Last week, the Maryland Supreme Court suspended Maryland District Court Judge Jennifer Etheridge for 20 days for violations of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. The charges, Etheridge’s response, and the order from the Supreme Court tell a cautionary tale of how behavior outside of work can lead to discipline and how a respondent’s evasive response can create more problems.
Etheridge’s disciplinary proceeding arose out of a confrontation she had with police in her neighborhood on Sept. 2, 2023, when two Baltimore City Police officers were responding to a 911 call for domestic violence in the judge’s neighborhood.
Etheridge was out on a Saturday evening and returned home around midnight. As many of us do, she had a drink while out. When she tried to return home, her street was blocked because of the 911 investigation, and her driver was not permitted onto the one-way street leading to her home despite Etheridge showing her driver’s license as proof of residency.
Etheridge proceeded to walk home. While walking towards her house, she tripped and fell — injuring herself and breaking a bottle of wine.
So far, no problems, at least on the ethics side of things.
Here is where the ethics story begins. After cleaning herself, Etheridge confronted the police officers about her inability to get to her house. She was frustrated about falling when she could not get to her house. As her conversation with the officers was concluding, she told an officer, “I got it. Believe me, I’ll remember you. No, no, no, it’s fine. When I see you in court, I’ll remember you. And it’s fine.”
When asked, “In court for what?” by the officer, she replied, “For anything.” She then also told the officer in a threatening fashion, “It’s not my first time in the criminal justice system, OK? There we go.”
These statements are problematic. According to the charges filed by investigative counsel, Etheridge violated key canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary (Md. Rule 18-101.2), Avoiding Lending the Prestige of Judicial Office (Md. Rule 18-101.3), and Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases (Md. Rule 18-102.10).
Sanctionable conduct included confronting law enforcement to advance her personal interests, invoking her judicial title improperly, threatening to take future action against the officers because of the interaction, and otherwise exhibiting antagonistic and confrontational behavior.
She let her frustrations get the best of her. The problem is that the Code of Judicial Conduct applies to conduct both at work and away from work.
The Maryland Attorney Rules of Professional Conduct do the same. Conduct outside the office can also lead to discipline. See Md. Rule 19-308.4. Moreover, Bar Counsel has the same obligation to investigate allegations of misconduct, regardless of the forum. There are numerous opinions from the Maryland Supreme Court sanctioning lawyers for such conduct.
That is one lesson to learn from this case.
Another important lesson comes from the charge of failing to cooperate and be honest with disciplinary authorities. Both the Code of Judicial Conduct (Md. Rule 18-102.16) and the MARPC (Md. Rule 19-308.1) require timely and honest communication with the authorities. It is critical to timely respond, cooperate, and be candid and honest with disciplinary authorities. I cannot stress this enough — don’t make the cover-up worse than the “crime.”
Etheridge made her case worse. According to the charges, she disingenuously invoked the subsequent death of another judicial officer as justification for her behavior, failed to acknowledge her conduct or express remorse for the same, and made inconsistent statements regarding her conduct.
She claimed she chose the route home “with the Judge Wilkinson tragedy on her mind.” But Judge Andrew Wilkinson’s tragic death occurred on Oct. 19, 2023 — six weeks later. Additionally, she said she was riding in an Uber, but later said the person driving her was a friend.
There is simply no reason for a lawyer or a judge to get a charge for “failing to cooperate.”
Cooperation and full disclosure are easy and move the needle. By cooperating fully, a lawyer can often avoid charges or receive informal letters which are not considered discipline. In every case, Bar Counsel closely evaluates whether the lawyer is cooperating and being fully responsive. Bar Counsel takes accepting responsibility extremely seriously. This does not mean fessing up when caught — it means truly taking ownership of mistakes.
Full cooperation and disclosure also make a difference at peer review. We have often put on evidence of cooperation as part of asking for a dismissal or reprimand. And if formal charges are filed, both cooperation and disclosure are recognized by the Maryland Supreme Court and the American Bar Association as proper mitigating factors.
Ultimately, Etheridge admitted in a formal paper that she committed sanctionable misconduct, and she agreed to a 20-day suspension with all but five days suspended. She must complete additional training, work with a mentor judge, undergo a substance abuse evaluation, and write a letter of apology to the officers. The remediation piece is significant, and I suspect the judge’s agreement to these terms was the reason she was able to avoid more serious discipline.
This article originally appeared in The Daily Record on February 6, 2025.
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.