Disparity in Judicial Misconduct Cases: Color-Blind Diversity?

INTRODUCTIONMissouri Judge Barbara T. Peebles had served as an assistant city counselor, a prosecutor, and the First Commissioner of the St. Louis Drug Court when, in September 2000, Governor Mel Carnahan appointed her to the bench as an Associate Judge to the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court, a district that includes St. Louis city.1 Supporters and later detractors alike agree that Judge Peebles is a thoughtful and fair judge;2 and for most of her career, she seems to have enjoyed a fine reputation. For instance, no one in the Judge's entire legal career had ever filed a complaint against her, ethical or otherwise.3 In fact, colleagues had suggested that she consider applying for elevation to the position of circuit judge or to other federal judicial positions; endeavors the Judge had begun to pursue. 4 Overall, she appeared to have a promising future.However, Judge Peebles life changed on Good Friday 2013,5 when the Supreme Court of Missouri found that she had engaged in misconduct and suspended her from the circuit court bench for six months6-one of the longest suspensions meted out to a Missouri judge in recent history.7 Some suggested that the timing of the decision, Good Friday, was political and meant to stifle any legislative action that might use the outcome of the case as an opportunity to challenge the vaunted Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan.8 The Plan was the first merit-based judicial selection plan passed in the United States,9 and it has been under attack for several years.10 The Missouri Supreme Court based its decision on oral arguments,11 parties' briefs,12 and the hearing transcript and report by the Missouri Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline ("the Commission"),13 which argued the case. In their report, the Commission had recommended that the judge be removed because it found that she had abdicated her duties to her clerk while on vacation in China, destroyed a court document, was late to work, lacked credibility during the investigation, and admittedly had made comments to a newspaper about a pending case.14However, upon further scrutiny, the litany of charges and findings seemed to grow, in large part, out of a conflict with another judge.15 The conflict involved a male judge who insisted that Judge Peebles decide court cases, particularly bond cases,16 in the way that he thought fit. She refused to follow his instructions.17 This judge and his supporters responded to her refusal with harassment, interference with her court, and an ethics case for misconduct lodged before the Commission.18 The ethics case took advantage of a miscalculation on the judge's part and centered around the fact that the judge allowed her clerks to make the first call on court announcements.19 From a public perspective, her vacation tour to China served as the catalyst for the case, during which time her clerks, allegedly inappropriately, continued to manage her court.20At roughly the same time, hundreds of miles away in Seattle, presiding municipal court judge Edsonya Charles, appointed by former Mayor Greg Nickels in 2004, fought for and eventually lost her bid to retain her judicial commission.21 According to news accounts, "City Council members, the city attorney and a group of DUI lawyers"22 - the latter of whom comprised a large segment of a political action committee ("PAC") that put $74,000 behind her opponent's campaign - sought her ouster.23 Charles argued the affiliation between her opponent and the PAC was problematic and threatened the justice system because her opponent was or would be beholden to the DUI lawyers.24 Her supporters seemed to agree, including the mayor, who suggested that the DUI attorneys targeted Judge Charles because she did not render decisions to their liking.25 Others suggested that the DUI attorneys were particularly piqued because the judge "wouldn't let private attorneys jump 'to the head of the line' and have their cases heard before public defenders. …