On Wednesday, August 20, 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Special Judge Emily Mueller of Judicial District 23, encompassing Pottawatomie and Lincoln Counties, for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Emily Mueller,” with case number 123375.
The decision, detailed in a six-page order, followed an investigation by the Council on Judicial Complaints, which found evidence of misconduct in Mueller’s judicial behavior.
The Council’s investigation, initiated under the Rules Governing Complaints on Judicial Misconduct, concluded that Mueller violated Rules 1.2, 2.8, and 2.9 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Supreme Court adopted these findings, determining that Mueller’s actions undermined public confidence in the judiciary’s independence, integrity, and impartiality.
The allegations against Mueller centered on her conduct as a Special Judge since 2019. The Council’s report highlighted a pattern of discourteous behavior toward certain attorneys and courthouse staff, supported by affidavits and statements from other attorneys and courthouse staff. Mueller’s demeanor was described as undignified, creating an appearance of bias against specific attorneys, which extended beyond professional disagreements into personal interactions. The court found this behavior violated Rule 1.2, which mandates judges to act in ways that promote public trust in the judiciary.
Additionally, Mueller was found to have engaged in ex parte communications, discussing case-related issues without the presence of all parties’ attorneys, violating Rule 2.9.
In her response to the Council’s report, Mueller acknowledged her interactions with attorneys and staff fell short, attributing her demeanor to not being a “morning person.” Regarding the ex parte discussions, she maintained they did not constitute improper communication as no decisions were made during those conversations but admitted she could have managed the hearing differently.
The Council also determined that Mueller’s conduct breached Rule 2.8, which requires judges to remain patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, attorneys, court staff, and others. The court noted a “serious lack of judicial temperament” in Mueller’s repeated disrespect, which eroded public confidence in the judicial system.
While the Council recommended a private reprimand and mandatory judicial education, the Supreme Court deemed a public reprimand more appropriate to deter similar misconduct and uphold judicial standards.
The court emphasized that the purpose of the discipline is to protect the public, preserve the judiciary’s integrity, and prevent future violations, rather than to punish the judge.
The order underscored the importance of judges maintaining fairness, impartiality, and professionalism both in and out of the courtroom to sustain public trust in the judiciary.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
