Kanawha Family Court Judge Jim Douglas
CHARLESTON – A Kanawha County family court judge has been admonished for violating four rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In its June 13 public admonishment, the state Judicial Investigation Commission said formal discipline against Judge Jim Douglas was not necessary.
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.
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.”
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.”
Douglas was elected as a family court judge in 2016 and re-elected to another eight-year term in 2024.
He told The West Virginia Record he intends to 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)
