On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, Law&Crime reported that Shreveport City Court Chief Judge Sheva Sims of Louisiana faces potential disciplinary action, including a year-long suspension without pay, following accusations of ethical misconduct. The Louisiana Judiciary Commission presented the case to the state’s top court earlier this month.
Sims, who has previously faced disciplinary measures, including a suspension in 2015 for misusing her contempt power and an admonishment in 2016 for habitual tardiness, is now accused of additional ethics violations. These allegations, if substantiated, could significantly impact the four-judge court, potentially burdening the remaining judges with her caseload.
Michelle Beaty of the Office of Special Counsel refuted claims that the accusations against Sims were merely “isolated incidents,” arguing instead that they represent a “pattern” of misconduct, reportedly referred to as “black robe-itis.” Beaty emphasized that Sims’ prior disciplinary history and 14 years of judicial experience should have instilled a stronger understanding of ethical conduct.
A detailed document from November outlined the recommended discipline, including the suspension and a reimbursement of $11,602.56 to the Judiciary Commission. The document alleges that Sims’ actions reflect a “continued belief that her position as a judge enables her to act with impunity.” The investigation revealed instances of “impatience and condescension towards a litigant,” misuse of a publicly-funded “court car for personal use,” improper use of independently obtained documents to discredit a witness, and a “pattern of failing to follow the law with regard to the bond conditions and sentencing of criminal defendants.”
The complaints originated from various sources, including anonymous individuals, property managers who described Sims as “rude and demeaning” during eviction proceedings, and retired Justice Joseph Bleich. Bleich specifically alleged that Sims “failed to follow the law” by releasing “several defendants charged with domestic abuse battery or crimes of violence on their own recognizance.”
The Judiciary Commission asserts that Sims’ conduct indicates she is treating her court “as her fiefdom” and displays an indifference to abusing her judicial authority or violating ethical obligations. The commission highlighted Sims’ apparent lack of remorse during the proceedings. Regarding the release of accused domestic abusers, the Commission noted that Sims acknowledged the legal prohibition against releasing such defendants on their own recognizance. While Sims offered defenses, such as incorrect minute entries or medical and jail issues, the Commission emphasized the clear legal mandate against releasing defendants charged with domestic abuse battery or violent crimes on their own recognizance.
Sims’ lawyer, Carl Hellmers, suggested that if any sanction is deemed necessary, it should be limited to a suspension of no more than 60 days. He argued that Sims’ actions, particularly in managing courtroom issues related to evictions and criminal cases, were made in “good-faith effort to discharge her judicial duties.” He also pointed out that the Judiciary Commission deemed two allegations of rudeness “unproven.”
Source: Law&Crime
