A Private Reprimand From The Fifth Circuit With Dissents To Make It Public

I continue to remain confounded by the Eleventh Circuit’s Judicial Council decision to make Judge Betsy’s reprimand private. (Yes, I know her name, but Judge Betsy has stuck.)

As I noted in a post quickly written before sundown yesterday, the Council identified a clear conflict of interest, but left the public unaware of which judge possesses that conflict. How can litigants possibly determine if a judge should be disqualified if they do not know the identity of the judge? I would propose a per se rule: whenever the Council identifies a clear conflict of interest, the reprimand must be public.

How could it be that not a single member of the Eleventh Circuit Judicial council felt compelled to dissent? Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit does not even publish the names of the members of the Council on the memorandum, other than Chief Judge Pryor. I’ve been unable to find the current members of the Council anywhere online. I found another order from August 7, 2025 that lists the following names:

WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT, LUCK, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges; ALTONAGA, PROCTOR, HOWARD, GARDNER, BEAVERSTOCK, MARKS, BAKER, and WINSOR, Chief District Judges.*

I understand this membership may change every year, so I’m not sure which members remain.

I would gladly point to several distinguished members of the Fifth Circuit who took a different path.

In May 2024, the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council issued a private reprimand of a judge. The facts were serious:

A law enforcement agency filed a complaint against a United States district court judge. The complaint alleges that the subject judge revealed sensitive and confidential information regarding a law-enforcement public corruption investigation, which the judge learned in a sealed bench conference in a criminal case pending before him, to a family member. The complainant alleges that the information was eventually relayed to the target of the investigation, and that the disclosure allowed the target to attempt to obstruct the investigation and brought the investigation to an early end. The target of the investigation was convicted of obstruction of justice and other offenses.

But the “subject judge” was not outed because he was really, really sorry, and promised it would never happen again. (Sound familiar?)

In a letter to the Special Committee, the subject judge stated that he would never intentionally interfere with a law enforcement investigation and he understands the risks and consequences of disclosing confidential information about government investigations. He also committed to avoid such disclosures in the future. The Special Committee found the judge’s representations to be sincere and that his commitment to avoid such disclosures in the future appropriately addresses their concerns raised by the complaint.

Nineteen members of the Judicial Council considered this case:

RICHMAN, Chief Judge, ELROD, STEWART, COSTA, WILLETT, HO, DUNCAN, ENGELHARDT, OLDHAM, WILSON, ZAINEY, JACKSON, FOOTE, MILLS, REEVES, KINKEADE, ROSENTHAL, GILSTRAP, and MOSES

But four members dissented, and would have disclosed the name of the “subject judge”

Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, it is ordered that the name of the subject judge not be disclosed. Circuit Judges Jennifer W. Elrod, Gregg J. Costa and James C. Ho and District Judge Carlton W. Reeves would publicly disclose the name of the Judge who is the subject of the complaint.

Good for Judges Elrod, Costa, Ho, and Reeves. And for those keeping score at home, these judges are on very different positions along the ideological spectrum, yet they all agree on this important ethical issue: people who misbehave should receive public scrutiny.

Other judges on the Council, who I know and respect, were silent. Why?

While I’m at it, let me raise another issue. It is unclear when the original complaint was filed. But this case stretched at least 2.5 years. A footnote lays out this timeline:

The judges named in the caption were members of the Judicial Council when this matter was considered and approved by the Council in November 2021, and they concurred in the decision. Judge Costa resigned from the Court effective August 31, 2022. The Judicial Council terms of Judges Willett, Ho, Duncan, Foote, and Rosenthal expired December 31, 2021.

It took nearly three years to settle this matter. In the interim, Judge Costa had resigned from the court, and other members were no longer participating on the Council. I favor a legislative reform to put a clock on settling these matters. The public needs to know about misconduct in a timely fashion.