CHARLESTON – The state Judicial Hearing Board recommends an Eastern Panhandle family court judge be reprimanded for violations of two rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The JHB also suggested Judge Deanna Rock of the 23rd Family Court Circuit pay the cost of her disciplinary proceedings. The recommendation now will go to the state Supreme Court, which will have the final say on Rock’s discipline.
The board said Rock violated Rule 1.1, which states it is improper for a judge to use or attempt to use his or her position to gain personal advantage or deferential treatment of any kind. It said she also violated Rule 2.16(A), which says a judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies.
Rock
| File photo
The recommendation isn’t as harsh as what Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Rachael Cipoletti had suggested to the board earlier this month, but it is more severe than the exoneration Rock wanted.
In the JHB’s 28-page recommended decision signed by Senior Judge Russell M. Clawges, the board says it found clear and convincing evidence for effectively three violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct related to Rock’s denials to the Judicial Investigation Commission and her first sworn statement of non-involvement in the Stotler letter.
“The respondent’s conduct was related to the administration of justice but not to the public’s perception of the administration of justice as they do not arise from the performance of her judicial duties,” Clawges wrote. “The charges related more to personal matters than to respondent’s public persona. … The charges do not involve violence or a callous disregard for our system of justice. …
“There has been no criminal indictment, complaints or other charges, and … the respondent has not been the subject of any other ethics complaints, competent testimony was offered as to her reputation for honesty, integrity and the impartial performance of her judicial duties.”
Circuit Court Judge Michael D. Lorensen, whose circuit overlaps Rock’s family court circuit, , and Raleigh Circuit Court Judge Andrew Dimlich disqualified themselves and didn’t participate in the 6-1 JHB vote on Rock. Kanawha Family Court Judge Brittany Stonestreet dissented, voting to find that none of the charges against Rock were sustained by clear and convincing evidence.
Earlier this month, Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Rachael Cipoletti recommended Rock be suspended without pay for the rest of her term for multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. She also recommended Rock be censured, fined $5,000 and ordered to pay the costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of the proceedings.
In her own filing, Rock said she should be “completely exonerated” and have all eight charges against her dismissed.
Formal charges were filed against Rock in November. The complaint against her was opened in March 2022 by Cipoletti at the direction of the Special Judicial Investigation Commission. The 23rd Family Court Circuit includes Hampshire, Mineral and Morgan counties.
In the May 15 filing, Cipoletti writes that Rock says she was concerned with an earlier Judicial Disciplinary Counsel matter involving now-retired Raleigh County Family Court Judge Louise Goldston regarding home views. As the then-president of the West Virginia Family Court Judicial Association, Rock was concerned how the issue could affect other family court judges.
Before a decision on Goldston was handed down, Rock and two other family court judges submitted letters to the JIC in support of Goldston. The JIC, in turn, told the JDC to tell the three judges that such letters violated three rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct and sent them letters warning them of the conduct.
After the JHB issued its recommended decision on Goldston in March 2021, fellow 23rd Family Court Circuit Judge Glen Stotler, who also was a member of the JHB at the time, wrote a letter that was sent to Evan Jenkins, who was then the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court, the other Justices, legislative leaders and some state Supreme Court officials.
Stotler, who had dissented in Goldston’s JHB case, was critical of JDC in the letter, saying both Chief JDC Terri Tarr and Deputy JDC Brian Lanham engaged in serious misconduct during the Goldston investigation and another similar family court judge investigation. He said the JDC abused its power, deceived and manipulated judges, threatened judges to enter into agreements to avoid more strict penalties.
Stotler said Tarr and Lanham should be investigated, seriously reprimanded and/or terminated.
In the filing, Cipoletti says Rock opened a copy of Stotler’s letter on March 19, 2021, the day after Stotler’s Family Court Coordinator J.R. “Joy” Campbell typed the first draft as Stotler dictated it to her from his handwritten notes. Cipoletti says computer forensics shows Rock opened and automatically saved the letter on her work computer.
“Approximately five minutes after opening and saving the first draft of the ‘Stotler letter’ on her computer … (Rock) sends a Teams Message to J.R. Campbell ‘are your phones working?’” Cipoletti’s filing states. “Within eight minutes after opening and saving the first draft of the ‘Stotler letter,’ (Rock) asks ‘is Judge still there?’ …
“First thing on March 23, 2021 – Monday morning – (Rock) again sends J.R. Campbell a Teams message about a fax that FCJ (Jim) Douglas (from Kanawha County) wants FCJ Stotler to see, but that (Rock) does not want to send via email.”
Cipoletti writes that later on March 23, 2021, Rock and Campbell put “the final touches” on the Stotler letter. Contrary to prior sworn testimony by Rock, Stotler and Campbell, Cipoletti says Rock received a fax the next day that was the Stotler letter. She says Rock also noted there was a typographical error.
“After reviewing the faxed ‘Stotler letter,’ (Rock) sent an IM explaining, ‘Overall, the letter looks good. Please ask Judge to call me before you mail this. Thanks.’ All of (Rock’s) edits made to the drafts of the ‘Stotler letter’ were incorporated into the final version of the ‘Stotler letter.’”
Cipoletti’s filing says the letter was mailed March 25, 2021.
Five days later, according to Cipoletti’s filing, Rock, attorney Rick Staton (who formerly was married to Goldston), Douglas and now-retired Family Court Judge David Greenberg received two emails from Goldston containing the first draft of her objections to the JHB’s recommendations in her case. On April 2, 2021, The West Virginia Record published a story about the Stotler letter.
In November 2021, Campbell provided a sworn statement in the investigation of Stotler’s ethics complaint when she testified that nobody other than Stotler reviewed the letter prior to her mailing it. Cipoletti’s filing says that is false.
“She falsely stated that she was surprised but there were no changed made to the original draft of the letter,” the filing states. “She falsely testified that she did not give the ‘Stotler letter’ to anyone other than FCJ Stotler. She falsely testified that she did not make any corrections or edits to the ‘Stotler letter’ other than those by FCJ Stotler.
“Campbell’s sworn testimony … is not consistent with the evidence, but it is wholly consistent with FCJ Stotler’s sworn statement and his verified answer to his ethics complaint.”
The filing says Cipoletti took Rock’s sworn statement in the Stotler investigation in January 2022. It says Rock testified that she didn’t see or hear about the letter until March 25, 2021.
“This statement is false,” Cipoletti writes. “This statement was not candid or truthful. The forensic data from (Rock’s) court-issued computer clearly proves the first draft of the Stotler letter was created on (Rock’s) computer on Friday, March 19, 2021, at 3:31 p.m.
“(Rock) admitted that the ‘Stotler letter’ was ‘not impactful’ to her until it was released in The West Virginia Record and she ‘started to hear a buzz about it’ and she thought, ‘Oh, this might’ve ruffled some feathers,’” Cipoletti’s filing states. “Although her memory was incomplete at her January (31, 2022) statement, (Rock) has since acknowledged she faxed the ‘Stotler letter’ to several Family Court Judges but denies that she faxed this letter to (The West Virginia Record).
“To be clear, although it is evident that (Rock) caused the ‘Stotler letter’ to be disseminated publicly and that dissemination led to the same being sent to a reporter, Special Judicial Counsel does not suggest that (Rock) emailed her faxed copy of the ‘Stotler letter’ directly to (The West Virginia Record).”
In Rock’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, also filed May 15, 2023, she says virtually all of the charges issued against her are related to her January 31, 2022, first sworn statement. She says she objected to questions that went beyond the topics raised in the complaint against Stotler, and she notes she didn’t have the benefit of reviewing relevant emails, faxes and instant messages.
“If she had reviewed those documents prior to her first sworn statement, (Rock) would have realized that she had seen an earlier version of the Judge Stotler letter prior to receiving it in the mail,” Rock’s filing states. “There is no explanation in the record as to why (Rock) was not afforded the opportunity to review the relevant IMs and other documents attached to the written complaint.”
Rock’s filing also discusses what she calls her “limited involvement” with the Stotler letter.
“She had no knowledge this document was on her computer when she was questioned in her first sworn statement,” the filing states. “(Rock) had no knowledge of this document at the time of her first sworn statement. …
“Although (Rock) proofread this faxed version of the Judge Stotler letter, she did not help draft the letter and never spoke to Judge Stotler before he mailed out the letter. Proofreading is different than drafting or editing. …
“(Rock) maintained that the answers she gave during her first sworn statement were candid and honest, based upon her memory at the time.”
The Cipoletti filing says Rock also testified she did not recall reviewing Goldston’s objections to the JHB recommendations in Goldston’s case.
“However, after being confronted with forensic evidence to demonstrate the false nature of her January 2022 statements, at her disciplinary hearing (on March 22, 2023) she testified extensively about the pattern and practice she and the other family court judges had when they were assisting FCJ Goldston,” the filing states.
“Moreover, despite her January 2022 testimony that she knew she couldn’t speak to FCJ Stotler about the FCJ Goldston matter, (Rock) provided draft objection of the JHB recommendation in advance of filing with the Supreme Court to FCJ Stotler – a sitting member of the Judicial Hearing Board,” Cipoletti’s filing states. “The forensic evidence clearly demonstrates that despite this testimony she sent those very draft objections to FCJ Stotler by email on April 6, 2021.”
Rock testified she sent those emails to Stotler twice “by mistake,” according to Cipoletti’s filing.
In her filing, Rock says she denied playing any role in drafting Goldston’s objections to the JHP recommendations in her first sworn statement and “did not recall whether she had reviewed Judge Goldston’s objections prior to Judge Goldston filing them.”
In her filing, Rock says Cipoletti “has failed to prove any of the charges by clear and convincing evidence.”
“The record clearly shows (Rock) did not recall reviewing certain faxes, IMs or documents relating to the Judge Stotler letter that had occurred almost 11 months prior to testifying in her first sworn statement,” Rock’s filing, written by Charleston attorney Lonnie Simmons, states. “The record also shows that Ms. Campbell similarly did not recall having any interaction with (Rock) with respect to the Judge Stotler letter prior to that letter being mailed. Once again, a mere unintentional lapse in memory cannot form the basis for a … violation.”
The hearing for Rock took place March 22 in Morgantown. Senior Status Judge Russell M. Clawges Jr., a member of the JHB, served as hearing examiner for the matter.
Rock was charged with eight violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Those include Compliance With the Law, Confidence in the Judiciary, Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities, Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office and four counts of Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities.
Cipoletti’s recommended discipline says Rock’s alleged misconduct is directly related to the administration of justice and the public’s perception of the administration of justice.
“FCJ Stotler and (Rock) believed the agreed upon admissions in FCJ Goldston’s case threatened their perceived powers as family court judges,” Cipoletti writes. “In a concerted effort with FCJ Stotler, (Rock) used the power of the family court bench to bully and berate two lifelong public servants to protect and preserve the perceived power of the family court bench.
“(Rock’s) repeated use of her bench to bully the disciplinary counsel attorneys brings the judiciary’s reputation for evenhandedness and the fair administration of justice into disrepute.”
Cipoletti also says Rock’s charged misconduct related to the judicial officer’s public persona and demonstrates a “callous disregard for our system of justice.”
“In addition to her stunning lack of candor in the investigation of another judicial officer, she leveraged the power of her bench to pursue her agenda and utilized court resources to further her campaign,” the filing states. “(Rock) has failed to acknowledge the impact her actions had on the system of judicial discipline which is designed to preserve and enhance the public confidence of the judiciary. Her role in the creation of FCJ Stotler’s ex parte benchslap of judicial disciplinary counsel and her role in regurgitating those accusations with reckless disregard for the truth of the same demonstrates a callous disregard for our system.”
Cipoletti’s filing says Rock acknowledged no investigation took place into the allegations against Tarr and Lanham.
“Similar to the reasons the Supreme Court has sanctioned lawyers for making false or reckless statements about judicial officers, judicial officers are equally tasked with the preservation of the system, and statements made by judicial officers about lawyers are relied upon by the public,” Cipoletti writes. “As such, false statements from the bench about the bar unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
“Public shaming was at the core of FCJ Stotler’s ex parte benchslap, and this abuse of his judicial power did not fulfill any claimed duty to report lawyer misconduct by FCJ Stotler, but it is indeed on its face a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The ‘Stotler letter’ and its continued references and regurgitations by (Rock) is an egregious example of what people fear judges can do with their benches – there is no fact finding required and the truth is irrelevant – if they don’t like you or don’t like the legal position you are advancing, they can use the bench to destroy you.”
Rock was not the subject of any lawyer disciplinary action when she was a practicing attorney, and she hasn’t been the subject of any other judicial disciplinary actions. But Cipoletti says Rock has a “complete lack of remorse for her course of conduct or any awareness of their impact on the public’s perception of the judicial system.”
“Her testimony at her disciplinary hearing was narrowly focused on how the accusation that she testified falsely has impacted her as a judicial officer,” Cipoletti writes. “In her defense of her charges related to her lack of candor, she suggested that she forgot about her involvement in the letter and referred to the 'Stotler letter’ as ‘insignificant’ and ‘inconsequential’ to her.
“Everything about the ‘Stotler letter’ was noteworthy It is simply incredulous to assert that an ex parte letter written by a sitting member of the Judicial Hearing Board accusing Judicial Disciplinary Counsel of heinous prosecutorial misconduct that was used as the point of the spear in a full-scale attack of two public servants by members of the family court bench, including (Rock) was ‘inconsequential’ or ‘insignificant.’”
Now that both sides have filed their findings of fact, the JHB will make a decision in the coming weeks in the Rock matter.
On a related note, Stotler’s hearing before the JHB is scheduled for July 24.
West Virginia Supreme Court case number 22-862 (Judicial Investigation Commission complaint 38-2022)