On Thursday, May 28, 2026, Bloomberg Law reported that the judiciary’s private reprimand of a federal judge for having sex at the workplace and lying about it is raising questions about the effectiveness of such penalties.

The unnamed judge, serving in a court within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, received a private reprimand after an investigation found the jurist had engaged in sexual activity with a law enforcement officer in chambers, within earshot of staff. The judge also initially lied to investigators about the misconduct before admitting to it, and was found to have improperly attended a partisan political event.

As a consequence, the judge was blocked from holding leadership roles within the judiciary and was ordered to write apology letters to law clerks. This private reprimand has led ethics experts to question the judiciary’s handling of judicial misconduct cases.

Susan Saab Fortney, a law professor at Texas A&M, stated that the private reprimand “illustrates why many ethics experts lack confidence in the judiciary’s handling of judicial misconduct cases.” Fortney noted that the judge initially denied the allegations and questioned the clerk’s motivation for filing the complaint, which contributed to a lengthy investigation. She suggested that judges found to have committed misconduct should potentially cover the costs of such investigations.

A special committee formed to investigate the allegations retained counsel, and the investigation included reviewing courthouse security footage and sending a stained cushion from the chambers to an out-of-state lab for testing to determine if the substance was semen.

Charles Geyh, a judicial ethics expert at Indiana University, commented that while the conduct might not meet the threshold for impeachment, it was sufficient to release the judge’s name. Geyh added, “It’s not enough for this judge to go under the radar when the order itself concludes this judge is essentially unfit to lead.”

The judge has agreed not to serve as chief judge in the future or on any committees within the Judicial Conference, the courts’ policy-making body.

Geyh suspected that investigators were aware the judge might lose credibility and resign if their identity were made public. He also felt that the misconduct warranted at least a public reprimand. A Judicial Conference committee, in a May 22 order, deemed the penalties issued “appropriate and proportionate” to the findings.

William Duffey Jr., a former federal judge, stated that any disciplinary action against a federal judge is rare and a significant mark on their career. He expressed surprise at the lengthy period during which the misconduct occurred and its proximity to law clerks the judge was meant to guide.

Law clerks reportedly overheard the judge having sex in chambers as part of an extramarital affair with a law enforcement officer, who was a commander at a police department. The report indicated a conflict-of-interest risk, though the judge had not presided over cases involving the officer or their department from 2022 through October 2025.

Geyh suggested that the conduct could justify a public reprimand to enable litigants to protect themselves if they were victims of a conflict with the law enforcement officer.

Duffey believes the judge should consider whether the affair could taint a jury’s or party’s view of their decision-making in cases involving law enforcement. This situation is distinct from other judicial misconduct cases as it appeared to be a consensual relationship between adults, rather than direct abuse of staff.

The judge initially denied the misconduct allegations, suggesting the clerk who raised them was seeking retaliation for performance issues. Several court staffers were impacted by the situation, even if they did not directly witness the events.

A former career clerk recalled term clerks seeking advice after hearing the judge and the officer, feeling powerless to prevent exposure to the relationship. Another clerk noted that colleagues frequently discussed the judge and officer’s activities, creating an awkward work environment. This clerk also alleged improper supervision and inappropriate conduct by the judge toward clerks in chambers, though the special committee did not make misconduct findings on these specific claims.

As part of the penalty, the judge was required to write apology letters to six former law clerks. The judge requested to word these letters vaguely to avoid them being used against them. The special committee recommended that the Judicial Council instruct the judge to draft apologies that convey sentiments without causing undue embarrassment to the judge or the judiciary, while still being specific enough to clearly state the misconduct for which the apology is given.

Geyh commented that such an apology could be an effective form of remediation if it is genuine.

 

 

Source: Bloomberg Law