A municipal judge accused of skirting courtroom procedure, cursing at court staff and making harassing ex parte communications with a defendant has filed an answer to her ethics charges, vowing to not repeat the same mistakes.

Aishaah Rasul, a part-time judge on the Englewood Municipal Court since December 2018, was suspended by order of the state Supreme Court pending the outcome of her ethics case.

In a 12-page letter filed on her behalf by her attorney, Joseph Rem Jr. of Rem Katcher Law Group in Hackensack, dated Dec. 18, 2019, and made public Jan. 10, Rasul responded to the formal complaint by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct from a month earlier.

The document is at times repentant and apologetic, and at other times casts blame on other circumstances, including chaos in the courtroom, where some of the alleged misconduct took place. Rasul admitted to most of the violations spanning six counts under the Canons of Judicial Conduct, and partly admitted to three violations.

"Respondent's mistakes, missteps, lack of prior preparation and education for the position she was ascending to and the lack of competence demonstrated in not knowing some basic legal tenants all occurred in the very early months of her first judicial appointment," Rasul's response stated.

The trial from which the ethics charges arose "commenced little more than two months into her judgeship," the answer said. "She had not received any instruction, no 'baby judge college' and was admittedly unaware of some basic principles and nuances related to her role as judge."

The complaint, dated Nov. 12, 2019, and signed by ACJC disciplinary counsel Maureen Bauman, alleges that Rasul "demonstrated a lack of competence in the law," "abused her judicial office" and "contravened statutory requirements for the imposition of a probationary sentence," among other wrongs.

In her defense, Rasul said she had just finished nine years as a public defender, a role from which she had not yet mentally separated herself, she said, when presented with the case involving the payment of fines and restitution between two parties after a brawl.

"Respondent had not yet fully appreciated the full legal, emotional and psychological difference between those roles," stated Rasul's response. "She now appreciates that a judgeship is far different creature than the role of Public Defender, and aware of the limitations imposed by that role."

The case before Rasul began in September 2018 in the form of citizen complaints charging simple assault, in which the victim, Bria Locke, claimed she was assaulted by Ameika Blake and Monica Wilks, resulting in damage to her shoes and eyeglasses.

Rasul, first admitted to practice law in 1990, conducted a trial last March, where she found Blake guilty, but entered no finding for Wilks because of Wilks' enrollment in the state's drug court program and the effect that a conviction would have on the enrollment, according to the complaint.

Rasul instead placed Wilks on "in-house probation," in which Rasul and the court would monitor her. The judge required Blake and Wilks to pay Locke in cash for the property damage she sustained, despite no-contact orders that she issued that prohibited Blake and Wilks from contacting Locke, the ACJC said.

Rasul later entered a guilty finding for Wilks.

The ACJC complaint said Rasul made several erroneous moves that were in conflict with both the standing no-contact orders between Locke and the two defendants and standard municipal court procedure.

Rasul failed to record the guilty verdicts in the court's automated case tracking system; instructed Blake and Wilks to make the required restitution payments in cash to Locke directly or through Locke's mother at a predetermined meeting place at the courthouse; and advised Wilks that once she made the court-ordered restitution payments, she would dismiss or maintain the charge; and when Locke didn't receive the restitution payment from Wilks, Rasul made two ex parte phone calls to Wilks, and also spoke to Wilks' mother, alleges the ACJC complaint.

Rasul admitted to using an expletive toward the court administrator when she was advised that there was no such thing as "in-house probation," but felt it didn't rise to the level of a disciplinary violation and she said it was an isolated incident. The ACJC alleged that Rasul, "agitated … told the court administrator to 'get off [her] fucking back.'"

"Respondent has learned that judicial demeanor extends beyond the bench, inclusive of all court workers, and expresses regret and contrition," Rasul said.

The ACJC complaint also charged Rasul with not following proper trial procedure when she failed to advise Wilks, a pro se drug court defendant, of her constitutional rights.

Rasul said her comment about Wilks being removed from the Drug Court program was taken out of context, at a time when the courtroom became chaotic from Blake's outburst.

"'I could find you guilty, but if I do, you are out of Drug Court,' was said not as part of a sentence but rather when defendant Wilks asked what could happen to her," Rasul said.

Regarding the charge that Rasul should have recused herself from adjudicating the case because she was still the public defender in Englewood when it was filed, she again attributed her lapse in judgment to lack of experience.

Rasul said she was relieved of her duties as public defender only six weeks before being appointed to the bench Dec. 1, 2018. She said moving forward, she will ensure that every matter coming before her is vetted to ensure that it took place on or after that date.

Rasul said that since her suspension from the bench, she has taken steps to educate herself of proper judicial conduct and courtroom procedures.

"Respondent is dedicated to studying and learning the rules of procedure so as to not again make the mistakes that she has admitted, and to guard against future mistakes," Rasul said. "Respondent is repentant, regretful for the shame this has cast on the judiciary and the judgeship of the Englewood Municipal Court.

"She vows to execute her future duties when and if returned to her office, in the highest and best judicial traditions."

MaryAnn Spoto of the Office of the Administrator of the Courts, said in an email, "The AOC does not comment on ACJC matters."