CHARLESTON – The investigative panel of the state’s Lawyer Disciplinary Board found no merit to complaints filed by a family court judge against the chief and deputy Judicial Disciplinary Counsel.
In April, Family Court Judge Glen Stotler had sent a letter to West Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Evan Jenkins and others alleging Chief JDC Teresa Tarr and Deputy JDC Brian Lanham engaged in misconduct while investigating two family court judges, abused their power, deceived and intimidated judges into entering agreements under threat of more serious actions.
Stotler, who also is a member of the Judicial Hearing Board, asked that Tarr and Lanham be investigated, reprimanded and/or fired from their positions. His letter was followed in May by a resolution from the state’s Family Court Judicial Association asking the Supreme Court to fire Tarr and Lanham.
Tarr
Stotler is a family court judge in the 23rd Family Court Circuit that includes Hampshire, Mineral and Morgan counties. He is the Family Court member of the JHB, having been appointed to the position by the Supreme Court in February 2020. He was appointed to the bench in 2011.
“The evidence clearly demonstrates that respondent Tarr and respondent Lanham treated the FCJs with respect and professionalism,” the filing, written by Investigative Panel Chairwoman Amy Crossan, states. “It is shocking that a long-standing member of the judiciary bestowed with the honor of being part of the system designed to protect and preserve the integrity of the judicial system would make such baseless accusations designed solely to impugn the integrity of two members of the West Virginia State Bar.
“It does not appear that FCJ Stotler conducted any factual investigation into the allegations regarding JDC before regurgitating the untimely, unsupported allegations made by FJC (Louise) Goldston and sending an ex parte communication, written on his official court letterhead, to the Supreme Court.”
Crossan also notes that the judicial branch has exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law in the state and that Stotler also sent his letter to members of the Legislature.
“The law is not an arena wherein we vilify civility, curse thorough preparation and denigrate skilled, zealous advocacy,” she writes in closing.
When reached, Tarr declined to comment on the matter.
The 51-page closing, entered May 13, details a judicial disciplinary matter involving Goldston, a family court judge in Raleigh County. That case still is pending before the state Supreme Court.
In the Goldston case, the JHB recommended the judge be censured and fined following an incident when she stopped a court hearing and ordered the parties to meet at the home of a Raleigh County man involved in a post-divorce contempt proceeding.
The JDC brief said a family court judge has no authority to conduct home views and that Goldston violated Gibson’s constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure as well as denied his due process and equal protection under the law. It also said Goldston didn’t follow the appropriate mechanism for contempt proceedings.
The JHB filed its recommendation, but the state Supreme Court still has the final decision. The justices haven’t issued their ruling in the matter yet.
The other case Stotler mentions is the admonishment of Raleigh County Family Court Judge Eric Shuck. It was filed last year and is cited in the Goldston discipline.
“It is my observation that the conduct and practices of the JDC in both of these cases is questionable and concerning,” Stotler wrote in his March letter. “It appears evident that the JDC is abusing its power and authority in a way that they deceive and intimidate judges into entering into agreements with the threat if they fail to do so, the judges will be subject to far more severe penalties and consequences.”
Stotler said the JDC requests judges to come to their office under the disguise of just being a friendly interview. Once there, he said the judges are sworn in and interrogated. If the judge asks if he or she needs an attorney present, the JDC says it isn’t necessary.
“The judges have no idea of what they are being subjected to and therefore are given no opportunity to be prepared to address the issues and interrogation to which they are subjected,” Stotler wrote. “Additionally, it is evident during the interrogation that the JDC actually misrepresents the law in order to coerce judges to enter into agreements.”
He says the JDC also misstates facts to achieve their goal.
“In the Goldston case the JDC represented and stated that after Judge Goldston conducted a judicial view, which was the main issue in her case, she never took any further action,” Stotler wrote. “It became clear at Judge Goldston’s hearing … that after she conducted the judicial view she returned to her courtroom and had a full hearing as to what occurred during the view. The JDC had full knowledge of this information and yet failed to acknowledge this fact.”
When he took part in the Goldston hearing, Stotler says he reviewed all of the documents provided to him. He said he believed Goldston had statutory and inherent authority to do what she did.
“During the hearing, I attempted to question the JDC about the basis of their complaint and agreement, and objected to me asking any questions,” Stotler wrote. “I find it disturbing that for some reason the JDC does not apparently believe anyone, and especially a member of the JHB, has the right to question their actions.
“It was apparent to me that the JDC was of the opinion that we should just “rubber stamp” what they had done. I find the conduct of the JDC during this hearing to be questionable and unacceptable.”
Stotler says the JDC filed a motion to have him disqualified from participating in the Goldston decision.
“Once again, it appears to me the JDC believes they are above and beyond being questioned about their actions by anyone,” Stotler wrote. “The mere fact that the parties have entered into an agreement in this matter in no way compels the JHB to accept their recommendation without question.”
The closing also details the judicial disciplinary matter involving Shuck.
The husband in the underlying Goldston issue filed a federal lawsuit against the judge. His attorney also took issue Stotler’s dissent in the JHB case against Goldston.
“The Honorable Glen Stotler, a sitting West Virginia Family Court judge who ‘dissents because in his opinion there was no clear and convincing evidence that [his fellow Family Court Judge] violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct,’” attorney John Bryan wrote on his website. “Mind you, the undisputed allegations included the admission that Judge Goldston violated ‘Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.4(A), 2.4(B), and 2.5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct’ for, among other things, threatening to put the homeowner in jail if he refused to allow her (along with his ex-wife, her lawyer, boyfriend, and two cops) inside his home to search.”
Lawyer Disciplinary Board I.D. numbers 21-03-139 and 21-03-140
