On Monday, March 10, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the removal of R. Douglas Hoffman, a longtime municipal judge, for engaging in inappropriate conduct with his clerk. The court’s decision followed an incident that took place in October 2022 at Hoffman’s beach home, where he reportedly touched the clerk’s leg without her consent during a gathering that involved alcohol.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of R. Douglas Hoffman.”

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling was based on recommendations from a judicial conduct advisory committee, which had previously suggested Hoffman’s removal for actions deemed to demean his judicial office. The committee’s recommendation stemmed from the incident at Hoffman’s Long Beach Island residence, where he had invited staff members for a social gathering.

During the event, the clerk, who was 27 years old at the time, became intoxicated after consuming beer and liquor with Hoffman, who was 75. As the evening progressed, Hoffman allegedly questioned her about her personal life, including her relationship with her boyfriend, and urged her to end that relationship. The situation escalated when Hoffman touched her twice—once on her knee and again on her inner thigh. The clerk left the gathering within seconds and reported the incident to her supervisor later that same day.

In her report, the clerk stated that Hoffman had slid his hand up her inner thigh. In contrast, Hoffman, during court investigations, claimed he was unaware of where he had touched her, stating, “I don’t know. I wasn’t watching. I’m patting, not watching, but I’ve got a big hand.” He further described his actions as “reassuring taps” and questioned the necessity of seeking permission for such gestures.

The incident had a lasting impact on the clerk, who resigned from her position shortly after the encounter due to fear of running into Hoffman in public. She later expressed to the committee that she experienced nightmares about the incident a year later, highlighting the psychological toll it took on her.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, representing a unanimous court, emphasized that Hoffman’s behavior was unacceptable and detrimental to public trust in the judiciary. He stated, “All judges know there is no place for sexual misconduct or harassment in the judicial system.” Rabner clarified that such egregious violations would result in removal from office rather than a mere suspension.

Hoffman had contested the severity of the punishment, arguing that his conduct was less severe compared to other judges who had received suspensions for sexual harassment allegations dating back to 1993. He claimed that he should not be subjected to disciplinary action based on what he described as “ill-defined notions of evolving community standards.”

Rabner rejected Hoffman’s defense, reiterating the importance of adherence to established anti-harassment policies and training that judges receive. He noted that judges of the Superior Court undergo mandatory training on sexual harassment prevention when appointed and receive refresher courses thereafter. Municipal court judges, like Hoffman, are also subject to similar training and policies at the municipal level.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a firm reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining a workplace free from harassment and misconduct. The decision reflects a broader effort to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure accountability for those in positions of authority.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.