After Virginia Judges’ Misconduct Became Public, Lawmakers Reinstated Secrecy

At the end of every year, state agencies, boards, and commissions churn out dozens of annual reports. Last year, one notable document was missing.

The annual report from the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission would normally have been published at the end of November. The JIRC’s 2024 report was a rich text: for the first time, it contained the names and misdeeds of Virginia judges who were disciplined by the seven-member commission for violating the commonwealth’s judicial cannons. The change was the result of a 2023 law sponsored by Del. Wren Williams, R-Patrick, which passed with bipartisan support and backing from outgoing Attorney General Jason Miyares.

Virginia House approves bill to boost transparency when judges get punished

That brief window of transparency shut last year, when lawmakers unanimously passed a bill specifying they would be the first ones to see JIRC’s annual report — and decide if it’s ever made public.

The change means the public won’t know the names and misconduct of errant judges in their community in 2025 unless lawmakers decide to release it. In 2024, that list included a Richmond judge who’d made unwanted advances on female attorneys and a Roanoke judge who’d had a relationship and provided legal aid to the mother of a man on trial for murder in the same courthouse.

In a committee meeting last year, the 2025 bill’s sponsor, Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville, said judges deserved more privacy.

“The whole idea was — especially in unfounded cases — a lot of information that’s available under the FOIA law right now is information that might not be accurate and may be defamatory toward a judicial officer,” Deeds said in a February committee meeting, referring to the Freedom of Information Act.

But Deeds’ statement doesn’t align with what’s in the reports. Under the rules of the 2023 law, the outcomes of “unfounded cases” are not published in the JIRC’s annual report — only a much smaller number of cases where judges were disciplined for violating the cannons.

Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Bath, in 2019. (Photo by Ned Oliver/Virginia Mercury)

In an interview last week, Deeds said he was unaware the report only contained the names of disciplined judges.

“When there’s a founded complaint, when there’s disciplinary action — that ought to be public information,” Deeds said.

Deeds said the bill was “not my idea” and that he “really had not had any interest in this before.” At the committee meeting, he said former Portsmouth Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Melvin, who retired last month, had convinced him to carry the bill. The judge served as vice chair of JIRC and previously represented Portsmouth as a Democrat in the House of Delegates for 24 years. Melvin could not be reached for comment for this story.

Deeds said he was unsure how the General Assembly would publish the report, if it decided to do so, and said he was open to reconsidering the bill after a social media thread by Richmond reporter Sarah Vogelsong last month brought the issue to public attention. (Vogelsong previously served as  editor-in-chief of the Mercury).

“I didn’t realize people were hotly anticipating the release of these things,” Deeds said.

All 50 states have systems for screening and investigating ethical complaints against judges. Those complaints are always private, and the overwhelming majority in Virginia involve litigants unhappy with verdicts, JIRC’s counsel, Raymond Morrogh, told lawmakers in a 2021 Senate committee presentation. Those complaints aren’t eligible for JIRC’s review. If a panel determines a complaint does have merit, they can elect to gather more information, like a response from a judge, or simply express their disapproval without taking formal action.

If an investigation substantiates a complaint, judges may face a range of outcomes, including agreeing to disciplinary actions, like supervision or substance abuse treatment. In more serious cases, the JIRC may elect to hold a formal hearing.

The hearings can resemble trials, where a state official presents evidence of misconduct, including witnesses and depositions, and a judge, often represented by a lawyer, presents their defense and cross-examines witnesses. The commission has the power to suspend a judge and recommend that the Virginia Supreme Court censure, remove, or force a judge into retirement.

In the majority of states — but not Virginia — fact-finding hearings involving judges are public, according to the National Center for State Courts.

Indiana University law processor Charles Geyh, a national expert in judicial ethics, said in an interview that judges were often “reluctant to air their dirty laundry in public,” wary of undermining public trust in the courts. But Geyh argued Virginia’s level of secrecy into judicial misconduct risked undermining that goal.

“We’re past the point where the public is going to sit tight and have the judiciary say, ‘Trust me, we’re doing it — we’re just not telling anybody about it,’” Geyh said. “We’re past the point where that’s enough.”

Fairfax attorney Andi Geloo, a vocal critic of what she calls “wayward judges,” said the secrecy around judicial discipline created a separate standard from others accused of misconduct, from police officers to criminal defendants.

“The public has a right to know how judges are performing and whether they’re upholding the law,” Geloo said. “And this change sends a message that judges are above the law.”

by Ben Paviour, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.