Kanawha Circuit Judge Maryclaire Akers
CHARLESTON – Kanawha Circuit Judge Maryclaire Akers is asking the state Supreme Court to step in and force dismissal of judicial ethics charges stemming from a 2025 radio interview about West Virginia’s troubled foster care system.
As her May 8 petition notes, the state Judicial Hearing Board ruling already has said it found no clear and convincing evidence of misconduct. Akers asks the justices to issue a writ of mandamus directing the state Judicial Hearing Board to dismiss all charges after Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Rachael Fletcher Cipoletti conceded the burden of proof can’t be met and recommended the case be dropped.
Once disciplinary prosecutors say the evidence fails to satisfy the “clear and convincing” standard and the respondent judge agrees, Akers argues the board has a legal duty to grant dismissal, much like a trial court must grant a prosecutor’s good‑faith motion to dismiss criminal charges.
The case arises from Akers’ handling of emergency concerns about children in Department of Human Services custody being housed in hotels and a Kanawha County 4‑H camp, including a 12‑year‑old boy who attempted suicide while in a hotel. After a February 28, 2025, public administrative hearing, Akers entered an agreed order establishing an “improvement period” and appointing Supreme Court Division of Children’s Services director Cindy Largent‑Hill as a monitor to help DoHS reduce and ultimately eliminate the use of unlicensed facilities.
On March 3, 2025, Akers appeared on MetroNews’ “Talkline” statewide radio program to explain the hearing, the agreed order and the monitoring process. In that interview, she emphasized she did not “want to be negative towards anybody involved in the process,” said her “polar star” was the child’s best interest, described how the monitoring would work and repeatedly declined to discuss specific future decisions or broader political blame.
Akers notes that no party to the underlying proceedings, including then‑DoHS Secretary Alex Mayer, complained about the interview or sought her recusal, and no private individual filed the ethics complaint; it was opened by disciplinary counsel.
Still, the Judicial Investigation Commission charged Akers with violating five rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct, alleging her comments created an appearance that she was anti‑DoHS and pro‑prosecution and that she spoke about a pending matter.
After discovery fights that saw the Judicial Hearing Board exclude expert testimony from former state Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman and House of Delegates Speaker Roger Hanshaw and limit discovery into the commission’s charging decisions, the board held a March 19 hearing before Chairman Michael D. Lorensen acting as hearing examiner over Akers’ objection.
In an April 13 post‑hearing brief, Cipoletti told the board that “after an investigation and a fair presentation of all the evidence, the evidence fails to meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence on the charges as alleged against Judge Akers” and recommended dismissal, warning that pressing on with a weak case would undermine public confidence in the system.
A draft supplemental recommended decision prepared for the board concludes there is “insufficient clear and convincing evidence” that Akers violated any of the charged rules, finding her interview was part of her official duties, focused on explaining procedures and fell within safe harbor for explaining court processes.
Despite that, the board denied Akers’ motion to dismiss May 4, saying its role is to make a record and recommendations and that it cannot simply accept a joint request by SJDC and the respondent judge to terminate a case. Akers’ mandamus petition says that position will “force judges into drawn‑out proceedings, at great personal expense and at the public expense of precious judicial resources, even when investigation reveals that the charges were factually and/or legally unfounded.”
On May 13, the Supreme Court issued a scheduling order directing Cipoletti to respond to Akers’ petition by June 12.
Akers is being represented by Thomas C. Ryan of K&L Gates in Pittsburgh.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 26-259 (West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission complaint 25-2025 and West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 25-483)
