Judge John Adams drops his lawsuit
A settlement has been reached in the six-year case of a federal judge in Akron who refused a mental evaluation when his peers found his actions to be “outside the scope of normal, acceptable behavior.”
The 6th Circuit Judicial Council – a panel of federal judges that reviews complaints against other federal judges in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee – decided in 2016 that Judge John R. Adams of the Northern District of Ohio acted inappropriately by issuing a strong order against a magistrate who made a scheduling error.
Citing years of confrontational behavior, the judicial council further ordered Adams to “undergo a mental health evaluation by a psychiatrist” to determine if he “suffers from a mental or emotional disability that renders him unable to discharge the duties of his office.”
Adams refused the mental exam, prompting the judicial council in 2017 to add a misconduct charge to the disciplinary order. Adams responded with a civil lawsuit filed by lawyers with the conservative group Judicial Watch.
Per the settlement, Adams dropped the lawsuit on Saturday, a week after the 6th Circuit Judicial Council issued an updated order vacating the misconduct charge and the requirement for the mental health exam.
Adams’ office in Akron said the judge is referring any requests for comment to his attorneys.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton celebrated the settlement as a win.
“The courts are not above the law,” Fitton said in a statement. “Judge Adams is a fine jurist committed to the highest standards of judicial ethics and has served with distinction for over 19 years. No other federal judge should ever have to go through what Judge Adams went through. That the bureaucracy of the federal judiciary retreated from its abuse of him is a remarkable victory for the rule of law and our constitutional system.”
But the updated order posted March 18 by the judicial council did not clear Adams of the public reprimand he received in 2016.
“It has not been erased by this final order,” said Arthur D. Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor who, as an expert on federal judges, has testified before Congress on judicial impeachments and helped lawmakers with legislation.
“It’s a serious stain on the judge’s reputation to have been reprimanded by the judicial council. It’s rare. It’s not done casually,” Hellman said. “And he’s one of the small number of judges over the last 40 years who bears that stain.”
Federal judges serve for life
Adams, a former Summit County Common Pleas Court judge and assistant Summit County prosecutor, was appointed to the U.S. District Court in
Akron in 2003 by President George W. Bush. There, he’s handled several prominent cases and still presides over a federal consent decree that mandated Akron to overhaul its combined sewer system – the most expensive infrastructure project in the history of the city.
Federal judges are nominated by presidents and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. They serve until they voluntarily retire or are removed by federal impeachment.
Congress passed the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act in 1980 to allow federal judges in each of the country’s 13 judicial circuits to hear complaints of “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” or that – “by reason of a mental or physical disability”– a judge is unable to perform his or her duties.
Four federal judges in the 6th Circuit filed the complaint against Adams in 2016. But trouble with the judge, who’s been described as a “curmudgeon” by those involved in the case, began many years earlier.
Judicial Watch cast Adams as an outspoken advocate for the good stewardship of taxpayer funds.
The judge, the watchdog group touted, has criticized his fellow judges for getting ipads when cutbacks threatened the jobs of probation officers. He’s fought delays in Social Security benefits cases that can drag on for years. And he’s called out colleagues on the federal bench for traveling on the public dime to attend ceremonial portrait unveilings.
Adams’ sharp tongue was on display this month as he called Firstenergy into his courtroom in Akron and accused the company, which filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Columbus, of “forum shopping” for a more favorable judge as the utility company pursues a $180 million insurance payout.
Firstenergy is alleging former executives paid bribes in the $60 million
House Bill 6 scandal. The insurance policy would cover damages to the company’s reputation and bottom line. After forcing Firstenergy to name the former executives, Adams recently urged the company to call witnesses to testify at his federal courthouse “to ensure the record is clear.” He’s criticized Firstenergy for not trying to “claw back” millions of dollars from the former executives, who have denied the allegations.
History of confrontation
While four judges complained of Adams’ behavior in 2016, a series of incidents dating back to 2008 put the judge at odds with his judicial colleagues and the former mayor of Akron.
The trouble boiled over in 2013 when a magistrate incorrectly calculated a deadline in a Social Security benefits case. Adams issued a “show cause order,” giving the magistrate the weekend to explain the delay or be held in contempt – and face possible sanctions.
Adams accepted the magistrate’s explanation of a calendar error. But the judge did not immediately remove the show cause order, which sat like a blemish on the magistrate in the court’s official record.
After Adams ignored a letter from other Northern District judges who beseeched him to vacate the order, four colleagues filed the formal complaint of judicial misconduct. Judicial Watch said Adams eventually sealed the order and the magistrate’s explanation.
In a 40-page opinion, the U.S. Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability pointed to a historic pattern of behavior that warranted a closer look at the judge’s mental state.
The panel of judges explained that Adams had refused to communicate with colleagues since his preferred candidate for an open magistrate position was overlooked in 2008. Adams stopped attending in-person court events and administrative functions.
There was an incident with an intern who mistakenly parked in the judge’s spot. Adams called court security to have the intern’s vehicle ticketed or towed.
There was the time the judge bumped into a colleague on a trail behind the courthouse and kept on jogging.
Adams “has repeatedly expressed hostility and contempt toward the court’s magistrate judges, attempted to undermine his colleagues’ administration of the court’s business, and withdrawn from his colleagues,” the panel said.
In a scathing 2015 letter, former Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic accused Adams of “bias, prejudice, unfairness or unreasonableness with respect to court decisions.” Plusquellic laid out a level of personal and professional vindictiveness from the judge, from opposing the construction of a parking deck and office building beside the federal courthouse to allegedly asking the Summit County Republican Party to go after the mayor’s wife and “interjecting ... personal thoughts” on two high-profile cases involving the sewer reconstruction and promotions within the fire department.
“You continuously used inflections in your voice and negative facial expressions to portray to the jury your obvious disdain for the City,” Plusquellic noted in the fire department case.
Unfit for being rude?
Judicial councils typically question the mental state of aging federal judges, Hellman explained.
But the 2016 complaint against Adams, who was barely 60 at the time, “is different,” Hellman said.
“The inability to work with colleagues, which was central to the accusations here – I don’t remember seeing any other misconduct proceeding where that was the thrust of the proceedings,” Hellman said. “It’s even rarer in all misconduct proceedings that the judicial council requires the judge or subject to undergo a mental evaluation.
“They’re not concerned that he’s senile or that he’s lost his mental faculties,” Hellman continued. “They’re concerned about some rude and uncollegial behavior. That’s where the issue raised by Judicial Watch comes in. Does the judicial council have the authority to do this?”
Hellman said the behavior described by the judicial council struck him as rude, but not awful. The ultimate test is whether the behavior impeded the justice process.
“You could say he was overreacting,” Hellman said. “But that did not strike me as something that would raise questions about Judge Adams’ mental stability. I would be a lot more sympathetic to the [judicial council] order if his cantankerousness had manifested in the courtroom and was directed at lawyers or witnesses or litigants.”
Reach reporter Doug Livingston at dlivingston@thebeaconjournal.com or 330-996-3792.