Kanawha Circuit Judge Maryclaire Akers
CHARLESTON – A state panel is urging the West Virginia Judicial Hearing Board to throw out ethics charges against a Kanawha County circuit judge, saying her comments on a statewide radio program about the state’s child welfare system do not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In an April 13 brief, the Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel says it cannot meet the “clear and convincing” standard of proof required to discipline Kanawha Circuit Judge Maryclaire Akers for a 2025 radio interview she gave following a public hearing about the Department of Human Services’ use of hotels and 4‑H camps as emergency placements for children.
“After investigation and a full and fair presentation of evidence in this matter, Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel asserts it is unable to satisfy the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence,” the 28-page brief states. SJDC “respectfully recommends that the Judicial Hearing Board dismiss all charges against Judge Akers.”
The SJDC also asks the JHB to let each side bear its own costs. Rachael Fletcher Cipoletti and Lauren Hall Knight of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel took over as the SJDC in the case after JIC Counsel Teresa Tarr was set to be deposed by Akers’ counsel.
The JHB will make its own recommendation in the case to the state Supreme Court, and the court will ultimately make a decision in how to proceed with the case. Neither the JHB nor the Supreme Court are bound by the SJDC’s recommendation, but both can take it into consideration in considering a decision.
The case stems from Akers’ handling of a February 2025 matter in which a 12‑year‑old boy in state custody attempted suicide while temporarily placed in a hotel. Akers later learned the incident was not reflected in the court’s case summary and that similar unlicensed, emergency placements – including a Kanawha County 4‑H facility – were generating reports of children attacking staff or each other, being restrained, or experiencing medical distress.
Concerned about what she ultimately learned were statewide practices, Akers contacted the Supreme Court’s Division of Children’s Services for guidance and then issued an administrative order requiring newly appointed DoHS Secretary Alex Mayer and the Kanawha abuse‑and‑neglect prosecutor to appear before her to explain procedures for placing juveniles in unlicensed settings.
Akers later entered a second order resetting the hearing for February 28, 2025, adding a Microsoft Teams link so the public could watch, after concluding the issue had statewide importance.
That February 28 hearing, held in open court with media present and about 150 people attending remotely, produced an agreed “improvement period” for DoHS. Under an agreed order, DoHS accepted a court‑appointed monitor – Cindy Largent‑Hill, director of the Supreme Court’s Division of Children’s Services – to work with the agency for at least a year to reduce and eventually eliminate reliance on unlicensed placements.
Three days later, Akers appeared on MetroNews’ “Talkline” radio program to discuss the hearing and the monitoring arrangement. She has said she viewed the topic as a matter of court administration and public education, not commentary on the merits of any particular case, and she tried to stay within what she understood to be ethical limits.
The JIC disagreed. After first issuing a written admonishment in June 2025, which Akers challenged, the JIC filed formal charges alleging she violated five rules of judicial conduct. The filing claimed her interview created an appearance that she was “anti‑DoHS” and “pro‑prosecution” by describing what she called the “entry point” effect of abuse‑and‑neglect cases in the larger justice system.
But after months of motions, stipulations, depositions and an evidentiary hearing last month, the SJDC now says the record does not support those accusations.
The brief says Akers has more than two decades of public‑service experience, mostly as a prosecutor, was appointed to the Kanawha circuit bench in 2021 and has never been disciplined by lawyer or judicial regulators before this case.
“A plain reading of the full interview in context makes clear that Judge Akers was answering a direct question about whether it was hard for judges to hear cases that involved violence against children,” the filing states. “Her response reflected upon her past experience as a prosecutor to explain that she has faced these issues her entire professional career and did not imply or assert any pro‑prosecution agenda or alliance. …
“There is no evidence that any person or party in any action related or unrelated to the February 28th hearing and Agreed Order has filed any motions to disqualify Judge Akers alleging that they perceived her March 3, 2025 public comments created a bias or prejudice or had otherwise caused the party to question her impartiality, integrity or independence as a judicial officer.”
On the key question of whether her interview created an appearance of bias, the SJDC leans heavily on testimony from Mayer, The former secretary testified he did not believe Akers’ conduct at the February hearing or in the March interview revealed bias or caused him or his agency to question her independence or impartiality.
He also said no DoHS employees believed her comments interfered with the monitoring agreement, and no one raised concerns about her interview during a statewide “Child Welfare Listening Tour” with eight in‑person sessions.
The brief also says no party in any case filed a motion to disqualify Akers based on her public comments in the year following the “Talkline” appearance – including after the ethics charges became public. The SJDC characterizes that silence as “contextually relevant” evidence that reasonable litigants did not see her as biased, even if the absence of recusal motions is not dispositive.
As to the content of the interview itself, the SJDC says the JIC’s theory rests on “speculative, hypersensitive interpretations” rather than the reaction of a reasonable, informed observer. In one excerpt singled out by the JIC, Akers responded to a question about how difficult it is to handle cases involving abused and neglected children by describing how, in her professional experience, some children move from abuse‑and‑neglect proceedings into juvenile and then adult criminal court.
The brief says that statement, in context, explains a well‑known cyclical pattern rather than announcing a pro‑prosecution agenda or asserting that all children in the system become offenders.
The SJDC also addresses an advisory opinion the JIC relied on, which Akers herself had requested in 2023. That opinion broadly warned that a judge “cannot go on television or media to talk about any pending or impending case in any court.” The brief concedes the opinion is admissible but notes that it is not binding and that its absolute language goes further than a rule that bars only those public statements that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter. The SJDC ultimately declines to treat the advisory opinion as an aggravating factor, saying doing so would effectively enforce a stricter rule than the code actually contains.
In closing, the SJDC goes beyond Akers’ case to warn that over‑aggressive enforcement can itself damage the system’s credibility. While judicial officers should exercise “calibrated restraint” in speaking to the media, the brief says, the code does not demand “absolute judicial silence,” and transparency about systemic issues can strengthen, not weaken, public trust.
“After investigation and a full and fair presentation of evidence in this matter,” Cipoletti writes, “the record fails to meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence on the charges as alleged against Judge Akers. …
“The Code of Judicial Conduct does not require absolute judicial silence. … While judges must exercise calibrated restraint in their public speech, transparency concerning systemic problems in the justice system can, in appropriate circumstances, promote – rather than diminish – public confidence in the judiciary.”
The office asks the Judicial Hearing Board to dismiss the case and send that recommendation to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission complaint 25-2025 (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 25-483)
