Judge Flip Wilson

Judge Flip Wilson

The Commission on Judicial Conduct "found that the misconduct [of Judge
Ernest Murphy] wasn’t willful." (Jessica Van Sack, "Report urges public
reprimand for judge," Boston Herald, November 22, 2007) Does that mean that the
devil made him do it?

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Report urges public reprimand for judge
By Jessica Van Sack
Boston Herald
Thursday, November 22, 2007 - Updated 3d 3h ago

A hearing officer yesterday released a report recommending that Superior Court
Judge Ernest B. Murphy be publicly reprimanded for “conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice and unbecoming of a judicial officer” in sending two
bizarre and “threatening” letters to the publisher of the Boston Herald.

Retired Judge Peter W. Kilborn - tapped to preside over Murphy’s hearing on
charges of willful misconduct filed by the Commission on Judicial Conduct -
found that the misconduct wasn’t willful but that Murphy was “imprudent” in
sending the letters to the publisher of a major metropolitan newspaper. Kilborn
also found that dispatching the letters constituted an attempt to use the
“prestige” of his bench to advance his own interests.

The charges stem from handwritten missives Murphy sent on court stationery after
winning a 2005 libel verdict against the Boston Herald following a series of
critical stories.

In one letter, Murphy demands that Herald Publisher Patrick J. Purcell come to a
lunch meeting with a check for $3.26 million, roughly $500,000 greater than the
sum of his judgment plus interest at the time.

Purcell released a statement yesterday saying, “We are pleased with the hearing
officer’s report and will await the further proceedings before the Commission on
Judicial Conduct and ultimately the Supreme Judicial Court.”

Kilborn’s 27-page finding is hardly the final say. The Commission on Judicial
Conduct is slated to consider Kilborn’s recommendation before it submits its
final report to the Supreme Judicial Court, which will then render the decision
as to what penalties, if any, Murphy will face. The process is expected to take
several months.

In Murphy’s first letter to Purcell, dated Feb. 20, 2005, the judge wrote, “You
will bring to that meeting a cashier’s check, payable to me, in the sum of
$3,260,000. No check, no meeting.”

In a second letter, dated March 18, 2005, Murphy told Purcell he had “ZERO
chance” of reversing the jury’s verdict on appeal.

“‘Do what I say or you’ll be sorry’ is the message,” Kilborn writes of Murphy’s
letters. “The recipient of such communications can reasonably apprehend that a
judge can find ways to make good on threats.”

In his recommendation, Kilborn also writes:“A reasonable person, on reading the
letters, reacts by asking, ‘what could the judge have been thinking when he sent
those?”’