Panel Upholds Private Reprimand of US Judge Over Affair with Police Officer

A national judicial panel has upheld a private reprimand issued to a federal judge in the southern United States who engaged in an extramarital affair with a senior police officer and had sexual intercourse in the judge’s chambers within earshot of staff.

The US Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability on Friday approved the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Judicial Council’s February decision on disciplinary action against the judge, whose name and court location have not been disclosed publicly.

In addition to the private reprimand, the judge agreed to apologise to former law clerks interviewed during the investigation, forgo the opportunity to serve as chief judge, and indefinitely refrain from serving on any Judicial Conference committees.

The seven-member Judicial Conference panel described the sanction as “appropriate and proportionate” for the judge, who sits in a region covering Alabama, Florida and Georgia.

The 11th Circuit had previously said an investigative panel was “deeply troubled” by the judge’s conduct, but opted against a more severe penalty on the basis that the judge had demonstrated a strong capacity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service to the judiciary.

The allegations were first reported last year by a law clerk who stated that the judge had on multiple occasions engaged in sexual activity with a uniformed police officer in the judge’s office during working hours.

The clerk, who was later reassigned to a new position, also alleged that the judge had shouted and sworn at staff and had once told colleagues that the judge had “too many martinis the night before” at an event for a district attorney.

After initially denying the allegations when confronted by Chief US Circuit Judge William Pryor in September 2025, the judge later admitted the relationship and prompted the appointment of a special investigative committee.

The inquiry found that the judge had engaged in an extramarital affair, attended a political campaign event for a district attorney, and made false statements when dismissing the allegations as “baseless” and “outrageous”.

Although the judge initially denied the claims, the judge’s lawyer later recanted in October 2025 and confirmed the affair, which had reportedly lasted about two years.

At the time of the affair, the officer’s police department was involved in numerous criminal and civil cases. While the judge was not assigned to any matters involving the officer or the department, investigators said this appeared to be due to “happenstance”.

Regarding the political events, the committee found that the judge knowingly attended an event hosted by a district attorney’s campaign, noting that judges under the Judicial Code of Conduct must avoid events organised by political candidates.