CHARLESTON – The state Judicial Hearing Board recommends a second Eastern Panhandle family court judge be reprimanded for violations of three rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The JHB also suggested Judge Glen R. Stotler of the 23rd Family Court Circuit pay the cost of his disciplinary proceedings. The recommendation now will go the state Supreme Court, which will have the final say on Stotler’s discipline.
In the July 24 Recommended Decision from the JHB, it also says Stotler has informed state Supreme Court Chief Justice Beth Walker and Gov. Jim Justice of his voluntary retirement and resignation at the end of 2023 for medical reasons via a July 18 letter.
In May, the JHB recommended similar discipline for Judge Deanna Rock of the same family court circuit, for similar violations.
In its July 24 Recommended Decision, the JHB said Stotler violated Rules 1.1, 1.2 and 2.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. It also said Stotler should pay the investigation costs of $3,562.38 as well as any JHB costs to be determined later.
Rule 1.1 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.
Rule 1.2 says a judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.
Rule 2.10 says a judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter in any court or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.
According to the JHB recommended decision on Stotler, it says Stotler admitted to violating the three rules and that Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Rachael L. Cipoletti agreed not to pursue the remaining charged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Stotler and Rock had been accused of violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct after Stotler sent a letter to the state Supreme Court and other state officials requesting an investigation into the conduct of Judicial Disciplinary Counsel regarding an investigation into yet another family court judge.
The JHB, in its recommended decision, said sending that letter was a violation of the three stated rules of judicial conduct.
Stotler, 71, had requested his scheduled July 24 hearing to be held in Berkeley Springs in Morgan County or somewhere else near his home in the Eastern Panhandle rather than the Kanawha Circuit Court Judicial Annex courtroom of Judge Joanna Tabit in Charleston.
Two other recent matters before the Judicial Hearing Board have been handled remotely near the judge’s homes, but both of those judges –Rock and Circuit Court Judge C. Carter Williams – agreed to let a hearing examiner oversee the proceedings.
JHB Presiding Judge Jack Alsop issued an order April 6 denying Stotler’s April 5 request to have the hearing near his home in Morgan County. Stotler has been paralyzed from the waist down and confined to a wheelchair since 1973. In addition, he has been on medical leave for six months or so because of pressure spots, a condition he says is common with paraplegics.
But long before Stotler’s request and Alsop’s order, Stotler had filed an objection June 27, 2022, to the use of a hearing examiner as a substitute for a hearing before the full JHB. On that same day, Stotler also filed an objection to the composition of the JHB because it didn’t have a family court judge among its members at the time. At the time, Stotler was the family court judge representative on the board and had disqualified himself.
The following day, Tabit issued an order granting Stotler’s request to have the hearing conducted before a quorum of the JHB participating in person or remotely.
“Five members of the board shall constitute a quorum,” Tabit wrote, stating Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure. “The board shall act only with the concurrence of a majority of those present and voting. …
“Accordingly, the board is authorized to act if five members participate, which will occur in this matter.”
Tabit also said the JHB has no jurisdiction to appoint a temporary member, saying only the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court can do that. Stotler’s term on the JHB has since ended, and Family Court Judge Brittany Stonestreet was appointed to replace him.
Alsop addressed the issue again in his April 6 order.
“The board denies this motion without prejudice for the parties to reach an alternative agreement, such as consent to a hearing conducted by a hearing examiner, that would alleviate the burdens on the board members of attending a hearing in Morgan or another county in the Eastern Panhandle,” Alsop wrote.
While none of Tabit’s nor Alsop’s orders mention it directly, the costs associated with having at least a quorum of five members of the JHB appearing in the Eastern Panhandle in person to hear the case could be the issue with allowing such a move.
Before formal charges were announced, Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Cipoletti did go to Morgan County to take Stotler’s sworn statement in September 2021.
In his April 5 motion, Stotler says the problem with the pressure sores has been so bad that he has been unable to attend to the day-to-day duties on the bench.
“While Judge Stotler is hoping for a full recovery, during the last six months, he has been largely confined to his home and not able to move about, even with the use of a wheelchair,” Stotler’s attorney, state Senator Charles S. Trump IV, wrote in the motion requesting the hearing be moved. “Between his regular doctor’s visits and one surgery, Judge Stotler has had in-home health caregivers, and he has been using a wound vac. …
“Judge Stotler would like to attend his hearing and to be able to participate in it in person. He is not able, however, to travel the 275 miles from Berkeley Springs to Charleston to do so, and he requests that the hearing be scheduled to be held in Morgan County where he resides.”
Stotler’s response notes Rule 4.1 of the West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure says the Judicial Hearing Board may conduct hearings at places that will best serve the public interest not inconsistent with the interests of the complainant and the respondent.
“Judge Stotler asserts that the holding of his hearing in Charleston, West Virginia, is ‘inconsistent with his interests as the respondent,’” his motion states. “This, because it will be impossible for him to attend and participate in person if the hearing is to be held in Charleston.”
The motion says precedent exists for the hearing to be held somewhere besides Charleston, noting recent JHB cases have been held elsewhere. Rock’s hearing occurred in Morgantown where Monongalia Circuit Judge Russell Clawges served as the hearing examiner, and Williams’ hearing took place in in Martinsburg before Berkeley Circuit Judge Michael D. Lorensen.
In his motion, Trump writes that none of the parties in those cases have “a disability requiring an accommodation anything like that which confronts Judge Stotler.”
Stotler severed his spinal cord in November 1973 when he fell from a tree stand while deer hunting. He finished his undergraduate studies at Shepherd College before beginning his career in public service that includes Town Council for the Town of Bath, the Morgan County Board of Education, the Morgan County Commission and family court judge for Morgan, Hampshire and Mineral counties since 2011. He also has served as a member of the Judicial Hearing Board.
In March 2022, the state Judicial Investigation Commission issued a formal statement of charges against Stotler saying he and Rock violated the Code of Judicial Conduct after Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Teresa Tarr and Deputy JDC Brian Lanham recommended censure and a fine for Raleigh County Family Court Judge Louise Goldston 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.
In March 2021, Stotler had sent a letter to then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Evan Jenkins and other officials critical of Tarr and Lanham. In the letter, Stotler said the Supreme Court should fire the prosecutors from the state’s Judicial Disciplinary Counsel for their poor treatment of Goldston. Stotler wrote that Goldston was forced into making agreements during questioning by state officials through intimidation and deception. The state Office of Disciplinary Counsel found those claims to be untrue.
“I believe it is evident that the JDC does not believe they are answerable to anyone for their actions, their conduct or their practices, Stotler wrote in the letter. “I truly hope the Supreme Court takes this matter seriously and directs that an immediate investigation be conducted.
“I believe the conduct of the JDC attorneys is of such nature to warrant their termination or at the least a serious reprimand.”
Stotler later testified under oath to the JIC he drafted a letter alone, but the JIC said it found evidence to show Stotler didn’t draft the letter to Jenkins alone. It said J.R. Campbell, Stotler’s family court coordinator, wrote the first draft of the letter before Stotler and Rock emailed it between themselves making changes.
In May 2021, the West Virginia Family Court Judicial Association drafted a resolution calling for the firing of Tarr and Lanham. Later in May 2021, the investigative panel of the state’s Lawyer Disciplinary Board found no merit to the complaint filed by Stotler.
“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.”
Goldston retired in January, a week after a resolution was introduced asking the House Judiciary Committee to investigate allegations of impeachable offenses against her.
In 2020, Goldston stopped a divorce hearing and told the parties to meet at the home of the man involved in the divorce. Once there, Goldston led a search of the man’s home without a warrant, threatened to have him arrested when he started recording the incident and had a bailiff seize his phone. When the man’s ex-wife claimed items belonged to her, Goldston told her to take the items. The man says Goldston walked barefoot through his house and sat in a rocking chair.
That man, Matthew Gibson, reported Goldston to the JIC, which charged her with violating the state Code of Judicial Conduct.
In March 2021, Gibson filed the federal lawsuit against Goldston as well as the Raleigh County Commission and three sheriff’s deputies related to the incident. That was the same month the Judicial Hearing Board issued its recommended decision to the state Supreme Court regarding Goldston’s actions after she had been charged with violating at least seven rules in the Code of Judicial Conduct after admitting she visited homes of litigants to check on disputed property.
In September 2020, the state Judicial Investigation Commission filed its formal statement of charges with the Supreme Court against Goldston, who says she is entitled to judicial immunity and seeks to have Gibson’s claims dismissed in federal court.
Goldston served as a family court judge since 1994, presiding over cases in Raleigh, Summers and Wyoming counties. She never had been disciplined for judicial misconduct, but she did admit she had a 20-year practice of going to parties’ homes “to either determine if certain disputed marital property was present and/or to supervise the transfer of disputed property.”
After being denied judicial immunity, Goldston appealed her case to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. If her appeal is successful, there will be no trial in the Gibson matter. If it is unsuccessful, the trial to seek monetary damages will continue.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 22-0227, Judicial Hearing Board complaint number 50-2021