“The Maryland Supreme Court removed Judge April T. Ademiluyi from the Prince George’s County bench this week, citing “egregious” behavior in violation of the state’s code of judicial conduct, an extreme and rare move for the state’s high.
The specifics of the alleged misconduct are unclear because the high court did not include an explanatory opinion with its brief ruling. The court broadly cited at least a dozen codes Ademiluyi allegedly violated as a Circuit Court judge, involving her behavior with jurors, her impartiality and fairness, her compliance with the law and her cooperation with disciplinary authorities, but it did not offer specific details of the purported misconduct.
The justices wrote that a complete opinion would come at a later date.
Ademiluyi has presided over cases in the county’s circuit court since 2020, when she was elected as a judge by Maryland voters after running a grass-roots campaign.
She has alleged in complaints and court documents that her outsider status drew hostility from her judicial colleagues, creating a working environment that prompted her to file what she said was a whistleblower complaint against her supervisors in 2022.
In a statement, she asserted that her removal from the bench is retaliation for that complaint. After reporting her supervisors to the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities, they responded with a complaint of their own, alleging misconduct by Ademiluyi in hundreds of pages of documents that the commission and Maryland Supreme Court deemed valid.
Her fellow judges alleged that she behaved inappropriately at the courthouse, including insubordination, unprofessionalism, tardiness and lack of participation in critical judicial training sessions.
“I continue to believe that I did not commit any sanctionable misconduct,” Ademiluyi said in her statement. “It is a disservice to the community for me to be punished for doing the right thing.”
The case, which has been going on for nearly the entirety of Ademiluyi’s time on the bench, offers an unusual and messy glimpse into the interpersonal dynamics of the Prince George’s courthouse and the Maryland judiciary, interactions that judges work hard to keep tidy and out of the public eye.
The entire situation was eroding the public’s confidence in the judiciary,” said Steven B. Vinick, a Prince George’s County defense attorney. “That’s exactly what was happening. It’s like a soap opera. This is the last thing you want to see from the courthouse.”
The high court’s decision to remove Ademiluyi the same day as her hearing before the justices — issuing an immediate ruling without a complete opinion — signals an urgency to put the increasingly public saga to rest, Vinick said.
It also draws attention to the way Ademiluyi made it to the bench — by running as an independent challenger to a slate of judicial candidates.
When there is a judicial vacancy, interested candidates can apply for consideration through the governor’s office. They are scrutinized by various bar associations before coming before county-level nominating commissions, which make recommendations to the governor’s office on potential one-year appointees.
Despite a gubernatorial appointment, all judges must be elected to their jobs by Maryland voters. But candidates such as Ademiluyi can still win despite not going through the official vetting process.
Ademiluyi was an intellectual property and real estate attorney before her long-shot campaign in the 2020 election. Amid the #MeToo movement, she told voters about her experience as a sexual assault survivor, pledging to take on “the establishment” within the courthouse and give a voice to victims.
Soon after Ademiluyi became a judge, tensions with her colleagues began to develop, according to court and commission documents.
But Ademiluyi took the first action before the commission, filing a complaint against Sheila Tillerson Adams, then serving as the county’s longtime chief administrative judge, and Daneeka Varner Cotton, who would soon take over for Tillerson Adams.
Ademiluyi alleged that Tillerson Adams forged her signature on a ruling and that the two had been monitoring her emails in an attempt to sabotage her, according to commission and court documents. In a letter to the commission, Cotton replied that it would be “extremely difficult to respond to the blatant falsehoods” alleged in Ademiluyi’s complaint.
“I am deeply concerned that a jurist would file such egregious and dishonest allegations,” Cotton wrote. “There should be some repercussions for such disregard of the truth.”
Tillerson Adams told investigators that dealing with Ademiluyi had been a “nightmare.” The commission ultimately dismissed Ademiluyi’s complaint, ruling that there was not sufficient evidence to support her allegations.
Then came a second commission complaint from Tillerson Adams against Ademiluyi, alleging misconduct. The commission would ultimately find that, among other conclusions, she refused to talk to certain judges, instructed her law clerks to not speak to other judges and sent emails saying, “I don’t look forward to meeting you or communicating with you at anytime.” They also found that her election campaign content could have led to perceptions of her not being impartial in sexual violence cases.
While the commission was considering the second complaint, it received another charge against Ademiluyi, accusing her of bias and harassment. The accusation stemmed from her alleged behavior toward fellow Circuit Court Judge Michael Pearson, according to court documents.
That case has not yet been resolved. A spokesperson for the Maryland judiciary said in a statement judges cannot comment on pending matters. In her statement, Ademiluyi said she has filed a federal civil lawsuit against the three judges and looks forward to having her “day in court.”
The Maryland Supreme Court’s decision Monday went far beyond the punishment the commission had unanimously recommended in February, which included a censure and six-month unpaid suspension, with two months served immediately and four months suspended depending on her compliance with certain conditions.
Those conditions included that the Supreme Court institute a one-year probation with a monitor; an assigned mentor judge who would provide monthly reports; “a complete emotional, behavioral and prosocial assessment” followed by Ademiluyi’s cooperation and compliance with any recommended treatments; and attendance at Maryland judiciary, educational and ethics trainings.
The Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities consists of jurists, attorneys and members of the public. It was established in 1966 and has the power to “investigate complaints against Maryland judges and justices and, when warranted, conduct hearings concerning such complaints and take certain actions or make recommendations for other actions to the Supreme Court of Maryland,” according to the Maryland Courts website.
Click here to download the judgment.
Removal-of-Judge-Ademiluyi
Culled from Washington Post.
