The Louisiana Judiciary Commission just released a 70 page plus decision regarding Shreveport City Judge Sheva Sims.
The case arose out of multiple instances and types of ethical misconduct by Judge Sims, “all of which reflect her continued belief that her position as a judge enables her to act with impunity.
The Supreme Court had previously suspended Judge Sims for 30 days without pay after she held a city court prosecutor in contempt for conduct that was not contemptuous and impermissibly dismissed 15 of the prosecutor’s criminal cases without legal authority to do so.
Judge Sims had previously been admonished by the Commission for being habitually late to court and for demanding that disciplinary action be taken against a deputy marshal over whom she had no supervisory authority.
The Commission reported that “Judge Sims’ varied misconduct in the present proceedings, which includes her extended use of a public-funded vehicle for her commute , a display of advocacy for a litigant, and a pattern of failing to follow the law regarding required bond conditions—and which she disputes is wrongful—makes clear that Judge Sims continues to treat the court as her fiefdom and is indifferent to whether she is abusing or exceeding her judicial authority and acting contrary to the law or her ethical obligations, as further evidenced by her lack of contrition in the present proceedings’’.
The Judiciary Commission’s case against Judge Sime arose out of numerous complaints lodged against her by litigants, anonymous complaints, and retired Justice E. Joseph Bleich in his capacity as a supernumerary judge pro tempore of Shreveport City Court.
Eight members of the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that Judge Sims be suspended from office for one year without pay. Three members opposed this recommendation, and three members were not present for the vote. The Commission’s recommendations will now go to the Louisiana Supreme Court for determination.
The Commission also recommended to the Supreme Court that Judge Sims be ordered to reimburse the Commission $11,602.56 for costs incurred by the Commission Hearing Officer, the Office of Special Counsel, and the Commission itself.
A follow-up column will be posted with more details on the findings, the timeline for adjudication by the Supreme Court and other matters related to the Commission’s finding.