The Judicial Investigation Commission of West Virginia has done precisely what it claims to guard against: by admonishing Judge Maryclaire Akers and Judge Tim Sweeney, it has undermined public confidence in the judiciary. That’s both unfortunate and shameful.
A Closer Look at the Akers Admonishment
The Commission’s admonishment of Judge Akers reads less like a reasoned disciplinary action and more like nitpicking by a body seemingly more interested in technical violations than in justice – or the welfare of the state’s most vulnerable children.
At the heart of the matter is an appearance Akers made on MetroNews Talkline. She was invited to discuss a hearing she had convened that compelled West Virginia’s Secretary of the Department of Human Services to appear and answer questions related to the suicide attempt of a 12-year-old in state custody, as well as broader concerns about the state’s child welfare system. The challenges West Virginia faces in this area are well documented and of profound concern.
Akers took great care not to violate judicial ethics. She stated repeatedly that she could not speak on certain matters, avoided discussion of specific facts, and declined to answer particular questions. That still wasn’t good enough for the Commission, which admonished her for alleged violations of:
- Rule 1.1 – Compliance with the Law
- Rule 1.2 – Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
- Rule 2.10 – Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases
- Rule 3.1 – Extrajudicial Activities in General
To be fair, the Commission acknowledged that Akers is a well-respected judge with no prior discipline and fully cooperated with the investigation. It concluded that formal discipline wasn’t necessary – yet still issued a public admonishment.
A Few Points Deserve Emphasis
One: This is the judicial equivalent of handing out a $100 fine for a ten-cent offense – if it was an offense at all. In an era when public trust in all branches of government is eroding, a judge willing to discuss the child welfare crisis publicly should be praised, not punished. This decision will only deter other judges from engaging with the public on serious issues. No one benefits from that, and it certainly doesn’t better the lives of children; in fact it could further bad outcomes for children.
Two: Akers could have taken the easy route. She could have closed the hearing, skipped the media invite, or quietly cleared her docket altogether. Instead, she made the courageous choice to bring transparency to a critical issue that other branches have repeatedly failed to address. For that, she gets admonished. That isn’t just, it’s disheartening.
Three: The Judicial Code of Conduct hasn’t kept pace with the world it governs. The last revision occurred in 2015 and much of the code dates farther back. Technology, public expectations, and the demand for transparency have all evolved. The Code should evolve too. Right now, it’s falling behind the public it’s supposed to serve.
In the end, the Commission’s actions send the wrong message. Judges like Akers and Sweeney, who take bold steps in the public interest, are punished rather than supported. Why not save the admonishment for a judge who is not well respected, has prior disciplinary actions on record and refuses to cooperate with an investigation?
Meanwhile, the Commission itself remains opaque – you have to dig just to find out who sits on it.
Maybe next time a judge appears on Talkline – if one dares – we should invite a censor from the Commission to sit in. That would save the admonishment at least. Never mind that pesky First Amendment and the laudable idea of more transparency in government.
Audio Version