. In that case, a woman was seeking a restraining order against a man who, she alleged, abandoned her along a roadway, threatened to burn her house down and sexually assaulted her. The complaint alleges that Russo, from the bench, put himself in the position of defense counsel by asking her if she tried to “run away,” “block[ed her] body parts,” “close[d] your legs,” or called for the police.
Russo also is accused of calling a Family Division manager in Ocean County for help in rescheduling a personal matter that was pending in Burlington County; failing to recuse from a family court matter involving a man with whom he attended high school; and calling a woman involved in a paternity case to warn her that she could be sanctioned if she did not heed a court order to comply with a paternity test.
In May, in an answer to the complaint, Russo denied violating ethics rules and questioned the accuracy of some of the ACJC's facts. “Respondent has a good reputation and character,” the answer said. “During his time on the bench in Superior Court, respondent worked hard, was caring and compassionate about litigants … and handled cases efficiently.”
More recently, in October, Russo testified before the ACJC. In the hearing, he explained that by questioning the alleged sex assault victim, he was attempting to bolster the factual record in the case, but ultimately denied the restraining order sought, according to reports from the Asbury Park Press.
In the civil suit, pending in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Russo is claiming he was placed on leave for clashing with supervising judges over time he spent attending to the needs of his disabled son. The suit named the state judiciary, Ocean County Assignment Judge Marlene Lynch Ford and Presiding Family Division Judge Madelin Einbinder.
Russo, who was confirmed in December 2015, said in his complaint that he was removed from duty in April 2017 and told to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation before hearing any more cases. According to the suit, Ford told Russo that his law clerk had complained about him and that the circumstances could support a hostile work environment.
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 All3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readSenate Judiciary Committee OKs Retired Judge for New Role, Advances 6 Superior Court Nominees
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