Massachusetts SJC Weighs Punishment for Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph

On Tuesday, April 28, 2026, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reported that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is set to weigh disciplinary actions in the ethics case of District Court Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph. The central issue revolves around lessons the judiciary and public should learn from Joseph’s experiences over the past eight years.

Joseph’s defense team, consisting of Boston lawyers Michael B. Keating, Thomas M. Hoopes, and Elizabeth N. Mulvey, argues for the dismissal of disciplinary charges, contending that further punishment would have little practical impact on Joseph, who they say has already suffered significantly. They suggest dismissal would safeguard judicial speech and highlight the exoneration of their client after extensive scrutiny.

Conversely, the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) is reluctant to excuse Joseph, particularly regarding her alleged unawareness of a District Court recording rule and her consideration of detaining a defendant sought by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. The CJC emphasizes the need for judges to adhere to court rules, conduct proceedings on the record, and stay within their jurisdictional boundaries.

The case originated on April 2, 2018, when Jose Medina-Perez appeared before Judge Joseph on misdemeanor drug charges and a fugitive warrant from Pennsylvania. An ICE official was present, intending to take Medina-Perez into federal custody upon release.

An investigation by New York attorney Denis J. McInerney, a former federal prosecutor, found that Joseph violated the Code of Judicial Conduct through statements creating an appearance of impropriety and bias concerning ICE. This stemmed from a 52-second, off-the-record sidebar discussion with Medina-Perez’s attorney, David Jellinek, and Assistant District Attorney Shannon Jurgens, violating District Court Special Rule 211. McInerney suggested a private reprimand, but acknowledged the matter’s high public profile.

The CJC rejected McInerney’s conclusion that Joseph did not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct by conferring with counsel off the record, deeming it a violation of Rule 1.1. The CJC’s recommended public reprimand asserts that Joseph’s unawareness of Rule 211 violated her duty of competence. While McInerney viewed Joseph’s considerations of detaining Medina-Perez as a “mere good faith error of law,” the CJC concluded that Joseph appeared willing to misuse a state criminal charge to keep the defendant in state custody.

Conversely, dissenting CJC member Dr. David B. Krieger sided with McInerney, noting the lack of a prosecutorial decision on serious state charges that would have justified holding Medina-Perez. The CJC insists the complaint against Joseph should not be dismissed based on media reports.

Former Superior Court Chief Justice Judith Fabricant stated that a reprimand is necessary to address the disrepute Joseph has brought upon the judiciary. Fabricant emphasized the importance of judges knowing and following court rules and conducting criminal proceedings on the record.