Judge Alberto Rivas Faces Censure Due to History of Courtroom Misconduct
The judge has been privately reprimanded twice for previous misconduct.
February 05, 2020 at 06:52 PM
4 minute read
The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct has recommended that Middlesex County Assignment Judge Alberto Rivas be censured for his inappropriate courtroom remarks in a dispute over nude photos.
The committee on Wednesday said Rivas' conduct was "aggravated considerably" by his past receipt of two private reprimands. One of those was issued July 2013 for his conduct in two separate matters in which he displayed "an injudicious demeanor towards litigants appearing before him." The other, in October 2014, was for his "discourteous treatment" of a criminal defendant.
"Notably," the ACJC presentment said, in connection with the 2013 reprimand, Rivas "assured the committee that such conduct was an aberration and voluntarily participated in sensitivity training, a fact about which respondent was reminded on receipt of his second reprimand in October 2014."
Rivas' "repeated displays of discourtesy toward litigants and the appearance of bias engendered by that conduct renders his behavior in this instance significantly more egregious than that of previous disciplinary matters involving similar demeanor issues," the presentment said.
The ACJC's presentment backed off its earlier accusations that Rivas showed bias based on race, creed, gender, religion or other such factors, and that he had allowed family, social, political, financial or other relationships or interests to influence his judicial conduct.
But the ACJC reaffirmed its earlier allegations that Rivas' conduct violated canons requiring judges to exhibit independence, integrity and impartiality, and to maintain high standards of conduct; failed to act in a manner that promotes confidence in the judiciary; failed to act in a patient, dignified and courteous manner to litigants, jurors, witnesses and lawyers; and failed to refrain from harassment.
Rivas, who is self-represented in the disciplinary case, could not be immediately reached for comment Wednesday night. He previously apologized for his remarks, while admitting the factual allegations in the complaint. He also filed a statement referencing his continued efforts to seek counseling to avoid repeating his misconduct.
The complaint stems from a January 2019 hearing in open court in a case called J.V. v. M.R. The case stemmed from a dispute between a husband and wife, and the husband's girlfriend. The girlfriend filed an order to show cause seeking the return of a set of photos showing her in various stages of undress, which she claimed were possessed by her boyfriend's wife.
At one point in the hearing, according to the documents, Rivas expressed doubt about the girlfriend's statement that she did not know where the wife worked.
Rivas, the documents said, responded, "Baloney. That's not true. If you're screwing him—let's be frank now, because I should not be wasting judicial resources on this kind of malarkey. If you have been screwing him for these years, there's no question that you know where she works. That's how affairs work."
Later, Rivas asked the wife why she was still with her husband, then told her, "I would suggest divorce, and take half his pension. That's an option you have, having sat in family court. You can take his pension."
Rivas also said to the girlfriend, according to documents, "I will give you a piece of advice. … The only person you should be sending naked pictures to are Hugh Hefner. He will pay you $100,000 for the use of them."
Then, according to the documents, Rivas turned his attention to the husband, who was present at the hearing, but was a nonparty in the case. "I wish you were up here, because I'm gunning for you, because you are despicable," Rivas said.
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 readFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute read‘The Decision Will Help Others’: NJ Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Div. in OPRA Claim Over Body-Worn Camera Footage
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1AIAs: A Look At the Future of AI-Related Contracts
- 2Litigators of the Week: A $630M Antitrust Settlement for Automotive Software Vendors—$140M More Than Alleged Overcharges
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Linklaters Hires Four Partners From Patterson Belknap
- 5Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
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