In re Cullins

Citation481 P.3d 774
Decision Date26 February 2021
Docket NumberNo. 122,565,122,565
Parties In the MATTER OF F. William CULLINS, District Judge, Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas

Todd N. Thompson, Examiner, Commission on Judicial Conduct, of Thompson-Hall P.A., of Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the brief for the petitioner.

Christopher M. Joseph, of Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Carrie E. Parker, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for the respondent, and F. William Cullins, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING RELATING TO JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Per Curiam:

This is a contested proceeding against F. William Cullins (Respondent) relating to his judicial conduct. Respondent is a district judge in the Fourteenth Judicial District, consisting of Montgomery and Chautauqua counties.

Panel A of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications (Commission) held a four-day formal, public hearing, beginning December 9, 2019. After taking the matter under advisement, the panel found Respondent had engaged in conduct which violated the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct (the Code) as follows: Canon 1—A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety—by violating Canon 1, Rule 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 446); and Canon 2—A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently—by violating Canon 2, Rule 2.3 (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment) and Canon 2, Rule 2.8 (Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 448). The panel also found there were areas of great concern, specifically that it was not the "best practice" to take his concerns about procedures in the county attorney's office to the public arena and that it was not appropriate for him to exercise his authority as a judge over nonjudicial officers to perform work on behalf of the court.

The parties had stipulated to certain facts before the formal hearing. Those facts are not in dispute, but Cullins challenges their significance insofar as they apply to the Code.

After the hearing and arguments, the panel made the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations:

"FINDINGS OF FACT
"Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 619(b), the Panel finds that the Examiner has proved the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.
"1. Respondent frequently used the word ‘fuck’ and its derivatives when speaking to or near employees and/or others at the courthouse.
"2. Lance Carter served as a district court clerk in Independence for nearly 12 years. Mr. Carter regularly overheard Respondent's use of obscenities. He created a swear journal documenting multiple instances of Respondent's profanity. Mr. Carter did not intend the swear journal to document all of Respondent's profanity.
"3. Mr. Carter received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation from a supervisor in August 2015. When Mr. Carter asked Respondent to discuss the evaluation, Respondent called Mr. Carter into Respondent's office and said, ‘Carter, go sit down in that fucking chair and don't you say a fucking word.’ Respondent proceeded to yell and scream at Mr. Carter, using profanity.
"4. 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.
"5. Joni Pratt started as Chief Clerk of the District Court of Montgomery County in 2015. Ms. Pratt oversaw a remodeling project in the Coffeyville Clerk's Office in October 2016. Part of the remodeling project included new carpeting. One day, Travis Brock and Andre Ysusi were laying carpet in the law library. Ms. Pratt asked the Respondent whether these carpet layers could install some of the extra carpet in the elevators.
"6. In response to Ms. Pratt's question, Respondent became ‘very angry’ and told Ms. Pratt that he didn't give a fuck about the carpeting and that that wasn't our fucking building’ and that she should call the city manager. Ms. Pratt described Respondent's tone as frightening, loud, aggressive and scary.
"7. After her lunch break, Ms. Pratt approached Respondent and told him she was embarrassed about the incident. Respondent told her, ‘If you think I'm going to fucking apologize to you, I'm not.’ Three days later Respondent called Ms. Pratt into his office and told her ‘I got to thinking about what you said to me, and there's no fucking way that those fucking inmates heard me.’ Ms. Pratt told Respondent it was the carpet layers who heard him, not inmates.
"8. Travis Brock heard Respondent yell at Joni Pratt about laying carpet in the elevator. Mr. Brock heard Respondent say something along the lines of ‘F' that, we're not doing that.’ Respondent's reaction was ‘extreme’ under the circumstances. Mr. Brock was so uncomfortable that he put his head down and ‘literally crawled back into the room I was working in.’
"9. In June 2018, Joni Pratt resigned from the clerk's office. She asked Judge Gettler to accompany her to Respondent's office as she tendered her resignation. After she told Respondent that she was giving two weeks' notice of her resignation, she left the office and started walking down the hall. Ms. Pratt heard Respondent yell ‘Yahoo.’ Judge Gettler heard the outburst. The Panel finds that Respondent knew or should have known that his comment would be overheard by Ms. Pratt and others.
"10. Former Attorney General Curt Schneider, now a lawyer practicing in Coffeyville, heard Respondent use the terms "bitch", "cunt", et cetera’ in referring to females.
"11. Mr. Schneider's legal assistant, Ann Rooks, overheard Respondent use profanity. Mr. Schneider had asked Ms. Rooks to call Respondent to enter Mr. Schneider's appearance and request a hearing in a court matter pending before Respondent. Mr. Schneider's testimony about Ms. Rooks' statements was admitted without objection.
"12. 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.
"13. Tim Emert, a lawyer from Independence, heard Respondent's use of obscenities so regularly that it was ‘just routine.’ Mr. Emert heard Respondent use the words ‘bitch’ and ‘cunt’ in describing females. Mr. Emert also heard Respondent use both of these words in the same sentence in talking about the same women.
"14. The Panel is cognizant of a potential discrepancy between the testimony of Mr. Emert and the testimony of attorney Dan Reynolds, of the same firm, on the subject of Respondent's use of the words ‘bitch’ and ‘cunt’ in reference to specific women. On the one hand, Mr. Emert testified that Respondent used those terms in a conversation directly with Mr. Emert. On the other hand, Mr. Reynolds testified that Mr. Emert told Mr. Reynolds that Mr. Emert ‘heard from another person’ that Respondent had used those terms. The panel finds the testimony of both Mr. Emert and Mr. Reynolds highly credible. Based on the evidence presented, including witness demeanor, the panel believes that Respondent in fact used these derogatory terms in a conversation with Mr. Emert, and that either (a) Mr. Reynolds misunderstood what Mr. Emert had told him, or (b) Mr. Emert elected for whatever reason not to reveal to Mr. Reynolds that Mr. Emert was the person who heard Respondent use the words. Mr. Emert's testimony before the Panel was under oath, and accordingly, Mr. Emert was obligated to tell the Panel the whole truth. The Panel is convinced that he did.
"15. Respondent stipulated that he wrote ‘Larry said so doesn't fucking cut it’ on a document. The document was an arrest warrant packet prepared by the Office of Montgomery County Attorney Larry Markle. Assistant County Attorney Lisa Montgomery prepared the warrant packet. Montgomery County has two dockets, one in Independence and the other in Coffeyville. Certain traffic cases were assigned to the magistrate judge in Coffeyville.
"16. Ms. Montgomery sent the arrest warrant packet to the district court clerk's office. Respondent sent the packet back to the Montgomery District Attorney's Office with the following language printed in large print on the front page of the arrest warrant: ‘This is a traffic case that needs to be filed in c-ville or I need a better explanation. [signed] Cullins. Larry said so doesn't fucking cut it. [signed] Cullins.’ The document has an arrow pointing to Larry with language that says, ‘It used too [sic ]."
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"1. RULE 1.2
"Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
‘A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.’
"Under Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct a judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Public confidence is eroded by a judge's improper conduct. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Rule 1.2, Cmt 1 (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 441.) ‘Integrity’ under the Judicial Code includes the qualities of fairness and soundness of character. Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the integrity of a judge undermines public confidence in
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • In re Williams
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 4, 2023
    ...one piece in a litany of other serious racial remarks that painted the use of "boy" in a racial light. Specifically, in Matter of Cullins, 481 P.3d 774 (Kan. 2021), judge, during a bond hearing for a young African-American man had asked whether he was a "Kansas boy."42[] The judge then aske......
  • In re Cullins
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 31, 2022
    ...duties in the state of Kansas for one year in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 620(f) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 536). In re Cullins , 312 Kan. 798, 481 P.3d 774 (2021).On June 14, 2021, the court conditionally stayed the suspension and restored Judge Cullins' judicial duties for the remaind......
  • In re Cullins, 122,565
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • June 14, 2021
    ...waiving any remaining period of suspension. Finally, the court assessed the costs of the proceedings to respondent. In re Cullins , 312 Kan. 798, 481 P.3d 774 (2021).Judge Cullins has since paid the assessed costs of the proceedings and submitted a plan for training and counseling (the Plan......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT