With "flagrant" lapses in ethical behavior as a Superior Court judge, particularly an "undignified" exchange with a victim of sexual assault in which he challenged whether she had "closed her legs" or otherwise fought off the assault, John Russo Jr. was ordered removed from the bench.

In a decision by the Supreme Court Tuesday, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner pointed to "repeated and serious acts of misconduct" and affirmed a special panel's recommendation for removal.

"The Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that there is cause for removal," Rabner wrote for the unanimous court. "Because of Respondent's multiple, serious acts of misconduct—in particular, his inappropriate behavior in a matter involving an alleged victim of domestic violence—the Court orders his removal from office."

An order directing that Russo be "permanently barred from holding judicial office in this State" was signed by Rabner and filed Tuesday along with the 27-page opinion.

Russo sat in Ocean County. His judicial ethics case, argued before the Supreme Court on April 30, triggered national attention, and last year spurred judicial reform and enhanced training of New Jersey judges for dealing with sensitive sexual harassment and sexual assault cases.

"The system of judicial discipline is not designed to punish judges," Rabner wrote Tuesday. "It's overriding purpose is to preserve public confidence in the integrity and the independence of the Judiciary. Viewed together, Respondent's multiple acts of misconduct have lasting consequences.

"His pattern of misconduct and unethical behavior not only undermined the integrity of different court proceedings but also impaired his integrity and the Judiciary's," added Rabner. "His overall behavior reflects a lack of probity and fitness to serve as a judge."

David Burns, a deputy attorney general, argued on behalf of the Attorney General's Office, which represented the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. Leland Moore, spokesman for the AG's office, said the office had no comment.

Russo, through counsel, submitted a letter waiving an appearance at oral argument and relying on the record, the opinion noted. He is represented by David Corrigan of the Corrigan Law Firm in Keyport and Amelia Carolla of Reisman Carolla Gran & Zuba in Haddonfield. Neither could be reached for comment Tuesday.

Russo's primary undoing, which sparked public outrage, emanated from a March 2016 hearing over which he presided involving a female litigant seeking a final restraining order in the case of M.R. v. D.H. Pro se plaintiff M.R. alleged that the defendant raped her, among other acts of violence.

After defense counsel asked M.R. if she had ever worked as an exotic dancer, and which she admitted, Russo took over and 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.

The Supreme Court said Tuesday that Russo's "questions displayed impatience, discourtesy, and a lack of understanding of applicable law," and "also shamed the alleged victim by intolerably suggesting that she was to blame."

"No witness, alleged victim, or litigant should be treated that way in a court of law," wrote Rabner.

Russo's prior explanation to the ACJC for his line of questioning of M.R. was: "I was really struggling to find out is this a case where there really is something going on and a witness who's just not capable of expressing it or is there something else going on."

Rabner said Russo's explanation of his remarks as a way to get the defendant to reengage in the hearing didn't square with the record, and that his "coarse questions about how the plaintiff responded during the alleged assault were not relevant."

In addition, Rabner said Russo's comments to his court staff and law clerk after the hearing ended were just as problematic. Russo, according to the transcript excerpts in the opinion, asked if the staff had "'hear[d] the sex stuff"; and said, "'You think it's all fun and games out here.'" Russo also said, "'I am the master of on the record being able to talk about sex acts with a straight face.'"

"Judges set the tone for a courtroom," Rabner wrote. "Especially when it comes to sensitive matters like domestic violence and sexual assault, that tone must be dignified, solemn, and respectful, not demeaning or sophomoric. Respondent failed in that regard."

The ACJC alleged four counts of misconduct against Russo and in a 45-page presentment from March 2019 found clear and convincing evidence to support all the charges. The ACJC recommended suspension. But a special panel of Judges Carmen Messano, Julio Mendez and Bonnie Mizdol was designated by the court, and in a 69-page report on Jan. 28 recommended removal.

Aside from the domestic violence hearing, Russo also was charged with violations in connection with a personal guardianship case in which he asked a judiciary employee to contact her counterpart in another vicinage and request that a hearing be rescheduled to accommodate him.

"Like any other litigant, Respondent should have worked through his attorney to request that his personal matter be rescheduled, not a high-level court employee who worked in the same courthouse where he served as a judge," the court said Tuesday.

A third count asserted that Russo created the appearance of a conflict of interest when he presided over a matter in the Family Part involving a man he had known since high school, who had been arrested for failure to pay child support. Russo reduced the defendant's child support lien amount from $10,000 to $300 "based solely on uncorroborated financial information supplied by the defendant," according to court documents.

Rabner said this issue raised doubts about Russo's impartiality.

The fourth count related to Russo's nine-minute ex parte communication with an unrepresented litigant. Russo threatened the defendant-mother in a paternity case with financial penalties and a loss of credibility with the court when she said she was scared to disclose her address. Russo responded to that concern, according to the court, "'He's going to find you, ma'am. We're all going to find you.'"

"As the panel correctly observed, Respondent's disturbing comments and questions were insensitive, threatening, and discourteous, and they reflected poorly on his temperament," Rabner said.

When he went before the ACJC, Russo stipulated to the allegations in counts III and IV, but contested the first two counts.

A majority of the ACJC recommended that Russo be suspended without pay for three months; four members recommended a six-month suspension.

After the hearing on July 9, 2019, the court concluded, because of the seriousness of the ethical violations, that it was appropriate to consider the full range of potential discipline, including possible removal. The court initiated formal removal proceedings, issuing an order to show cause.

Russo said he would accept the recommended suspension and acknowledged "sincere commitment to overcoming the fault, remorse and attempts [at] apology, and showing that the inappropriate behavior is subject to modification." But, he said, "Removal from office would be sufficiently harsh as to serve only to punish Respondent, not to preserve the confidence in the judiciary. The punishment of removal will be severe and disproportionate to the infractions and compared to others who have been disciplined in the past for more serious offenses."

Russo also moved, unsuccessfully, for Rabner's recusal from his ethics case. Russo had claimed that Rabner had violated judicial ethics rules through a public statement he made about Russo's case, among other topics, and thus had to be disqualified from the case.

The court on Tuesday said, "The series of ethical failures that Respondent committed are not errors of law, innocent missteps, or isolated words taken out of context. Viewed as a whole, they are flagrant and serious acts of misconduct."

Rabner said Russo's explanations under oath of his judicial misdeeds also revealed a lack of candor, "which factors into the Court's judgment in this matter."