Judge’s wife: Should relationship be revealed?
Write a letter to the editor
Fran Lawrence reads a statement to the media in the George Huguely murder case with his partner, Rhonda Quagliana, who’s standing beside him and mostly obscured.PHOTO BY LISA PROVENCE
It’s no secret in local legal circles that Judge William Barkley is married to high-profile defense attorney Rhonda Quagliana.
Those who aren’t lawyers might remember that Quagliana represented the apologetic rapist, William Beebe, arrested more than 20 years later when he begged his victim for forgiveness as part of a 12-step program. They might remember that she represented porn pastor Gregory Briehl, or wife-murderer Anthony Dale Crawford, or that she and her partner currently represent the accused killer of Yeardley Love, George Huguely.
But her marriage to Judge Barkley, that’s a detail not so widely known.
Jessamy Rouson thinks it should be, particularly when Judge Barkley hears a case represented by his wife’s firm, St. John, Bowling, Lawrence and Quagliana.
Rouson appeared before Judge Barkley in Albemarle General District Court October 15 as the plaintiff in a civil suit. Her adversary was represented by Fran Lawrence, Quagliana’s partner.
According to Rouson, the judge told her that a family member worked for Lawrence’s firm and offered to recuse himself. She signed a waiver that she claims she didn’t read, Barkley heard the case, and then ruled against her.
Afterward, Rouson learned Barkley is married to Quagliana.
“He says a ‘family member’,” says Rouson. “That could be a nephew in a menial position. That’s a lot different from saying, ‘My wife is a partner with Fran Lawrence’.”
Outraged, Rouson filed a complaint with the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.
“This is clearly a glaring conflict of interest— particularly as a portion of the income from St. John, Bowling, Lawrence and Quagliana is a part of Judge Barkley’s personal household income,” she wrote.
The response from the commission, which monitors judges in Virginia, was that she could have asked about the relationship before signing the waiver, says Rouson.
“I’m just the public,” she says. “I’m not going to get up there and start questioning the judge, and I don’t know that anyone would.”
The Judicial Review and Inquiry Commission did not return repeated phone calls from the Hook.
While jurists do not hear cases represented by their spouses, a judge is not disqualified from hearing a case from his spouse’s firm, according to Jim McCauley, ethics counsel for the Virginia State Bar. “The judge is required to disclose, and all parties must consent, or the judge must recuse,” says McCauley.
That can pose its own problems in districts where there are vacancies on the bench and the case has to be continued. “Do you want the matter heard with bias, or do you want to further delay?” asks McCauley, who sees the dilemma Rouson’s now facing.
“You can’t raise the issue after the fact,” he says. “If the judge disclosed at the outset of the case and she didn’t act on it, and now she’s coming back with sour grapes because the case didn’t turn out the way she liked— she could have said she needed more time to think.”
However, McCauley also agrees that revealing the connection only as a “family member” doesn’t sufficiently allow the parties to make an informed decision.
“The degree of the relationship should be disclosed,” he says. “There’s a big difference in what constitutes a family member, between a wife who’s a partner and a second cousin who clerks.”
Adds McCauley, “It matters.”
Judge Barkley did not return phone calls from the Hook. Nor did Quagliana and Lawrence.
Cheryl Higgins was a partner at St. John, Bowling before she became a judge.FILE PHOTO BY JEN FARIELLO
St. John, Bowling has another relationship with a judge in town: Albemarle Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Higgins is a former partner in the firm.
Last year, Higgins had defendant Patrick Crider play the violin to determine if he had a relationship with one of her children, and she stepped away from the case when she realized he did.
But she declines to discuss how she handles cases from her former firm. “Judge Higgins does not speak to the press,” says her assistant.
“I’ve always seen great judgment by our judges,” says attorney Steve Rosenfield, who has heard judges disclose relationships with witnesses and offer to step away if anyone has a concern.
As for disclosing family members, “It seems like greater candor to identify a spouse,” Rosenfield says, but he also believes anyone like Rouson should take more responsibility. “It would have been fair for [her] to ask what is the role in the firm,” he says.
Judge Steve Helvin is retired from the Albemarle General District bench where Barkley now sits. And while he notes that “You want to avoid not just impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety,” he says his good friends Barkley and Quagliana have done that.
“They’re very scrupulous,” says Helvin. “I’ve never heard any complaints at all.”
Helvin acknowledges that marrying the person one loves can create awkward professional situations, but not necessarily unethical ones. Helvin also notes that when a lawyer becomes a judge, she avoids hearing cases from her old firm for a period of time, such as six to 12 months, because she may have been involved with such cases.
For example, in her first term, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from about half the cases the Court has taken because she was familiar with them from when she was solicitor general.
Helvin, unlike his peers who shy away from speaking to the press on the issue of judicial conflicts, says, “It’s a question that should be asked.”
Rouson is not convinced by testimonies to Judge Barkley’s fairness.
“I don’t think Judge Barkley should be kicked off the bench, and I think he’s probably a very nice man,” she says. “I just don’t think he should hear cases from his wife’s law firm.”
This is a travesty and I pray some action is taken. I agree that stating that you have a family member working for a firm does not represent to ANY degree the level of connection the judge has with the firm. Stating that the person appearing in court could have queried further is pathetic. When you are in the position of having your case heard before a judge, you are vulnerable and weak. You don’t know the system, and at best, you try to be and appear polite and unchallenging. I’ve been before judges where I’ve tried to represent my position politely and clearly, but it is received as a challenge and you can feel the animosity and resentment.
This is a fight worth fighting.!
Who was Rouson’s lawyer, and why didn’t her legal counsel inform her of the relationship, if it could prejudice the case ? That’s the person I would find fault with, not the judge.
“According to Rouson, the judge told her that a family member worked for Lawrence’s firm and offered to recuse himself. She signed a waiver that she claims she didn’t read, Barkley heard the case, and then ruled against her.”
umm…if you are in COURT, and you are asked to SIGN something, you should READ it. judge did right, rouson was careless, end of story.
A competent lawyer would advise us to read any document before we sign it; her signing the document without reading it on behalf of her client amounts to malpractice.
tom, i believe rouson is the client not the attorney - in either case, someone should have READ the damn document - and if rouson wants to find fault, you’re right, she should start with her own attorney!!
Having had a similar experience with this law firm in the past, I would have to lay blame on them in this case. I once hired Fran Lawrwence to represent me in a case. Once I discovered his “family member” was a very close relative of the spokesperson of the department I was sure I would be suing at the conclusion of the case, I asked him to step aside. Perhaps relationships between judges, attorneys and others should be clearly defined by the associates in the law firm prior to proceeding in any case. 5 minutes before appearing in front of the judge, how hard would it have been for Rhonda Quagliana to advise Jessamy Rouson that the judge was her husband? I am sure Rouson would have then said this was not acceptable and asked for a continuance. As Judge Helvin mentioned, maybe the appearance of impropriety was now there when this wasn’t done.
Here’s my two cents:
1. COMPLETE disclosure should be made in cases where the judge and one of the attending attorneys are married or the complete relation to one another. Let’s face it, pillow talk goes a long way.
2. Rouson should have READ the document and apparently her attorney was not coherent enough to advise her properly.
3. @Lisa…did you find out who represented Rouson in this case? Did she represent herself? Or did she decline to say? That information would have been very helpful.
Here’s my two cents:
1. COMPLETE disclosure should be made in cases where the judge and one of the attending attorneys are married or the complete relation to one another. Let’s face it, pillow talk goes a long way. 2. Rouson should have READ the document and apparently her attorney was not coherent enough to advise her properly. 3. @Lisa…did you find out who represented Rouson in this case? Did she represent herself? Or did she decline to say? That information would have been very helpful.
“5 minutes before appearing in front of the judge, how hard would it have been for Rhonda Quagliana to advise Jessamy Rouson that the judge was her husband?”
ok, but how hard would it have been for Ms. Rouson to READ THE DOCUMENT the judge presented and take that opportunity to ASK for clarification on the details of the relationships BEFORE she SIGNED her right to object away??
i don’t feel the clarification was the responsibility of OPPOSING counsel to make. Rousan was TOLD of a potential conflict of interest and SIGNED THE WAIVER without regard to its contents and only objected after the case didn’t go her way.
too late for sour grapes, imho.
Mr/Mrs/Miss Local, most people do not understand how the courts work. My having worked in the courts for 25 years, I can tell you most people will sign any document you lay in front of them without reading it.
Did the document clearly state that Rhonda Quagliana is the wife of the presiding judge? If it did, perhaps we can lay the blame on Rouson. If it didn’t, somebody was obligated to explain the very close relationship between the judge and Rhonda Quagliana, IMHO.
Justice, C’ville style.
agreed that “most people” do not understand the court system. but signing ANY document without reading it is simply foolish.
while not to the same extent as you, i have worked within and been a participant in various court systems for many years. i have learned that if you ASK, generally people will tell you what you need to know. granted, you may have some hoops to jump through, as in - no, the document probably did not state clearly the relationship, but again, if you are signing a legal document in court, it is your OWN obligation to be sure you understand what you are signing, and to ASK if you don’t.
or maybe your own attorney’s obligation, but opposing counsel’s?? not her responsibility.
- “mrs local” ;)
Rouson’s lawyer is from out of town. –Lisa Provence
A few other thoughts…
1. This is not likely a case of pillow talk, unless Fran Lawrence and Bill Barkley have a relationship of which I am unaware. If Rhonda Quagliana had a case in front of Bill Barkley, no “disclose and waive” would suffice.
2. Most of the lawyers in Charlottesville (I haven’t talked to all of them) have a great deal of confidence in Bill Barkley and his judicial temperament and his ability to be a fair judge.
3. I have tried a civil case against Fran Lawrence in front of Judge Barkley, and was satisfied that my client got a fair hearing and a fair result. The client was also satisfied. It would not surprise me to learn that the lawyer in this case told Ms. Rouson that she would be perfectly happy with Judge Barkley on the case.
4. The standard for recusal is not whether there is actual corruption, but whether there is the APPEARANCE of impropriety. In my experience, Judge Higgins and Judge Barkley have been happy to recuse themselves if there has been any question at all. You don’t have to work to convince them. As Judge Barkley will note, “I have enough other cases. It doesn’t bother me.” The only negative repercussion would have been that the case would have been rescheduled for a day when a different judge was sitting, though on some days, if Judge Downer is free, he and Judge Barkley will switch courtrooms on 10 minutes’ notice. As it is, Judge Downer sits in Albemarle County General District Court whenever one of Rhonda Quagliana’s cases is heard. It happens a lot, and accommodating that need delays things by at most a few weeks. The practical issue for Ms. Rouson’s lawyer in advising her whether to waive a conflict of interest is not whether Bill Barkley would intentionally put his thumb on the scale on the side of Fran Lawrence’s client and intentionally say, “This person ought to lose, but I’m going to rule in her favor because I want to help my wife’s partner because that will result in more money for the firm and therefore more money for her.” The stereotypical mutual back-scratching society portrayed in the movies has SOME basis in experience, though I don’t think it does here. But ultimately the person who has to be comfortable with the judge is the client, not the lawyer.
5. Only Ms. Rouson can judge for herself (with the advice of her counsel) whether there is an appearance of impropriety. If she felt that there was, all she had to do is to say so. If she had felt after the fact that she had not gotten a fair hearing, she had an absolute right to appeal to the Circuit Court without giving any explanation at all.
6. In every county or city there are conflict issues like this. When Ward Harkrader was the Circuit Court Judge in Louisa, and his sons Fletcher and Clyde were practicing law in Louisa, he routinely scheduled days when Judge Swett or some other judge from the area would come to Louisa, so that his sons could practice law. The same thing happened in Buckingham and in Greene/Madison, and in plenty of other jurisdictions around the state. The question of “you used to be in that law firm” comes up every time a lawyer becomes a judge (the judge can’t hear cases arising from that firm for a year or so).
7. Fortunately, we have not had the situation that arose in Texas — a defendant was sentenced to death by a judge who was having an extra-marital affair with the prosecutor at the time. What was remarkable about that case was not just that the judge would have an affair with the prosecutor, but that once the issue came to light, NO APPELLATE COURT CARED. Virtually all of the appellate judges who looked at the question of the inherent injustice said, “It doesn’t smell good, but show me a particular error that the judge made.” Finally, last February, Charles Dean Hood’s death sentence was overturned last year on other grounds — that the judge did not permit some mitigating evidence to come into the sentencing hearing. He was given a new sentencing hearing, though, since he still maintains his innocence, he’s not happy about that either. Hood has been on death row for 20 years.
Mr/Mrs/Miss Local, since Bouson’s attorney if from out of town, there’s a chance he/she didn’t even know the close relationship between Rhonda Quagliana and the judge.
Now honestly, if you’re sitting on the side of the road signing a traffic citation a cop has explained and handed to you, do you read every word on it, front and back? Of course you don’t! So don’t say it’s “simply foolish” to sign something without reading it first.
I think one question needs to be answered before we beat each other up in this discussion.
LISA ………… at any time prior to the hearing actually taking place, did Jessamy Rouson know that Rhonda Quagliana was married to Judge Barkley?
gsoe - i think that would then heighten the attorney’s responsibility to understand (ASK) why her client was being asked to sign such a waiver. surely the atty understood enough to know there was something to know.
and, right - because i have enough general understanding of what i am signing in your traffic citation scenario, i don’t read every word of the citation before i sign it. but NEITHER do i try to get out of the offense by saying i wasn’t fully advised of the ticket’s contents.
and to be sure, if i didn’t understand part of the cop’s “explanation” as he handed me the ticket, i WOULD ask for clarification before i signed!
it IS simply foolish to sign without reading.
doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, just means once you have signed, you have no recourse.
- and it’s Mrs! ;)
not swinging at you at all, but my point is whether she knew or not is inconsequential, she had OPPORTUNITY to seek clarification on the issue, DIDN’T, lost her case, and only now is crying ethics violation. she SIGNED her rights away. her only recourse is with her attorney, for allowing her to sign without gaining full comprehension of what she was waiving.
“This is not likely a case of pillow talk, unless Fran Lawrence and Bill Barkley have a relationship of which I am unaware.”
cvllelaw highlights this other important fact - quagliana wasn’t even INVOLVED in this case - so what if she works with the guy arguing the case - how many degrees of separation are acceptable exactly?
Mrs. Local, we know Rouson claims she never knew that Rhonda Quagliana and the judge were married. I’m still wondering if Quagliana, Lawrence and Judge Barkley agree with this claim or not. The answer to this question could sway my opinion one way or the other.
At least I got you to admit you sign documents without reading them first. :)
what does Connor Crook think about this issue?
Thanks for clarifying Cvllelaw - I misread the article. I went back and re-read…I was under the impression that Ms. Quagliana was the attorney for the firm, not Mr. Lawrence. Puts a bit of a different spin on it. However, with Cville be such a small town, there are relationships (husband, wife, ex-partner) that could come into question in the minds of anyone having a case being heard. Since either of the judges are not opposed to recuse themselves, maybe it would be best if they made any relationships completely clear and thus no one could be opposed to the ruling later on the questioned grounds. They could only chalk it up to either the facts were not enough to warrant the case or the judge was having a “bad hair day”. :)
Gasbag, you asked how hard would it have been for Rhonda Quagliana to take 5 minutes to explain this to Rouson. Answer: very hard. Because this would affect EVERY case in which ANY member of her firm had a case that at least started in the Albemarle General District Court, number one. Number two, an attorney may not initiate communication with an adverse party to a lawsuit when he or she knows that person is represented by counsel, which means that all communication must go through that other person’s attorney. So for you to suggest that Rhonda must find out who the adverse parties are on EVERY case that EVERY member of her firm is working on in Albemarle, and then track down their attorneys and then tell them she’s married to the judge is ridiculous to say the least. It’s also ridiculous to sign anything you haven’t read (at least quickly). You usually make some good points in your comments but today wasn’t your day. The most logical and efficient focus of what disclosure is necessary is upon the judge. Not because there WAS impropriety in this case, but simply because a citizen is raising the claim that there was an appearance of it. She is wrong, but hey, appearances are subjective. Judge Barkley did nothing wrong and deserves not the slightest reprimand, especially here, where the litigant could not even be asked to READ the waiver before she signed it. However, moving forward, to avoid even a similar CLAIM of an appearance of impropriety, the judge SHOULD simply say, “My wife is a partner at the same law firm as this attorney. I can promise you that will gain neither side in this case any advantage or disadvantage, however, if you prefer I would be happy to recuse myself and the case will be continued until some other day when a different judge can hear the case in this courtroom.” Some of you more conspiratorial commentors out there are greatly overblowing how much firm partners are likely to talk about their cases to each other, much less how much a wife is likely to discuss with her husband a case of low enough dollar amount that it is even IN General District Court with her husband when SHE’S not even involved in the case. If THIS was their “pillow talk”, they probably wouldn’t even be married anymore!
Mr/Mrs/Miss A Friend, you’re literally reading way too much into my written word. Of course everything needs to be done through the proper channels. I meant it wasn’t a hard task for Lawrence to explain to Rouson’s attorney that one of his partners is married to the judge. If this had been done, it would have been very clear to Rouson what the judge was speaking of at the beginning of the trial. This disclosure could possibly have changed the entire outcome of this case.
As I said above, I had the same problem with an attorney, a proper disclosure of relationships wasn’t made to me prior to a case in which I had hired an attorney to represent me in. Had I not found out about it before trial, I would be screaming foul just like Rouson is. And after trial, without a disclosure, people would claim I was only screaming foul because I was on the losing end of the case too.
And you know me, I am usually the devil’s advocate for the underdog because nobody else will accept the position here. :)
ps - in my last reply I should not have implied I was on the losing end of a case. I wasn’t, and never have been. I hired a new attorney and kicked butt. But had I been on the losing end, without proper disclosure, people would say I was was only whining because I lost, sour grapes, the whole nine yards! :)
Don’t forget cheryl higgins heard and ruled on several important evidentiary matters concerning accused lacrosse murderer George Huguely.
Higgins, of course, is a former partner in the same firm as Fran Laurence — who is defending Huguely on the murder charge. This is sort-of pointed out in the article, but I wanted to clarify and amplify the point.
C-ville is a cozy little town, eh?
to those of you saying she should have read the document.. did that document say that his WIFE was a PARTNER in the law firm and that he stood to PROFIT from ruling against her?
just sayin…..
Deleted by moderator.
Bravo! That’s one of the best parodies of teabagger speak that I’ve read yet! Briliant how you weave the Chairman Mao references in but conclude with the “true American patriot Jesse Ventura” thing.
That’s the best deflection on behalf of Hamiltonian fascist plutocracy (for whom tories Palin and Bachmann front) you can muster, Judge?
Since this case was in general district court, why not just appeal to circuit court and get a whole new trial with a different judge? Of course, that alone doesn’t resolve the issue of whether the judge should have recused or whether Rouson should have read the waiver or further questioned the judge. The way the article was written I initially assumed Rouson represented herself. It made no mention of her having a lawyer.
Mike, some cases just aren’t worth pursuing any further. And small claims court is basically a joke anyway. My wife had a guy back into one of our cars, hit & run, and did $700 in damages. I had to chase the guy down the street on foot, just like you see in the movies. His insurance company offered us $500, we refused and filed a claim against the driver in General District Court. Well, when we got to court his insurance company had 3 attorneys there in $1,000 three piece suits to represent him. They objected to every word said in court. We finally got totally frustrated and walked out. (Prior to trial, Judge Barkley stepped aside since we had known each other for 30+ years. Funny thing is I had known the substitute judge for 30+ years as well, he did not recuse himself! One of those “huh?” moments in life.)
I filed the claim against my insurance. I guess my insurance company then went after the other guy’s insurance company. So there was probably then 6 attorneys in $1,000 suits fighting over a $700 claim.
I left the courtroom under the opinion that judges don’t even want to fool with crash cases, they would rather the insurance companies fight each other. And cops pretty much share this opinion now too, it’s very seldom they will charge people in motor vehicle accidents. Even when there are witnesses.
I am Jessamy Rouson.
I write to clarify some points of confusion. There were two cases in front of Judge Barkley involving the same defendant - a criminal trial and a civil trial. The defendant was represented in both by Francis Lawrence of St John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana. In the criminal case, of which I was the victim, there was no disclosure whatsoever regarding Judge Barkley’s wife being a Partner to the defendant’s attorney, Mr. Lawrence. The defendant had confessed the crimes in full to the police - trespassing and destruction of property. The defendant had broken onto my well posted private property around midnight, and removed her horse to avoid paying a bill on the horse - a bill which I had greatly reduced because I mistakenly thought this person was a friend at the time. There was no legitimate defense for the defendant’s behavior. Mr. Lawrence’s weak defense had no merit whatsoever. The evidence was overwhelming and the Commonwealth proved their case well beyond a reasonable doubt. This trial, “The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson”, should have ended with a guilty verdict and an indictment. However, Judge Barkley dismissed the case. The police and the Commonwealth Attorney were shocked. As the victim and part of the public, I was shocked as well.
I represented myself in the civil trial of this case. I am unable to afford an attorney at this time. I simply wanted to collect the $5,000 owed to me for riding,training and caring for the defendant’s horse for eight months.
In the beginning of the civil trial, Judge Barkley stated that “a family member worked with Mr. Lawrence”. Out of the blue, Mr Lawrence then produced a waiver which he had obviously prepared, stating “a family member works in the firm.” I was told to sign the waiver and not given the opportunity to completely read or question the document. When the Judicial Commission sent me a copy, the waiver stated only “a family member” - hardly a full disclosure of the relationship between Mr. Lawrence and his Partner, Judge Barkley’s wife. “A family member” is a far cry from the full disclosure the public deserves from Judge Barkley, such as, “I am married to Rhonda Quagliana who is a Full Partner to your adversary, Mr. Lawrence, in the firm St John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana. In addition, a part of my personal household income is derived via my wife from your adversary’s law firm.” Had this been truthfully stated, I definitely would have asked Judge Barkley to recuse himself. I believe anyone would have. I also believe the outcome would have been different in both the criminal and the civil trials with an unbias judge. Justice would have prevailed.
The Commonwealth Attorney is unable to appeal criminal cases. Hence, I have written to Judge Barkley several times respectfully requesting that he vacate his erroneous verdict of “dismissal” in the criminal case - or declare a mistrial. I copied the letters to Mr. Lawrence, the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office and the Judicial Review Commission. Judge Barkley has refused to respond to my correspondence.
The civil case, “Rouson v Olson”, is on appeal to the Circuit Court. Judge Higgins did the honorable thing and appointed another judge, as she was once a Partner with Mr. Lawrence. I ask that Judge Barkley do the honorable thing and vacate his decision in “The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson” - or declare a mistrial.
I believe the public should demand that Judge Barkley do the honorable thing and recuse himself from hearing any and all cases represented by his wife’s firm: St John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana. I would not wish anyone to have the same experience. The public deserves to have faith in the integrity of their judicial system. The Commonwealth Attorney and the police work exhaustively to protect our community. The public deserves for justice to be served.
Thanking those of you who support my position.
Jessamy Rouson
Jassamy, why were the criminal charges tosswed out of court. I am sure the judge explained his thoughts at the time, what were those thoughts?
testing testing do these comments even work anymore? nothing ever shows up anymore.
Okay…attempt NUMBER SEVEN to type the same thing. Jessamy, you had as much time as you needed to read this document. NOTHING would have happened in this case until you were done reading the waiver and had signed it. Yes, everybody would have been annoyed as they sat there for five minutes waiting for you to get done reading, but the world doesn’t owe it to you to make you FEEL okay about taking the time to read a document. You will be in this situation over and over in life, signing up for something, signing your 20 page mortgage, signing a traffic ticket, etc. Yes, there is a human tendency not to WANT to create a socially awkward situation, but it’s ON YOU if you don’t have the nerve to take the time you need to read something. When they need your signature on a document to move forward, you have ALL the leverage there is in the case at that moment. Don’t blame the system or the judge because you didn’t have the nerve to hold the process up while you read the piece of paper. Next, you didn’t have any standing to object to the attorney or the judge in the criminal case, because you weren’t a party…just a witness. The party was the Commonwealth, not you. This is an important distinction, because it is why a defense attorney is ALLOWED to talk to a victim in a case; he does not have to go through the Commonwealth’s Attorney, because the Commonwealth’s Attorney does not represent YOU…he represents the Commonwealth. If you won your case, you would not be claiming any bias. You lost, so you assume there was, without ANY evidence. Not only does the judge have no legal power to vacate his decision as you requested if the case is no longer in the breast of the court, timewise, he has no reason to. If he was biased, he wouldn’t admit it. If he was unbiased, he would have nothing to admit. You have no reason to ask for it either, as your appeal in Circuit Court is “de novo” (i.e., as if the earlier trial never happened), so why would you NEED it vacated? Higgins may have recused herself, but she also practiced fairly recently with that firm, and she is probably also aware that you have raised the spectre of bias. I assume if the substitute judge in circuit court rules against you, you will be satisfied that the lower judge was unbiased. I’m kidding…I don’t think you’ll ever accept that! Again, moving forward, the judge should disclose his relationship more explicitly because our profession strives to avoid someone even INCORRECTLY suspecting bias, but that is a far cry from saying that bias affected the outcome of your case in any way. You simply have provided NO evidence of that, and are asking the court of public opinion to rule in your favor anyway. I’m afraid this court rules against you too.
Gasbag, it sounds like you changed lawyer AND judge and yet chalk most of your change in momentum up to the change in judge only, which is specious. Maybe your new attorney would have won in front of the same old judge, maybe he wouldn’t have. It doesn’t prove the judge was “biased”. Don’t forget that judges are unique and human just like any of us. Two judges may rule differently on the same case sometimes; this doesn’t prove one is biased and one isn’t. They each come from a whole different human experience. Attorneys make a business, in part, of trying to have a feel for the personalities of different judges, what arguments work better with certain ones, what issues matter more to them, etc. When you hire an out-of-town attorney, you forego that pragmatic knowledge advantage. A local attorney would have explained the judge’s relationship better, and I am quite sure, would explain he had no fears of bias, but would make his recuse/don’t recuse decision based solely on which judge he felt would be more receptive to the arguments in your case. Jessamy, you decided to forego that possible pragmatic knowledge advantage by hiring out-of-town counsel. That was YOUR choice.
PS: GBSOE, It’s Mr. A Friend, Esq., actually. I don’t want to use my name because I’m not trying to score any brown-nosing points with this judge, just saying what I honestly feel. And, no, I don’t work for St. John, Paul, George, Ringo, Lawrence and Quagliana either.
Re: Ms. Rouson’s complaint that Judge Barkley has not communicated or commented on her complaints, Virginia judges are severely restricted in the comments they can make on cases pending before them, or on cases where they have ruled. Do not confuse his lack of response with a lack of courtesy. As for the criminal matter, once the judge has dismissed it, he has no authority to reinstate the charge or declare a mistrial. He loses jurisdiction over the matter. I assume the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office assisted with the prosecution and explained this to you.
I do not always agree with the Judge’s rulings, but I have never seen any bias or corruption in the way he handles matters. Lots of judges in our circuit have relationships, by way of marriage, past marriage, children, blood, or former employment, with practicing attorneys. I have never seen a circumstance where any judge has heard a case when a litigant has raised the issue of bias. I understand your frustration, and maybe the Virginia Supreme Court should require a recusal in the cases you describe, but I am confident that I would have proceeded to try the case in front of Judge Barclay despite his marriage to Ms. Quagliana.
Mr. A Friend, I hear what you’re saying, and I agree for the most part. But I don’t personally think bias came into play or was the major concern in many of my cases. As Judge Helvin is quoted as saying above, the appearance of impropriety played into the decisions moreso.
The changing of the attorney was in one of several false criminal charges. In this particular case, the judge (Judge Helvin) did not recuse himself because any other incoming judge would have heard the fact that the arresting officer and myself were both sworn law enforcement officers at the time anyway, as part of the evidence. He also did not recuse himself because his baliff told him in chambers that they didn’t need a substitute judge coming in and thinking this was a good cop versus a bad cop type of case. I agreed with the baliff, and so did the judge I guess. My attorney had a win/win case, so she didn’t care if a substitute judge came in from anywhere in Virginia. This was a case where the judge had to occasionally hide his laughter at the evidence by quickly feigning a cough and covering his face (Judge Helvin may not appreicate my saying this, but I was far from the only person who noticed it). Most of the so called evidence was both amusing and hilarious, sorta like the Saturday morning cartoons! So uncontrollable laughter was to be expected, IMHO! The disturbing part of the trial was when a second in command at a local police department had to look at the floor when answering questions posed to him by the judge, he couldn’t even look the judge eye to eye. His testimony totally contradicted that of a long time magistrate, police offifer, and deputy sheriff. The case was rotten to the core and never should have been in court in the first place.
In another false criminal charge, Judge Barkley did recuse himself. This was a case where the incoming judge had to decide which group of cops was telling the truth, and which group weren’t. I do not blame Judge Barkley at all for not wanting to place himself in that position. I used the same attorney as in the case I just mentioned above. To sum it up in 3 words or less, she kicked butt.
The other changing of the judge, Judge Barkley, was in a simple civil case. But, like I said, the substitute judge had known me for 30+ years too. It’s was just sorta ironic I suppose. :)
Jessamy Rouson - I write to once again clarify points which seem to have been missed by some readers.
First: I represented myself in the civil trial. I had no attorney. I am unable to afford an attorney at this time. I did appeal the civil case to Circuit Court immediately after Judge Barkley’s decision.
Second: The waiver stated “a family member works in the firm” - no more than what Judge Barkley had stated in court. If I had read the document ten times, it would not have made a difference. I assumed, as most people would assume, that a “family member” was a distant relative and a lower level employee of the firm. I, like most people, felt it would be inappropriate to question the Judge. I never dreamed Judge Barkley’s wife was a partner to my adversary.
Mr McCauley, Ethic’s Counsel for the VA Bar, agrees that revealing the connection only as a “family member” doesn’t sufficiently allow the parties to make an informed decision. “The degree of the relationship should be disclosed,” he says. “There’s a big difference in what constitutes a family member, between a wife who’s a partner and a second cousin who clerks.”
There was no excuse for Judge Barkley to describe his relationship with Mr. Lawrence in this manner - other than to purposely avoid full disclosure of the fact that Judge Barkley’s wife is a Full Partner to my adversary, Mr Lawrence. I am sure none of this would have happened if I had had an attorney representing me - nor would a waiver have been accepted.
In regard to the criminal trial of Trespassing and Destruction of Property, Judge Barkley “reserved judgment” until a later date. This confounded the Commonwealth as the case was clear, the evidence was overwhelming and the defendant had confessed in full. Just prior to 9am, the morning of Judge Barkley’s decision in the criminal case, Mr. Lawrence slipped back into the Judge’s Chambers alone. When he came back out into the courtroom, Judge Barkley appeared. Within a matter of no more than two minutes, he stated “There was a defense for these charges - Dismissed.” And then Judge Barkley left the courtroom - it was his only appearance on that day, 10/19/10. Please check that fact if you doubt me. There is no Judge’s order on record, other than DISMISSED - nor is there a transcript from General District Court. I checked on both.
Mr. Lawrence’s only defense was basically - I paraphrase -”Trespassing is okay if it does not disturb the peace.”
It is understood that breaking onto one’s private property around midnight, removing a horse from the other stablemates, leaving farm gates open, and destroying property, all DISTURB THE PEACE. Mr. Lawrence’s defense had no merit whatsoever. Judge Barkley surely is a good enough judge to have known that there was no merit to the defense. It was an extremely bizarre and erroneous decision. I can only surmise that Judge Barkley’s relationship with Mr. Lawrence had an impact. Judge Barkley should declare a mistrial if he is unable to vacate his decision, and he should respond to my respectful correspondence.
In summary. This is not “sour grapes” as some readers have stated. The civil case is on appeal. This is about a glaring conflict of interest which has an effect on the public, as well as an effect on the Attorneys of the Commonwealth and the police who work endlessly to protect the public.
From the Canons of the Judicial Review Committee:
Under Canon 3E:
“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or a personal knowledge of evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”
“Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply.”
Buchanan v. Buchanan:
“The judge must also consider the public’s perception of his or her fairness, so that the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is maintained.”
I believe it is fair to say that Judge Barkley’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and that Judge Barkley’s behavior has damaged “the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.” It certainly has damaged my confidence in the General District Court.
Thank you again for reading my position,
Jessamy Rouson
“The judge must also consider the public’s perception of his or her fairness, so that the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is maintained.”
Well Judge your behavior certainly causes me to question your fairness. I guess since I am a member of the public you screwed up….
The entire court system in Charlottesville is a little too cozy.
The way the Commonwealth attornies get paid by the state causes them to charge people with felonies and then drop them back to misdemeanors to qualify for money. It is nothing short of shafting someone for the sake of a few bucks and it is wrong. Peoples lives have been destroyed by this behavior and it should be investigated and reported on.
Good luck with you civil case…
Jessamy, the problem is you said that you believe that no attorney that was aware of the relationship would enter the waiver, but every attorney who has posted in response to this article has said that they would not have any reservations about arguing a case opposite an attorney from this firm in front of Judge Barkley. So you’re not right that “no attorney” would have consented. So far…all of them WOULD. Secondly, you stressed in your earlier post that you weren’t given time to read the waiver, and when called out on that you argue that there was no useful information in it anyway. I can’t help but think about Woody Allen’s complaint about a restaurant: “The food is terrible…and the portions are too small!” Do not be troubled about an attorney going into chambers before court. Again both parties must be conscious of appearances, but all of us attorneys go back into chambers now and again. If we were going to hatch some nefarious plot…we could probably figure out how to hide it a little better. I’ve had inmate clients suspect me of selling them out because they came into the courtroom in the morning when I was arriving and was shaking the prosecutor’s hand. You need to strongly consider having an attorney at your appeal. Call around until you find one that will take the case on a contingency basis. But representing yourself in a case against a seasoned practitioner of the law is dangerous, and I suspect it had a lot to do with the outcome of your case. I wish you better luck on the next go-round. But I think having a good attorney there with you will make much more difference than having a different judge will make.
This is merely the “just us” system: the best law money can buy with “conformed” lawyers and judges.
Fascist plutocracy’s “Golden Rule:” those with the gold rule, and decent citizens working hard labor to make an honest living can pound sand because all the silver-tongued fellowtraveling, law school Vietnam draft-dodgers know just which side needs buttering for their bread.
The victim’s integrity is not in question: “The defendant had confessed the crimes in full to the police - trespassing and destruction of property.”
Look and see to whom Laurel Olsen is married. Tough luck for the working stiff with manure on her boots.
Neither The Founder nor G-d is mocked.