WEST VIRGINIA RECORD

CHARLESTON – Headlining this week’s oral argument schedule at the state Supreme Court is the case of embattled Putnam County Family Court Judge William Watkins, who has been accused of ethics violations and misconduct.

The Judicial Hearing Board has recommended Watkins, who has taken a medical leave, be suspended until the end of his term in 2016. Watkins is accused of delaying judicial rulings, failing to enter domestic violence orders into the state’s tracking system and yelling at litigants.

On Feb. 5, the court heard oral arguments in the case. The punishment is much too severe, Watkins’ brief says.

“The ultimate sanction recommended by the Hearing Board violates Article VIII, Section 8 of the West Virginia Constitution. It is indeed the ‘ultimate sanction,’” the brief says.

“While unsaid by the Judicial Hearing Board in its ‘Order’ of Dec. 3, 2012, the Judicial Hearing Board proposes to impeach, that is, remove from office, Judge Watkins.

“While Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel argues that Article VIII, Section 8 of the West Virginia Constitution provides ‘for no limitation upon the length of the suspension of a Judge,’ she impliedly agrees that (it) does not vest this Court nor any other body with the right to remove a Judge from office.

“As a matter of fact, the drafters of the West Virginia Constitution carefully crafted this section and specifically inserted the word ‘temporarily’ proceeding [sic] the word ‘suspend.’

“It is axiomatic that the West Virginia Constitution does not even contemplate the removal of a Judge by the Supreme Court or any other body but preserves that right in the electorate to exercise such a sanction by impeachment or at the ballot box.”

On Dec. 3, the Judicial Hearing Board rendered its decision on a 24-count statement of charges filed by the Judicial Investigation Commission this summer against Watkins.

In its 42-page order, the Board said a conditional three-month suspension that JIC recommended Watkins receive for his “pattern of misconduct” following a Nov. 27 evidentiary hearing was too lenient, and instead recommended he be censured for all 24 violations, and be suspended without pay until his term of office ends on Dec. 31, 2016.

The only recommendation the Board adopted from JIC’s list is that Watkins pay the nearly $18,000 legal bill racked up to conduct the investigation against him.
In July, JIC issued its first statement against Watkins stemming from a complaint filed by Steve Canterbury, the Court’s administrative director. In it, JIC said Watkins not only failed to timely issue a ruling on a division of property between John J. and Nancy Black but also upload domestic violence orders to the court’s registry.

The second statement was filed a month later stemming from complaints filed by Rev. Arthur D. Hage, Sharon Stinson, Robert R. Harper Sr., Tammy Jo Lambert and Mark Halburn. The statement alleged Watkins either verbally abused them when they appeared as litigants in his courtroom or had contact with him.
Both statements were later combined into one.

In exchange for Watkins admitting to all of the allegations against him, JIC recommended he receive a three-month unpaid suspension. However, it recommended the suspension be stayed provided he agree to be monitored by another judge during that period, and not commit a “substantial” violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Also, JIC recommended Watkins undergo “intensive counseling” to include anger management, take “immediate, effective remedial measures in his office” and undergo six hours of judicial training specifically in the area of domestic violence.

In its order, the board said Watkins’ “testimony made it appear to [us] that [he] was less than sincere.” It cited, among other things, when Halburn asked him to turn and face him when he was given an opportunity to address the board, Watkins “turned his chair, leaned back, crossed his arms, and glared at [Halburn] in an angry and confrontational manner.”

This, the board said, “stood in stark contrast to [his] demeanor during his own testimony.”

Also, the board said not more than a month before the hearing, Watkins continued to blame others, specifically the court, for his problems. Along with accusing it of “kowtowing to public opinion,” Watkins said the court was making a mistake in allowing disciplinary action against “the best family law judge in West Virginia, without any question” to proceed, the order said.

The Judicial Hearing Board’s brief says draws a line between seeking removal from office and seeking suspension until the end of Watkins’ term.

“Respondent’s position as Family Court Judge would not be vacated by the suspension,” the brief says.

“Respondent would be the suspended Family Court Judge of Putnam County, West Virginia, until and unless such time arises that Respondent is removed via proper impeachment proceedings or he resigns from the position.

“Moreover, as this Court has been forced to appoint a temporary judge in Respondent’s most recent absences, the citizens of Putnam County, West Virginia, would not be unduly prejudiced by the just suspension of Respondent as this Court could just appoint a temporary judge.”

During oral arguments, Watkins' attorney Robert P. Martin took issue with the term "temporary."

“In this particular case, the recommendations are not temporary,” Martin said.

Also, Martin argued since all 33 violations were inclusive of one statement of charges and conducted in one proceeding, then the maximum suspension Watkins could receive is up to one year. Nevertheless, he hoped the court would use the case as an opportunity to address the ambiguity between the rules, state code and the state constitution regarding the discipline of judges.

“The rules are problematic in the way they are written in the face of our constitution,” he said.

At least three of the justices – Brent Benjamin, Robin Jean Davis and Menis E. Ketchum - grappled with the idea that accepting the board’s recommendations could violate the state constitution. When Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Rachel L. Fletcher Cipoletti admitted she didn’t think it was important to research how other states have addressed the issue, she received a mild rebuke from Davis.

“You might not think that, but the five of us up here might,” Davis said.

However, Cipoletti argued that the language between the rules, state code and constitution is not as ambiguous as Martin portrays it. The difference between an impeachment and subsequent removal from office and a suspension, she said, is that with the latter Watkins would remain as the elected family law judge and be prohibited from practicing law while suspended.

“If he were impeached, he could return and practice law,” she said.

Also, Cipoletti noted that the board’s recommendations placed no restrictions on Watkins seeking re-election in 2016 if he was suspended.

Justice Margaret A. Workman was absent from arguments.

Other cases scheduled for oral arguments on Feb. 5-6 were:

-The appeal of a Harrison County Circuit Court decision that refused to disqualify the firm Steptoe & Johnson from employment discrimination/wrongful termination cases against Verizon, which claims the firm’s involvement is in conflict with two previous settlement agreements;

-The state Department of Health and Human Resources’ appeal of a circuit court order granting the parents of four children post-adjudicatory improvement periods;

-The appeal of a Preston County Circuit Court decision by former Supreme Court Justice Larry Starcher, who used the wrong prejudgment interest rates for damages awarded to Richard Ringer in a contract lawsuit, Ringer claims.

-A family court order that granted the wife spousal support, an “in kind” payment” and attorneys fees;

-A Tyler County Circuit Court decision that decreased the father’s child support obligation after the father allegedly quit a stressful job with a $90,000 salary to take a part-time position at his fiancee’s family’s company;

-A case that asks the question if a child has a right to continued association with his maternal grandmother after he was adopted by non-relatives, provided it is in the best interests of the child;

-The appeal of the Charleston law firm Tabor Lindsay & Associates that claims its professional liability insurer has a duty to defend and/or indemnify it in a lawsuit brought against it by a former client;

-A DUI case; and

-A Workers’ Compensation case in which the claimant believes he is entitled to an additional five percent permanent partial disability award.

From the West Virginia Record: Reach John O'Brien at jobrienwv@gmail.com.