Suspension Sought for Municipal Judge Who Jailed Pro Se Litigant
Newark Municipal Court Judge Marvin Adames detained an apparently troublesome pro se litigant "for 23 days without just cause and without the benefit of counsel whom he had relieved immediately prior to incarcerating her," ethics authorities say.
October 24, 2019 at 06:15 PM
6 minute read
A Newark Municipal Court judge who sent an apparently disruptive pro se litigant to jail—where she would then remain for weeks, through the Christmas holiday—has been ordered to appear before the state Supreme Court on a recommendation of suspension by judicial ethics authorities.
In an order to show cause dated Oct. 22 and made public two days later, the court directed Judge Marvin Adames to appear in connection with his potential discipline, which the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct has said should be a two-month suspension without pay.
The ACJC's presentment, dated Aug. 8 and made public along with the court's order, found an "abuse of his judicial contempt of court power by his improper incarceration of a pro se litigant, in the absence of a summary judicial finding of contempt … and without following procedures for civil commitment."
The committee found Adames' conduct "sufficiently egregious to warrant significant public discipline."
"Indeed we are struck by Respondent's evident lack of appreciation for the necessary process attendant to every contempt charge, particularly given his extensive experience in the municipal court, both as a judge and a prosecutor," the ACJC said, noting that the litigant was "detained … for 23 days without just cause and without the benefit of counsel whom he had relieved immediately prior to incarcerating her."
Adames, reached by phone, said he hopes to have the ethics case resolved in the coming months but declined to comment further.
Hamilton solo Robert Ramsey, who represents Adames, didn't return a call.
The court's Oct. 24 order directs ACJC executive director and chief counsel Candace Moody or her designee to appear before the court. A call to the ACJC was redirected to the judiciary's communications office. A spokesman didn't respond to an email.
According to the presentment, the litigant, Linda Lacey, appeared before Adames for the first time on Nov. 17, 2016, on a petty disorderly persons offense concerning a dispute with her landlord.
Adames, after interaction with counsel for both sides, expressed concern for Lacey's mental condition and would later say he observed Lacey "violently yank" a pen away from a court staffer, the document said, which noted that Adames warned Lacey not to disrespect court staff.
Adames then ordered that Lacey be brought to a holding cell, and directed her attorney, unnamed in the document, to speak with her, after which the attorney told Adames she meant no disrespect. Adames released her with a warning, the presentment said.
At a subsequent hearing on the petty disorderly persons matter on Dec. 16, 2016, the attorney asked to be relieved as counsel, which Adames granted, though he "did not inquire with Ms. Lacey whether she wanted an opportunity to obtain substitute counsel or representation from a public defender," the ACJC said. During the proceeding, Adames again accused Lacey of being disrespectful—calling her a "very intelligent" and "very well dressed woman" who was "doing nothing but playing games"—and said "this is now ridiculous," after which he ordered Lacey held on $10,000 bail pending a contempt hearing, the document said.
She was brought to the Essex County Jail and appeared by video conference at a scheduled contempt hearing a week later, during which Adames said he had ordered a psychological evaluation. But the contempt hearing itself was not held, and was instead rescheduled until early January 2017, according to the presentment.
It was not until Jan. 3 that Adames ordered her released, without any evaluation having been performed, and with no contempt proceedings ever having been conducted, the ACJC said, noting that it was another four days—making 23 days in jail in total—before she actually was released.
A complaint issued in November 2018 charged Adames with violation of judicial canons requiring high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, respect for and compliance with the law, and avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Adames filed an answer, and later agreed to stipulations essentially admitting to the factual basis of the charges as well as the violations. He said he ordered Lacey held in part because of the likelihood that she would fail to appear in court. Adames contended that his conduct didn't rise to the level of requiring discipline.
In the Aug. 8, 2019, presentment, the committee, chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Virginia Long, disagreed.
Adames' "purported lack of willfulness or intentionality are inadequate" to avoid discipline, and he "was duty-bound and expected to adequately know and properly adhere his conduct to the rules and statutes that govern the municipal court, especially those which govern contempt proceedings," the committee said.
It cited his "cavalier attitude" and "level of disregard for liberty interests," as well as the "ongoing nature of the harm he caused to Ms. Lacey," as aggravating factors; and his clean disciplinary record, his "sincere commitment to overcoming the fault," and his "remorse and attempts at apology" as mitigating factors.
The committee also noted that Adames, admitted as an attorney in 2000 and appointed to the bench in 2012, underwent training and looked to familiarize himself with the law on contempt of court.
The panel nevertheless recommended a two-month suspension without pay.
Lacey filed the grievance leading to the ACJC complaint, according to the presentment.
Lacey also filed a civil rights case against Adames and the city in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in 2018. The suit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton, though Lacey filed an appeal to the Third Circuit last month, according to electronic court records on PACER.
Lacey, who is pro se in the civil case, lodged various counts, including constitutional claims, conspiracy to violate civil rights and emotional distress claims, in her complaint.
She couldn't be reached at a phone number listed in the civil case documents.
An active attorney for the defendants couldn't be found on PACER.
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 AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
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