Listen to “Meaningless Crusade Against Judge Akers Continues” on Spreaker.
A little more than a year ago, Kanawha County Circuit Judge Maryclaire Akers appeared on Talkline. She didn’t ask to be on the program… she was invited. That’s an important detail.
Talkline is primarily a news and politics show. And frankly, what issue could be of greater interest to West Virginians than understanding why a circuit judge convened a hearing asking then-Department of Human Services Secretary Alex Mayer to explain the circumstances surrounding a suicide attempt by a 12-year-old in state care?
Bluntly, that’s the kind of issue the public deserves to know about – information citizens should have when they step into the voting booth or when they call upon their legislative representatives.
It’s not an issue a judge should be afraid to speak about, especially given the care Akers exercised on the topic. She did not reference specifics to the 12-year old’s case while on Talkline, but instead focused her comments on the administrative order outlining how she would undertake future CPS proceedings in her courtroom.
The state Judicial Investigation Commission didn’t see it that way. The Commission was wrong then, and it’s wrong now as it presses forward to discipline Akers for her appearance.
Plainly, the Commission has gone after Akers for little more than speaking publicly about one of West Virginia’s most dire challenges – one made worse by the opioid crisis – in an effort to educate the public, shine a light on the problem and make clear how she would proceed with the issue moving forward.
That’s not judicial malfeasance. That’s taking responsibility. That’s leadership.
Akers, correctly, chose to challenge the admonishment. Perhaps the Commission thought she’d back down? Clearly, they were mistaken.
A hearing before the Judicial Hearing Board convened Thursday in Charleston to hear the Commission’s case and allow Akers the opportunity to present hers.
Sadly, she wasn’t allowed to make her case in full.
Sources say Speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates Roger Hanshaw (Order (Motion in Limine) hanshaw) was prepared to testify about why public comments from judges can be crucial to the legislative process – helping lawmakers craft effective policy, particularly when confronting West Virginia’s most difficult challenges. Instead, he was limited to appearing only as a character witness.
Why wouldn’t the board – or the Commission – want to hear that testimony?
There isn’t a good reason, at least not one that seeks truth.
Reportedly, former West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman (order exclude workman) also sought to offer testimony beyond that of a character witness – testimony meant to establish the value and public good in Akers’ actions. She too was prevented from offering testimony in this realm. Is anyone better served by not hearing her perspective? Of course not.
Frankly, a serious review of the Judicial Investigation Commission may be long overdue. Other disputes have recently surfaced as well.
In many ways, the Commission operates like a black box, with limited transparency. It’s difficult to understand who serves on the Commission and requires digging through annual reports to find the names of those who sit on the Commission. A call to the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office was required to obtain the names of those sitting on the Judicial Hearing Board.
A webcast of the hearing – a public proceeding – was not provided. This compared to a Supreme Court and Intermediate Court of Appeals that both webcast proceedings.
Ignore the Speaker of the House. Exclude a former Supreme Court justice. Make it harder for the public to view the hearing.
Taken together, it paints the picture of a process badly in need of reform.
There’s little doubt this matter could eventually land before the West Virginia Supreme Court on appeal. While that may be an inconvenience for Akers if it happens, she could take solace in this: prolonging the fight will shine even more light – more disinfectant – on the Commission’s actions and any others related to the matter.
The Supreme Court should view the case as an opportunity to examine how the Commission functions and as an opportunity to modernize the judicial code of conduct to keep pace with today’s world.
Lawmakers should take note as well and consider whether statutory revisions are needed – changes that would rein in the Commission’s authority and return it to its proper role.
In the meantime, the chilling effect is obvious.
Good attorneys who might otherwise consider stepping forward to serve as judges may think twice. Judges who might otherwise engage the public through programs like Talkline to better educate the public and create accountability will likely stay silent.
That’s unfortunate.
As voters prepare for the May primary, they might consider asking judicial candidates where they stand on this issue – whether they support reforms to the Judicial Investigation Commission, especially candidates for Supreme Court.
Answers to those questions could help voters decide who deserves their support and who doesn’t.
Editor’s Note: A spokesperson for the Supreme Court after reading the piece noted a review committee initiated by the late Justice Tim Armstead in 2025 charged with review and recommendations for revision of the Judicial Code of Contact. Proposed revisions are still under review. Senior Status Justice Beth Walker now chairs that committee. Read more here.
Members of the Judicial Hearing Board include:
Circuit Judge Michael D. Lorensen, Chair, Twenty-Seventh Judicial Circuit (Berkeley and Morgan Counties)
William H. “Bill” Baker (Daniels)
Senior Status Judge Russell M. Clawges, Jr. (Monongalia County)
Circuit Judge Andrew Dimlich, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit (Raleigh County)
Circuit Judge Paul T. Farrell, Sixth Judicial Circuit (Cabell County)
Amber Urtso Sellaro (Westover)
Magistrate Gary Sheff (Kanawha County)
Family Court Judge Brittany Ranson Stonestreet, Eleventh Family Court Circuit (Kanawha County)
Michael Todorovich (Clendenin)
Members of the Judicial Investigation Commission include:
Alan D. Moats, Chair and Senior Status Judge
Bridget Cohee, Vice Chair and Judge of the 28th Judicial Circuit
Jason Wharton, Judge of the 4th Judicial Circuit
James J. Rowe, Senior Status Judge
Patricia A. Keller, Judge of the 6th Family Court Circuit
Mike Flanigan, Magistrate of Mercer County
Public Member Margaret Ann O’Neal
Public Member Dr. John Barnette
Public Member Alex Weld*
*Ms. Weld resigned at the end of December 2025. New Public Member Bill Bissett was appointed in January 2026.