Judge's 'Repugnant and Offensive' Rant at Pro Se Litigant Draws a Reprimand

Max Baker, the former presiding family judge for Atlantic County, NJ, was publicly reprimanded in June for his tirade against a pro se parent who questioned a child-visitation schedule. The discipline was imposed after Baker accepted the findings and recommendations of the Advisory Committee of Judicial Conduct (ACJC) in the case, In the Matter of Max A. Baker, 2010-151.

The ACJC's Findings

In a May 2 presentment, the ACJC found Baker yelled at the litigant, made “repugnant and offensive” comments in a “hostile, angry and antagonistic” tone, questioned her in a “callous and denigrating” manner, and implied she would be locked up if she did not comply with his order, instead of giving her a chance to explain why she disagreed with it.

The harangue was delivered in open court on Dec. 31, 2009, as Dana and Michael Pilla, both pro se, sought restraining orders against each other.

The Case in Question

Michael Pilla said he had not seen the couple's 4-year-old daughter in a week, leading Baker to ask why the girl should not see her father and to set a temporary visitation schedule. Dana Pilla objected, saying her daughter was not used to being with her father for that length of time. Baker said, “Don't you dare talk back to me,” suggested she needed “some serious help” and “had no idea what it is to be a parent,” and accused her of poor judgment and of trying to punish her daughter by keeping her away from her father, according to the ACJC.

In telling her what would happen if she did not obey the visitation order, Baker gestured toward a shackled prisoner seated in the courtroom and remarked, “You'll be sitting over there with this guy right here.”

The entire exchange was captured on audiotape and the ACJC called the recording “instrumental” in its decision that Baker violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. For example, Baker had admitted his tone toward Pilla was “harsh” but the recording showed that was an understatement, stated the ACJC.

The Judge's Rebuttal

The recording also undermined Baker's attempt to justify himself, in a March 2010 letter to the ACJC, on the ground that he “must have felt” Pilla was being disruptive or disrespectful to him. Neither the recording nor the transcript supported that assertion and Baker did not make it at the formal hearing on Jan. 20, 2011, the ACJC said in its presentment. Pilla complained to the ACJC, which issued a formal complaint on Aug. 4, 2010.

In his Aug. 26, 2010 answer, Baker apologized and said he acted out of “his desire to do justice to children” and was trying to get Pilla to understand that denying her husband access to their child “would in the long run prove detrimental to the child.” He also said that “while the message should have been imparted more cordially and patiently, it was a heartfelt message with the hope of doing justice to the family, not to demean either of the litigants.”

The Hearing

At the hearing, Baker told the ACJC that his conduct was an aberration and a result of being “burned out” from his long service as a Family Part judge. Two witnesses backed him up. Court employee Loretta Brewster and Seetha Holmes, a lawyer who serves as a law guardian, testified about Baker's heavy case load, his courteous demeanor, his concern for the children in the cases before him and the atypical nature of his behavior toward Pilla.

Nevertheless, the ACJC found Baker's words “a vicious and unjustified attack” on Pilla and said his remarks about her as a parent revealed “a breathtaking presumptuousness,” given that he had never met her before and did not explore the reason for her concerns.

“We simply cannot conceive of any justifiable reason for an officer of the court to speak to a litigant in the manner Respondent spoke to Ms. P.” the committee said. Baker violated Canons of Judicial Conduct 1, which requires high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity of the judiciary; 2A, requiring respect for the law and acting in a way to promote public confidence in the judiciary; and 3A(3), which requires judges to be patient, dignified and courteous, the ACJC concluded.

The committee said its recommendation for a reprimand took into account Baker's “sound reputation as a diligent, effective and compassionate officer of the court” and “the great stress and pressures [he] faced on a daily basis as the Presiding Family Court Judge of the Atlantic Vicinage.”

Baker's lawyer, Mark Biel of Biel, Zlotnick & Feinberg in Northfield, NJ, says Baker was “overzealous” in wanting the father to have parenting time during the holiday period and “a bit heavy-handed” in sending a message that fathers should be involved in their children's lives. “In fairness, the ACJC is not sitting there doing this day in and day out and watching parents use a child as a pawn or as a weapon,” says Biel, himself a matrimonial attorney.

Baker, a Family Part judge since he joined the bench in 1998 and presiding family judge since 2003, was moved to Criminal Part in July 2010. Biel says Baker asked for the move before any charges were presented.

Mary Pat Gallagher is a reporter for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter in which this article also appeared.

Max Baker, the former presiding family judge for Atlantic County, NJ, was publicly reprimanded in June for his tirade against a pro se parent who questioned a child-visitation schedule. The discipline was imposed after Baker accepted the findings and recommendations of the Advisory Committee of Judicial Conduct (ACJC) in the case, In the Matter of Max A. Baker, 2010-151.

The ACJC's Findings

In a May 2 presentment, the ACJC found Baker yelled at the litigant, made “repugnant and offensive” comments in a “hostile, angry and antagonistic” tone, questioned her in a “callous and denigrating” manner, and implied she would be locked up if she did not comply with his order, instead of giving her a chance to explain why she disagreed with it.

The harangue was delivered in open court on Dec. 31, 2009, as Dana and Michael Pilla, both pro se, sought restraining orders against each other.

The Case in Question

Michael Pilla said he had not seen the couple's 4-year-old daughter in a week, leading Baker to ask why the girl should not see her father and to set a temporary visitation schedule. Dana Pilla objected, saying her daughter was not used to being with her father for that length of time. Baker said, “Don't you dare talk back to me,” suggested she needed “some serious help” and “had no idea what it is to be a parent,” and accused her of poor judgment and of trying to punish her daughter by keeping her away from her father, according to the ACJC.

In telling her what would happen if she did not obey the visitation order, Baker gestured toward a shackled prisoner seated in the courtroom and remarked, “You'll be sitting over there with this guy right here.”

The entire exchange was captured on audiotape and the ACJC called the recording “instrumental” in its decision that Baker violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. For example, Baker had admitted his tone toward Pilla was “harsh” but the recording showed that was an understatement, stated the ACJC.

The Judge's Rebuttal

The recording also undermined Baker's attempt to justify himself, in a March 2010 letter to the ACJC, on the ground that he “must have felt” Pilla was being disruptive or disrespectful to him. Neither the recording nor the transcript supported that assertion and Baker did not make it at the formal hearing on Jan. 20, 2011, the ACJC said in its presentment. Pilla complained to the ACJC, which issued a formal complaint on Aug. 4, 2010.

In his Aug. 26, 2010 answer, Baker apologized and said he acted out of “his desire to do justice to children” and was trying to get Pilla to understand that denying her husband access to their child “would in the long run prove detrimental to the child.” He also said that “while the message should have been imparted more cordially and patiently, it was a heartfelt message with the hope of doing justice to the family, not to demean either of the litigants.”

The Hearing

At the hearing, Baker told the ACJC that his conduct was an aberration and a result of being “burned out” from his long service as a Family Part judge. Two witnesses backed him up. Court employee Loretta Brewster and Seetha Holmes, a lawyer who serves as a law guardian, testified about Baker's heavy case load, his courteous demeanor, his concern for the children in the cases before him and the atypical nature of his behavior toward Pilla.

Nevertheless, the ACJC found Baker's words “a vicious and unjustified attack” on Pilla and said his remarks about her as a parent revealed “a breathtaking presumptuousness,” given that he had never met her before and did not explore the reason for her concerns.

“We simply cannot conceive of any justifiable reason for an officer of the court to speak to a litigant in the manner Respondent spoke to Ms. P.” the committee said. Baker violated Canons of Judicial Conduct 1, which requires high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity of the judiciary; 2A, requiring respect for the law and acting in a way to promote public confidence in the judiciary; and 3A(3), which requires judges to be patient, dignified and courteous, the ACJC concluded.

The committee said its recommendation for a reprimand took into account Baker's “sound reputation as a diligent, effective and compassionate officer of the court” and “the great stress and pressures [he] faced on a daily basis as the Presiding Family Court Judge of the Atlantic Vicinage.”

Baker's lawyer, Mark Biel of Biel, Zlotnick & Feinberg in Northfield, NJ, says Baker was “overzealous” in wanting the father to have parenting time during the holiday period and “a bit heavy-handed” in sending a message that fathers should be involved in their children's lives. “In fairness, the ACJC is not sitting there doing this day in and day out and watching parents use a child as a pawn or as a weapon,” says Biel, himself a matrimonial attorney.

Baker, a Family Part judge since he joined the bench in 1998 and presiding family judge since 2003, was moved to Criminal Part in July 2010. Biel says Baker asked for the move before any charges were presented.

Mary Pat Gallagher is a reporter for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter in which this article also appeared.