On Monday, May 4, 2026, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reported that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard oral arguments regarding the ethics case of District Court Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph.

The dismissed criminal charges and related disciplinary proceedings against Judge Joseph have garnered significant public attention. The justices are considering whether to adopt the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s (CJC) recommendation of a public reprimand for Joseph, evaluating her actions within the context of decisions made by judges in busy trial courts across the state.

During the arguments, Justice Scott L. Kafker questioned the CJC’s counsel, Judith Fabricant, about how to handle evidence from experienced judges who go off the record, referencing a 52-second, off-the-record sidebar discussion allowed by Joseph. Hearing officer Denis J. McInerney found that this violated District Court Special Rule 211. While Fabricant acknowledged that such instances might have been common in the past, she argued that the SJC has been emphasizing since 1992 the importance of judges staying on the record, especially in criminal cases.

Justice Serge Georges Jr. suggested that judges should have the prerogative to decide when an off-the-record discussion is warranted, noting that such occurrences are frequent in community courts. Fabricant countered that the SJC approves every rule in every court department and established the Code of Conduct, including Rule 1.1, which requires judges to comply with the law and their own court rules. She proposed that the court should change the code if it wants to grant judges more leeway.

Elizabeth N. Mulvey, Judge Joseph’s attorney, stated that Joseph admitted to unintentionally going off the record and violating a court rule she was unaware of. Mulvey added that Joseph’s superiors at the time, Regional Administrative Justice Stacey J. Fortes and District Court Chief Justice Paul C. Dawley, considered the incident an educational opportunity rather than a disciplinary matter.

The justices also questioned Joseph’s other transgression: the appearance of impropriety created by seemingly assisting defendant Jose Medina-Perez in evading an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. Mulvey argued that the transcript of what occurred when the recording equipment was off was misconstrued and that there was confusion about whether Medina-Perez was the subject of a Pennsylvania criminal warrant.

David Jellinek, Medina-Perez’s attorney, convinced ADA Shannon Jurgens that Medina-Perez was not the subject of the warrant. Mulvey suggested that Joseph considered holding Medina-Perez overnight to allow ICE time to resolve the confusion. However, the justices questioned the appropriateness of this action, even with good intentions. Georges stated, “Judges can’t just hold people.”

Mulvey urged the justices to consider the message their decision would send to Judge Joseph, the public, and the 400 other judges in Massachusetts. She expressed concern that disciplining Joseph for her tone would discourage judges from acting and speaking with compassion, especially given that District Court judges handle numerous decisions daily without the aid of law clerks. Mulvey concluded that disciplining Joseph for doing her best and not acting willfully would negatively impact the quality of justice in the commonwealth.

 

 

Source: Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly