In Atlanta on Monday, Judge Ural Glanville indefinitely recessed the criminal racketeering case against rapper Young Thug. Glanville created his own problem when he met ex parte with a witness and the prosecutors on June 10 and then held Young Thug’s lawyer in criminal contempt for questioning the Judge about the meeting.
In response, Young Thug’s lawyer and Doug Weinstein, the attorney for rapper and co-defendant Yak Gotti, both moved to recuse Glanville. Weinstein argued that Glanville’s actions “offend public confidence” in the judiciary and “that an appearance of impropriety and bias [hung] over the present trial.”
Our legal system depends on public confidence in the judiciary. Our clients deserve a fair shake. We, as lawyers, should be able to tell our clients they can expect a fair process. If we can’t tell them that, not much else should matter.
Maryland believes in promoting public confidence in the judiciary. Title 18 of the Maryland Rules governs Judges and Judicial Appointees and includes a Code of Judicial Conduct (Md. Rules 18-100 et seq.) as well as a process for investigating and disciplining judges (Md. Rule 18-400 et seq.).
The purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct is three-fold: to recognize the importance of “an independent, fair, competent and impartial judiciary made up of men and women of integrity” (Md. Rule 18-100.4(a)); ”to maintain the dignity of judicial office to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” (Md. Rule 18-100.4(b)); and “to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges and judicial candidates.” (Md. Rule 18-100.4(c)).
The devil is, of course, in the details.
Georgia and Maryland have adopted versions of ABA Rule 2.9 governing ex parte communications. The rules are similar, and prohibit ex parte communications except in limited circumstances, Georgia’s Rule 2.9, entitled Assuring Fair Hearings and Averting Ex Parte Communications goes even further, emphasizing the importance of the right for parties to be heard: “Judges shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.” Ga. Code. Jud. Cond. 2.9.
I did not find many cases in which judges have been charged with conduct similar to Glanville’s, but states have disciplined judges for violating Rule 2.9. A Utah judge was disciplined in 2018 for having numerous out-of-court conversations with court personnel including a case worker without disclosing the conversations to the other parties or making them part of the record.
Likewise, a Minnesota judge received private discipline for answering jury questions outside the presence of the parties. Similarly, an Arizona judge was publicly reprimanded for entering an involuntary psychiatric admission order after an ex parte communication with a nurse practitioner that was not disclosed to the person subject to the order or her counsel. And a Pennsylvania judge was recently charged with multiple violations of Rule 2.9, among others, for going to a site where a criminal defendant was engaged in community service.
I hope my inability to find similar cases is because so few judges have done what he appears to have done.
Indeed, as I see it, under either rule, Glanville created a mess. Regardless of whether the meeting was proper under Rule 2.9 (I do not have enough information to evaluate it), the optics are horrific. Glanville fundamentally failed to look at his own conduct, declining to even address the appearance of impropriety. Instead, he demanded Young Thug’s lawyer disclose his source and, when the lawyer refused, he held him in contempt.
Glanville’s conduct endangers us all. The legal system serves as a check and balance on abuses of power. Judges who abuse power are no better than anyone else who abuses power. The robe is not a license to intimidate.
Additionally, the trial itself is a massive criminal racketeering trial involving significant gang activity in Atlanta. Public safety is at issue. A judge simply should not take steps that jeopardize the fairness of the trial. The monetary costs are a problem too. The trial, which started in January 2023, has been halted.
Our clients look to judges for fairness. Experience teaches me that most judges care about fairness. But judges are human, and I have concerns about whether some have the strength to look inward to understand how their actions might create an “appearance of impropriety.” That’s often just as important to our clients.
Craig Brodsky is a partner with Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann LLP in Baltimore. For over 25 years, he has represented attorneys in disciplinary cases and legal malpractice cases, and he has served as ethics counsel to numerous clients. His Legal Ethics column appears monthly in The Daily Record. He can be reached at csb@gdldlaw.com.
This article originally appeared in The Daily Record on July 5, 2024.
Goodell DeVries defends various professionals in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia, including lawyers and law firms. Many of these cases are ethics matters involving Bar Counsel. If you have questions about the above or are a Maryland lawyer facing discipline, please contact us at EthicsHelp@gdldlaw.com.
