In the Matter of: The Honorable C. Carter Williams, Judge of the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviews judicial disciplinary proceedings involving C. Carter Williams, a judge of the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit. The court found that Williams violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules of Professional Conduct following his conduct during and after a traffic stop. The court imposed a six-month suspension without pay, along with censure, a $5,000 fine, two years of monitoring, and payment of certain disciplinary costs.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court independently evaluates the record and the Judicial Hearing Board's recommendations, reviews alleged violations for clear and convincing evidence, and has authority to accept or reject the Board's recommended sanction.
2. A judge retains First Amendment protections but may be disciplined when speech or conduct violates specific provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct; identifying oneself as a judge and invoking judicial office to obtain favorable treatment or retaliate against law-enforcement personnel is not protected merely because it arises during a personal traffic stop.
3. Clear and convincing evidence established violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.8(B), 2.10(A), 3.1(A), 3.1(B), 3.1(C), and 3.1(D) of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
4. The findings supporting Charge VI established an additional violation of Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.16(A) and Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) and 8.4(a).
5. The evidence did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's use of the phrase 'your boy' created an appearance of racial or age bias.
6. The evidence did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Wal-Mart incidents constituted shoplifting, preferential treatment, an appearance of impropriety, or a lack of candor warranting discipline.
7. A six-month suspension without pay, two years of JLAP monitoring, censure, a $5,000 fine, and assessment of disciplinary costs, excluding costs associated with Dr. Clayman's review of VCAP records, was appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated provisions of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules of Professional Conduct through his conduct during and after the July 2021 traffic stop.
2. Whether Respondent's identification of himself as a judge and communications with law-enforcement officials constituted an impermissible abuse of judicial prestige rather than protected First Amendment activity.
3. Whether the evidence established additional violations based on alleged racial or age bias, the Wal-Mart incidents, alleged grabbing of his license, hanging up on the police chief, or a pattern of violating traffic laws.
4. Whether the Judicial Hearing Board's factual findings established violations of the duties of candor and cooperation with disciplinary authorities, including Rules 2.16(A), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
5. What sanction was appropriate for the established judicial and professional misconduct.

Disposition

other