Judge in Orange County

Several times Orange county business has been brought to what one newspaper called a near standstill. In December 2007 assistant side Judge Pease filed a complaint against her County clerk and her assistant for alleged assault and unlawful restraint. The clerk and assistant asked for action against Pease for filing false charges against them. Neither the complaint of alleged assault and unlawful restraint during a confrontation in Pease’s office or the false filing issue were pursued after an investigation by the attorney general’s office.

Last month a letter recommending careful investigation signed by eight state legislators was sent to the chairman of the state Judicial Conduct Board listing 13  allegations  involving allegedly  misappropriating funds, acting contrary to specific recommendations made by both the County auditor and the State Auditor of Accounts and engaging in malicious and harassing behavior toward County employees.

The Rutland Herald reports today that assistant side Judge Pease has been ordered   to take a course in judicial ethics. It was unclear from the article if this was related to the May 2009 letter to the Judicial Conduct Board.

Conduct Board disciplines judge

MONTPELIER – The Vermont Judicial Conduct Board is imposing “deferred discipline” against an Orange County judge.

….Robert Keiner, chairman of the Judicial Conduct Board, says the action against Assistant Judge Prudence Pease stems from complaints that she favored a party in a 2007 traffic court case and that she commented publicly about a confidential employee matter.

……Pease, who didn’t admit misconduct, must now take a course in judicial ethics.


About Vermont side judges: An elected office that in addition to hearing, uncontested divorce cases, small claims and traffic cases are administrators for the county also creates a county budget which is passed along to the county’s 17 towns and taxpayers.

2 thoughts on “Judge in Orange County

  1. The judicial conduct process is a quasi-judicial process that begins with filing of a formal written complaint, responses by the accused judge, investigation of the factual allegations, and, sometimes, evidentiary hearings.

    In this case, here’s what an earlier article from the Randolph Herald says about the allegations that formed the basis of the complaint:

    The long-awaited JCB ruling was a response to multiple complaints dating back almost two years. Keiner said that several of the complainants “referenced the same behavior on the part of the judge, all of which boiled down to seven allegations of misconduct.

    “Of those seven, five were determined to be without merit and have been dismissed.” Keiner declined to comment about any of the charges that were dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *