One can surmise all kinds of possibilities that might flow from this encounter.

Maybe the other men at the party, because they look so strongly towards the judge as a Role Model, will take their cue, and figure it is socially de rigur that they slap the butt of every female attorney they know. If you read feminist nonsense, you would be told that this is the expected outcome of the Christmas Party.

On the other hand, maybe most males at the party do not in fact follow the judge's lead, like a pack of lesser wolves follow the lead of the pack leader. Maybe they think, "Boy howdy, the judge is drunk, and he's making an ass of himself! I don't want to act like that!" In my experience, this is most likely the actual outcome of the behavior described.

Maybe, after the party, and after he sobered up, the judge thought, "Wow! I slapped Cindy Lou's butt, and everyone thought it was real funny! I was the life of the party! I'll do that again next time." And maybe, when the female attorney talked to him in private, he thought, "What a wet blanket! I'll give her a real hard time next time she's in my court. That will teach her!" Again, feminist theory teaches that this is the likely result of the behavior described.

On the other hand, maybe, after he sobered up, he thought, "Man, what an idiot I was. I hoped no one noticed." And when the female attorney talked to him about it, maybe he felt like he was 2 inches tall. And maybe he was grateful that she didn't make a big public stink about it. And maybe, when she was before him in court the next time, he'd be on his best behavior. In my experience, this is far more likely the result of the behavior described.

The fact is, feminist theory does not have much grounding in the real world. Chances are, this judge did not need to have the Judicial Conduct Commission tell him what he did was wrong. If he is such a dumbkoft that he doesn't know his behavior is rude, requiring him to take eight hours "study" of feminist nonsense won't improve him, because what it has to say about how humans relate to each other is simply baloney. A better way to improve his behavior is to require him to read Emily Post's (or anyone else's) book of basic etiquette.

[This message was edited by Terry Breen on 05-23-08 at .]

I pretty much think making him read Emily Post is a waste of time. He's not 16 years old and raised by elves in the woods who didn't teach him the social graces.

He's a grown man. He's been through college and law school. He has been some kind of lawyer prior to hitting the bench, and has undoubtedly be exposed at some point to what behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not.

Obviously, despite his education and other experiences, he feels like this behavior is ok. Sending him to a class or having him read a book is a waste of time.

Sounds like a drunken lapse. Better to make him go to AA for awhile.

Suzanne hit the nail on the head. I'm sure the lawyer didn't say anything, not because it was no big deal to her, but if she had said something, she might not get court appointments and her clients might not be treated as favorably in his court. The same reason I never said anything to my creepy boss that I had when I was 17-20 years old -- because I needed a job. Sorry guys, but if you've never been harassed or objectified at work then you can't totally understand. I think 8 hours of a class is inadequate. And then the judge's b.s. excuse of "I don't recall" was either dishonest or means he was drunk.

quote:

---

Sorry guys, but if you've never been harassed or objectified at work then you can't totally understand.

---

It happens to me all the time, and I'm getting a little sick of it.

"And maybe he was grateful that she didn't make a big public stink about it. And maybe, when she was before him in court the next time, he'd be on his best behavior. In my experience, this is far more likely the result of the behavior described.

The fact is, feminist theory does not have much grounding in the real world. Chances are, this judge did not need to have the Judicial Conduct Commission tell him what he did was wrong. ..."

What the? Seriously, is this a joke?

BTW, I do agree that AA classes are probably more appropriate. Of all people, we prosecutors should know the impact that alcohol has on the behavior of polite, regular-ole law abiding folks.

BTW I was talking about finding 6 where the judge joked about it to someone else at the party. Having been in the Navy for seven years and at an Air Force base for eight years I am not ultra sensitvie to these kinds of issues - but it does not make them right. And sometimes you learn it is best to leave it alone than to bring it to supervisors attention - it can backfire at times.

Oh Suzanne, Jane, Kim, and Patricia, there you go again. Just spouting more of that "feminist nonsense" we all know has no grounding in the real world.

I received an email from an attorney who posts here regularly. S/he has not chosen to respond on the forums personally, for obvious reasons, but thought the following info would be helpful to the discussion:

"I was one of the witnesses to the event. While the Commission made it quite clear that I was under no requirement to remain confidential, I prefer passing this information on anonymously.

My comments relevant to the discussion are as follows:

1. The event was not reported until months afterwards. The event was reported by a person who was not present at the time: in point of fact, the commission originally asked if it happened in the courthouse. (It did not.) So it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that the event was reported by some person who heard the story third hand. (Several facts were unclear and exaggerated or wrong. Also, an investigation was ‘demanded’ by the reporting party.) On the night in question I and at least one other witness discussed what happened with the attorney who asked us not to say anything at all.

2. I was called by the commission who already had my name and knew I was a witness to the event. This was one of the most uncomfortable phone calls I’ve ever received. When asked what happened, there really is only one response: recall the details to the best of your memory without exaggeration or embellishment. So, I did.

3. The action in question was more of a ‘good game’ type pat than a ‘grab and squeeze’, but it happened twice with several minutes in between. It happened in a room with a great deal of people standing around talking, but not in the center of attention. Most people in the room didn’t see a thing because they were clumped into small groups talking to each other.

4. The attorney handled herself with dignity and respect. She was embarrassed more that the commission was involved than she was that evening.

5. I like the judge. He and I get along well. The attorney and the judge get along well, both before the event and here, over a year afterwards."

###

So there you have it.

Luckily for some who post on this subject, I'm not the sort of guy who goes around saying, "I told you so."

Whether you agree with the outcome or not, you have to admit that it will probably make a few judges/attorneys out there think twice about their treatment of colleagues of the opposite sex.

That's a victory in my book any day.

I don't know what the reading equivalent is for saying something "tongue in cheek," but please do so when reading this bit of levity:

#101 - Being Offended



That all being said, I think the judge was stupid for doing what he did and that the bad publicity he got will do more than any class to correct his behavior. And as the thread title says, "Keep your hands to yourself" and none of this will happen!

I'm offended.