Kanawha Family Court Judge Jim Douglas
CHARLESTON – A Kanawha County family court judge has filed an objection to his admonishment for violating four rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Jim Douglas filed his objection June 29 with the state Judicial Investigation Commission in response to its June 13 admonishment of him.
In the four-page filing, Douglas says the JIC admonishment was designed to punish him “for speaking the truth to a limited professional group for a laudable purpose” and “to simultaneously serve as a warning to other jurists who would endeavor to emulate” him.
Thus, Douglas says, he has “no choice but to place the family law qualifications and experience of the individual and collective judges of the Intermediate Court of Appeals and their law clerks into issue. So be it.”
“Truth is always a defense,” Douglas wrote. “Truth, however, never needs a defense. Truth requires no apology. To go against the truth, is neither right nor safe. This must be the case in matters before the JIC. How can the respondent speak truth to power if power has no use for truth?
“Additionally, if a judge, under the auspices of the First Amendment, may accurately speak of an incumbent opposing candidate’s lack of experience or qualification during an election year, per White v. Minnesota, certainly a judge can make a truthful statement in a non-election year about an appellate judge or judges who have no experience or little qualifications in the areas of their jurisdiction, such as family law.
“Does the First Amendment only operate on a part-time basis?”
The issue involved a final order regarding modification filed in February 2024 in a Kanawha County divorce case. One party appealed Douglas’ order to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. In October, the ICA vacated and remanded the case with directions to Douglas to pursue one of several options. Douglas opted to issue a more thorough order, according to the filing. It was filed November 7, 2024.
Hours later, Douglas sent an email to all family court judges in the state, a senior status family court judge and a retired family court judge as well as members of the Kanawha Bench Bar, which is made up of two sitting family court judges, one retired family court judge, one former circuit court judge (who is the current chair of the national ABA Family Law Section) and seven family law attorneys, two of whom work for the state Supreme Court. One of the attorneys represented one of the parties in the underlying case.
In the email, Douglas said he has “attempted since 2022 to make allowances for, and to somewhat quietly resign myself to, the absence of family law scholarship and experience on the ICA, which limitations include the judges’ law clerks.”
He also said he motivated to issue the more thorough order “for the general good of family law,” his “ongoing and deep concern regarding the steady erosion of the hallowed predictability function of law” and to “bring attention to the implications of unanticipated affects portended for future modification actions predicated on ‘child preference.’”
“In essence, in my opinion, said vacation directions should not go unchallenged academically and practically,” Douglas wrote. “Yes, it would have been easier and more nearly simple to acquiesce or to submit. I am, however, unacquainted with those reputably inaudible character traits.
“Therefore, please see my attached Supplemental Order filed this day. You may agree or you may disagree, or you may just ‘roll your eyes,’ but I would welcome your legal opinions, good or bad. Otherwise, please disregard.”
Joseph Armstrong, the former administrative director of the state Supreme Court of Appeals, filed the complaint against Douglas in December. Douglas filed his written response in January and supplemented it several times, according to the filing. Armstrong’s then-general counsel told Douglas he had failed to send the email to the other attorney in the underlying case, which Douglas did later that day.
On December 3, 2024, the other attorney in the case filed a motion to disqualify Douglas based on the email, saying “the statements contained in the attached email demonstrate that Judge Douglas is committed to denying the parties’ minor daughters an opportunity to be heard and considered.”
On December 9, Douglas filed a brief in response denying the allegations and calling the motion “belated” and a “tardy reflexive reaction.” He also said it was rendered moot by his supplemental final order and amended supplemental final order.
“Any comments made by the undersigned to other family court judges or the domestic relations-oriented Kanawha Bench Bar AFTER entry of the supplemental final order on remand were merely born of academic interest or made for legal scholarly purposes,” Douglas wrote.
Two days later, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court granted to motion to disqualify Douglas and ordered the case reassigned to another Kanawha family court judge “to avoid the appearance of impropriety.”
The JIC voted 8-0 that Douglas violated the following rules in the Code of Judicial Conduct: 1.1 Compliance with the law, 1.2 Confidence in the judiciary, 2.9 Ex parte communication and 2.10 Judicial statements on pending and impending cases.
The JIC said formal discipline was not essential because Douglas has a reputation for being a knowledgeable family law judge, had cooperated in the investigation and had no prior judicial discipline.
“The commission is aware that respondent (Douglas) saw a need for education among the family court judges on new case law and without prompting took it upon himself to fill that void,” the admonishment states. “With his vast experience in family law, respondent was the logical choice to assist others. As a wise man once said, ‘The art of teaching is the art of assisting discovery.’
“However, when educating judges on new case law, what can be said about a matter depends on the status of the case. … If the case has not concluded, a judge may relay the facts and conclusions but nothing more.”
The JIC says Douglas’ negative comments about the ICA judges and law clerks “challenged the integrity of the ICA and damaged the public confidence in that court.”
In his June 29 objection to the admonishment, Douglas noted that judicial candor within internal professional forums “is not only permitted but often encouraged, particularly when it serves the function of improving jurisprudential standards.” He said the judicial advisory committees of Maryland, Oregon and California have held such critiques made in bar meetings or conferences do not violate such rules.
He said the email included the critique of the ICA judges’ qualifications, not the parties of the case, the legal issues or the outcome.
“No disparaging personal remarks, derogatory metaphors, references to crimes committed or professional accusations, such as personal appearance, domestic violence acts or corruption, respectively were made toward the ICA judges or their clerks,” Douglas wrote. “Respondent’s comment was disseminated only to a group of family court judges and a limited local bar specializing in family law – an internal, professional audience.”
Douglas also referenced two other JIC admonishments handed down the same week to circuit court judges for speaking to the media.
“The admonishment of the respondent … was not a ‘public’ comment concerning a historical or actually ‘pending’ case that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of a matter or impair the fair disposition of that matter,” Douglas wrote. “The respondent’s comment was not made to a publication of general circulation, nor was the comment made on a radio news program, nor was the comment made on a television station program, nor was the comment made in open court to non-attorney persons, nor was the comment made to a Lions Cub or other societal or charitable organization, nor was it posted on any form of social media or digital repository with public access.”
Douglas also writes that the underlying case was not pending other than a mandate period, so he says his comments could not affect the outcome.
“How many judges or lawyers reading this document have attended Continuing Legal Education seminars or conferences where a lecturing judge (or attorney) makes references to ‘this case just came down from the Supreme Court, and they were way off base’ or ‘I don’t know what they (appellate court justices) were thinking’ or ‘this is why we need people on the court who have practiced law,’ which comments, more often than not, were made during the 30-day mandate period?” Douglas wrote. “Short answer: Innumerable. Historical JIC consequences: None known.
“In addition, how many ICA decisions have been altered, changed, reviewed or reversed by the ICA during its mandate period? Short answer: Zero.”
He also says there is no proof his email was false, a distortion or an exaggeration, and he says it didn’t challenge the integrity of nor damage the public confidence in the ICA.
“The JIC saying it is so in its conclusions or findings is no substitute for proof,” Douglas wrote.
He also moves to disqualify JIC Chairman Alan Moats, a retired circuit court judge, from any further participation in this matter for holding the two circuit judges also admonished “to a lesser standard for arguably and comparatively more egregious” offenses. Douglas also moves to disqualify JIC Chief Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Terri Tarr, saying “her impartiality may reasonably be subject to question” because of a 2021 incident in which the Family Court Association sought to have her removed from her position.
Douglas was elected as a family court judge in 2016 and re-elected to another eight-year term in 2024.
Earlier this month, Douglas told The West Virginia Record he would challenge the admonishment.
“I sent the email to a limited group of 12 or so people on the Kanawha Bench Bar,” he told The Record. “I didn’t go on Hoppy Kercheval. I wasn’t on a podcast or on a TV station, and I didn’t talk to a newspaper. Nor did I put anything on Facebook or Instagram. It was for educational purposes only to a limited group. There was inadvertent and indirect ex parte communication with one of the lawyers who was on the KBB, but I already had sent the order to the lawyers in the case.
“The great irony is that the appeal was withdrawn after my supplemental order. … I really, really believe I’m being admonished for the comment I made about the ICA being inexperienced in the field of family law at that time.
“When I do challenge it, the primary issue will then be whether they can prove I impugned the integrity of the ICA justices or if I told the truth at that time about their inexperience in the field of family law or how I otherwise obstructed the administration of justice.”
Judicial Investigation Commission of West Virginia complaint number 235-2024 (Douglas)
