Federal Judge Accused of Affair With Police Officer, Sexual Encounters in Chambers Remains on Bench After Private Reprimand

ATLANTA, GA (BuzzReport) — A federal judge accused of engaging in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking police officer — including alleged sexual encounters inside the judge’s chambers during business hours that were reportedly overheard by courthouse staff — will remain on the bench after receiving only a private reprimand, according to findings released through the federal court disciplinary system.

The Judicial Council of the 11th Judicial Circuit, which oversees federal courts in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, issued the disciplinary order in February. Last week, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States upheld that decision, allowing the judge to continue serving without public identification.

The judge’s name and the court where the incidents allegedly occurred were not disclosed in the public documents, and The Associated Press reported it was unable to independently confirm the judge’s identity.

Federal judges hold lifetime appointments and cannot be removed except through impeachment by Congress. However, they can face disciplinary actions ranging from reprimands and censures to temporary case restrictions.

According to the investigative findings, the judge engaged in “sexual intercourse in the judge’s chambers during business hours within hearing distance of staff.” The investigation also found the judge attended a partisan political event, which raised additional ethical concerns for a sitting federal judge expected to remain politically neutral.

Investigators said the judge initially denied the allegations, calling them “outrageous” and specifically rejecting each claim when first confronted.

The inquiry began after one of the judge’s law clerks reported concerns about repeated sexual encounters involving the judge and the officer inside the courthouse office. Additional complaints alleged the judge failed to properly supervise clerks and created a tense work environment.

Chief Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit requested a response from the judge, who immediately denied all allegations and later suggested the reporting clerk may have fabricated the accusations in retaliation for being required to work in person. Pryor then appointed a special investigative committee.

The committee reviewed security footage and courthouse access logs, which reportedly showed the officer frequently visiting the judge’s chambers around lunchtime while in uniform. Multiple law clerks told investigators they observed someone matching the officer’s description entering the chambers, while three clerks reported hearing sounds they believed indicated sexual activity.

Investigators also examined allegations involving political activity. Clerks recalled an incident where the judge declined lunch with summer interns after presiding over a criminal hearing, allegedly stating they had consumed “too many martinis” the night before while attending a primary election victory celebration for a district attorney friend.

The committee further found that clerks described an “eggshell culture” within the chambers and said the judge rarely provided substantive edits or guidance on drafted civil orders. However, investigators said they did not uncover sufficient evidence of outright abusive conduct toward staff.

The judge later admitted to the extramarital relationship with the police officer but continued denying allegations involving staff mistreatment. The judge also acknowledged attending what was described as a “mixer” involving former employees of a district attorney’s office where the judge previously worked, though the judge denied directly participating in the political victory celebration.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the committee concluded the judge demonstrated “a strong propensity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service to the judiciary.” Investigators noted the relationship had ended, the judge agreed to avoid future partisan political events, and the judge had otherwise maintained what the report described as “exemplary service.”

As part of the disciplinary resolution, the judge agreed to write apology letters to six former law clerks, decline eligibility for a future chief judge position within the district, and refrain from serving on Judicial Conference committees.

The decision to keep the reprimand private has sparked criticism from some legal observers.

Georgia attorney Lester Tate, who frequently represents judges in misconduct cases, said the punishment appeared far too lenient given the circumstances and the judge’s initial dishonesty during the investigation.

“I’m shocked that there was not a more severe punishment for the false statements that were made by this judge during the course of the investigation,” Tate said.

Tate added that federal judges, who are entrusted with interpreting the law and presiding over the conduct of others, should be held to a higher standard of transparency and accountability.

The case has renewed debate about secrecy and accountability within the federal judiciary, particularly when misconduct allegations involve lifetime-appointed judges who continue serving despite confirmed ethical violations.