Judge F. William Cullins, chief judge for the Fourteenth Judicial District in Kansas, describes himself as “salty.” In a recent 37-page disciplinary opinion, the Supreme Court of Kansas determined that it went a bit further than that.
Like, a lot further than that.
And yet, the final punishment — a one-year suspension — is reducible to a mere 60 days if the judge drafts an acceptable proposal for a workplace training program. It’s an accommodation that seems fair when you’re on page 1 of the per curiam opinion… much less so by the time you reach page 10. And downright bonkers by the time you’re at page 36.
The opinion, filed a couple weeks ago, is quite the journey. Keith Lee did a rundown on this opinion this morning and it’s safe to say he was a little flabbergasted.
For better or worse, the legal profession lends itself to some uncouth talk. But there’s a difference between being told to “find me a f**king case for this” in the ordinary course of business and injecting that into a formal performance review. It may not be acceptable to bully an employee with profanity as they work, but informality can seep into day-to-day work. That simply has no place in a formal human resources talk. As the court’s account continues, it seems the judge doubled down on his disregard for the review process:
Respondent did not give Mr. Carter an opportunity to address Mr. Carter’s concerns about the evaluation. When Mr. Carter tried to speak, Respondent told him, ‘Keep your fucking mouth shut. You don’t have the right to defend yourself here. Don’t say another fucking word. Go see Joni Pratt. Get the fuck out of my sight and shut the fucking door on your way out.’ Mr. Carter left the room.
To this whole exchange, the judge says he was “too stern” but said that he was “gruff” because the clerk was also “gruff.” You know, the way clerks are always “gruff” with their judges. He also contends that the use of profanity isn’t all that bad, which the opinion notes misses the point — it’s not that he uses profanity, it’s that he uses it in wildly inappropriate contexts.
It will shock you not at all that the aforementioned Joni Pratt, the former chief clerk, also has issues with the Judge Cullins, who apparently berated her over basic building renovations, and during a subsequent conversation told her, “If you think I’m going to fucking apologize to you, I’m not.” Pratt went so far as to bring another judge with her to resign because she was so concerned about the reaction Cullins might have.
But does Judge Cullins have a problem with women? Who knows… but there’s this:
Former Attorney General Curt Schneider, now a lawyer practicing in Coffeyville, heard Respondent use the terms ‘”bitch”, “cunt”, et cetera’ in referring to females.
The testimony of any attorney on this point should be significant — and there is testimony on this exact point from others — but someone who served as the attorney general elevates this to full blown red flag level. In response, Cullins argued that more witnesses hadn’t heard him use that language, which is a curious defense. He also argued that whatever he may have said doesn’t constitute bias in the course of his judicial duties. A minority of the court bought that, but not enough to salvage Cullins’s case.
Schneider’s assistant had her own encounter with Judge Cullins:
Ms. Rooks memorialized her conversation with Respondent as follows: ‘When I called Judge Cullins to set the hearing and told him the names of the parties, he said, “Oh fuck. Them again?” Then he asked if Mr. Schneider represents “the dude or the chick.” When I told him Mr. Schneider represents [client], he said, “Oh, fuck . . . really? She’s fucking crazy.” He then went on to say, “I used to think the guy was ok, but the longer this goes on, I’m starting to think he may be fucking crazy too.”‘ Ms. Rooks’ memorandum was admitted without objection.
All right… this isn’t appropriate but it’s totally understandable. There are a lot of litigants that are legitimately crazy and I’m impressed that judges don’t lose their temper over those people more often. That’s not to say either of these litigants were out of line, but I’m not sure I’d ding a judge for an off-the-cuff outburst like this. Though as it turns out, this seems to be more of a pattern than an outburst.
Oh, and he referred to a Black man in his courtroom as “boy.” Judge Cullins claims that he meant it colloquially in the same way he’d refer to himself as a “Chautauqua County boy” which seems an awfully convenient excuse, but even if true evinces a complete lack of respect for the solemnity of the occasion of presiding over a criminal case. And the transcript isn’t helping the judge:
THE COURT: “Can I assume you’re not even a Kansas boy?”
THE DEFENDANT: “Yes, sir.”
THE COURT: “That’s right. We pay for this community college and they don’t even have Kansas boys play their football or their baseball. They invite these people from out of state.” Where are you from?”
THE DEFENDANT: “North Carolina.”
THE COURT: “From North Carolina to—can I take a wild guess? Did you have a felony record before ICC gave you a scholarship?”
THE DEFENDANT: “No, sir.”
THE COURT: “Juvenile trouble?”
THE DEFENDANT: (Shaking head.)
THE COURT: “Really?
THE DEFENDANT: (Shaking head.)
THE COURT: “You just started out this big?”
So we’ve got assuming a Black person couldn’t be from Kansas, assuming that he’s an athlete, and assuming he must have a criminal record to throw into the mix with using a word that’s long been used as a slur. That’s a context that the state supreme court agreed constitutes a “reasonable perception of bias.”
But how many opportunities does a judge need to get before Kansas is willing to put some teeth into discipline? A one-year suspension already seems light. Being a judge is a privilege and not a right. Removing Cullins from the bench seems justified based on the cumulative weight of the findings — he can return to private practice and continue to make a profitable livelihood. But the fact that the one-year cooling off period is paired with a reprieve if he commits to workplace training courses that people can and do attend and ignore all the time? That smacks of a failure to consider the depth of the temperament problems here.
Cullins may well benefit from training sessions. After he’s successfully completed those, perhaps he could return to being a judge who would make the state proud. But that should be a precondition for serving as a judge again, not an option to slice off the bulk of his suspension. It’s cliché to cite the title of Thomas Frank’s fantastic book, but…
What’s the matter with Kansas?
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.