191st Civil District Court Judge Gena Slaughter of Dallas

An appellate court has reduced the sanction against Judge Gena Slaughter of Dallas, finding she didn't willfully violate judicial ethics rules when she delayed a ruling for 15 months and had an ex parte communication.

But Slaughter did break the rules when she failed to respond to and didn't cooperate with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding the complaint against her, ruled a special court of review, which issued a public warning against Slaughter.

The warning is one step less severe of a sanction, compared to the public reprimand the commission issued in October 2019.

"I consider this a very good result for Judge Slaughter," said Dallas solo practitioner Kevin Buchanan, who represents the judge.

At the time that Slaughter dealt with the case that underlies the sanction, Buchanan explained, she was the sole caregiver for her elderly father, who lived an hour away but needed daily help after suffering from a stroke. Slaughter was also caring for her children, who were 9 and 11 years old at the time.

"Around the time the response was due, he died," Buchanan said about Slaughter's father. "It rocked her world, and that's a quote from her."

The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct issued the previous public reprimand, finding that Slaughter engaged in an improper ex parte communication, neglected to rule on a case for 15 months when Texas rules require rulings in three months, and failed to respond or cooperate in the judicial complaint process.

The sanction came from a case to confirm an arbitration award between the plaintiff, a doctor, and defendant, an OB/GYN clinic. Slaughter held a hearing in October 2015 but didn't rule until December 2016.

Judges can face sanctions for willful violations of ethics rules, the opinion noted.

Slaughter's delayed ruling, though, came from a lack of diligence.

She testified that the matter "fell off her radar," and it was an oversight or mistake.

"Although we do not condone failing to rule on a motion for over 12 months, the evidence presented does not show that respondent willfully failed to rule on the competing motions. Instead, the evidence shows that the Respondent mistakenly failed to rule," the opinion said.

Another part of Slaughter's case alleged an ex parte communication. The doctor won a judgment and a constable went to the clinic to execute a writ of enforcement to collect the judgment. The constable called Slaughter with concerns there were patients in the clinic. Slaughter called off enforcement of the writ. The plaintiff's attorney thought Slaughter did it after an ex parte communication with the clinic's attorney.

That allegation wasn't accurate, the court ruled. The evidence showed that Slaughter made the decision from talking with the constable, not the clinic's attorney.

The special court did uphold one allegation about Slaughter.

The commission said she hadn't responded to the judicial complaint against her, and didn't cooperate with the process.

Slaughter said she hadn't gotten a letter the commission sent her Feb. 26, 2019, about the complaint. She was supposed to respond by March 23, 2019. The commission called her in early April, and she said it was the first time she knew about the complaint.

Her failure to respond wasn't willful or deliberate, Slaughter stated. There was a series of "unfortunate events, mistakes, and stress" that caused it. Slaughter said she drafted a response to the commission, but failed to mail it because of stress and exhaustion.

"Although the respondent testified at trial to a number of stressful events in her life, including a father in failing health, a busy trial docket, raising two children, and her husband's own health issues, we find that the [commission on judicial conduct] proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent did not respond to the staff letter of inquiry," said the opinion.

Failing to respond to the commission is a serious offense, the special court noted. Texas law says a judge who doesn't respond to a complaint has acted willfully or persistently in a way not consistent with a judge's duties. Yet Slaughter has acknowledged her mistakes and expressed remorse, the opinion added. That's why a public warning, rather than a public reprimand, is appropriate for Slaughter, the opinion said.

Jacqueline Habersham, executive director of the commission, declined to comment.

Separately, Slaughter is appealing another public reprimand, issued in February, for allowing her Texas bar license to get suspended five times for failure to pay bar dues since she was elected to the bench in 2007. The judge said it was because she delegated that duty to her campaign treasurer, and she had not known about her law license suspensions until 2017.

Buchanan, Slaughter's attorney, declined to comment on that second appeal.

Read the full opinion: