Maryland’s Judicial Discipline System Shows Rare Transparency as Virginia Moves Backward

By Michel Phillips | MDBayNews

As neighboring Virginia retreats into judicial secrecy, Maryland stands out in the Mid-Atlantic for maintaining a comparatively transparent system for handling serious judicial misconduct.

In Maryland, judges accused of sanctionable conduct do not quietly disappear behind closed doors once allegations become serious. When complaints advance to formal charges, the Commission on Judicial Disabilities (CJD) publishes charging documents, responses, hearing notices, and outcomes on its public website. In the most serious cases, the Supreme Court of Maryland issues written opinions explaining its disciplinary decisions.

That openness increasingly contrasts with Virginia, where lawmakers reinstated secrecy rules in 2025 that again shield even disciplined judges’ names and misconduct details from the public.

A System Designed for Public Accountability

Maryland’s judicial discipline framework is not permissive—but it is visible. Most complaints never become public. In fiscal year 2025 alone, the CJD received roughly 645 complaints, the overwhelming majority of which were dismissed as unfounded or resolved through confidential peer review.

But when misconduct is substantiated and rises to a serious level, the process becomes public by design. Formal charges, hearings, and final dispositions are posted online, and the state’s highest court retains ultimate authority.

Supporters argue this balance protects judicial independence while preserving public confidence that judges are not policing themselves in secret.

The Ademiluyi Case: A Rare Removal From the Bench

No case illustrates Maryland’s approach more clearly than the removal of April T. Ademiluyi, a Circuit Court judge in Prince George’s County.

Elected in 2020, Ademiluyi became the subject of extensive CJD investigations beginning in 2022. After evidentiary hearings and multiple rounds of charges, the Commission found clear and convincing evidence of widespread misconduct, including:

• Repeated refusal to comply with mandatory training and judicial mentorship
• Demonstrated bias and lack of impartiality in criminal cases
• Demeaning and antagonistic treatment of court staff and colleagues
• Harassment of a fellow judge despite requests to stop
• Retaliatory conduct tied to filing lawsuits against cooperating judges
• Failure to cooperate fully with disciplinary investigations

In February 2024, the CJD recommended public discipline and suspension. After additional proceedings, the Supreme Court of Maryland took the extraordinary step of removing Ademiluyi from office on May 6, 2024—only the fourth such removal in state history. A detailed opinion issued in August 2024 described her misconduct as “egregious” and “pervasive,” concluding it irreparably undermined judicial integrity.

While Ademiluyi has publicly claimed retaliation and whistleblower status, the Court rejected those arguments, and subsequent federal lawsuits have largely been dismissed.

Other Public Misconduct Cases (2024–2025)

Ademiluyi’s case was not an outlier in terms of transparency. Other judges facing serious allegations have also had their cases handled publicly:

• Vickie Gipson (Anne Arundel County Orphans’ Court): Multiple consolidated complaints alleging improper conduct, including filing a peace order listing herself as “Chief Judge” and engaging in unprofessional behavior toward colleagues. Charges were filed in 2024, with proceedings continuing into 2025–2026.
• Marc Knapp: Subject to multiple consolidated complaints with formal charges filed in 2024. Public filings show ongoing proceedings, though no final disposition has yet been reported.
• Jennifer Etheridge: Faced charges in a 2023–2024 matter that ultimately resolved through a consent agreement and discipline short of removal, approved by the Supreme Court.
• Anne Arundel County Orphans’ Court Altercations: The CJD publicly found misconduct involving verbal altercations between judges, highlighting how even lower-profile courts are not exempt from scrutiny.

In addition, some judges have retired during investigations, and others have been referred to peer review or remedial measures—outcomes noted in annual CJD reports even when names are not attached.

A Sharp Contrast With Virginia

Maryland’s openness now looks increasingly exceptional. In Virginia, a bipartisan transparency reform briefly exposed judicial misconduct in 2024—revealing cases of sexual harassment and conflicts of interest—before lawmakers unanimously reversed course in 2025. Once again, the public is barred from knowing which judges were disciplined or why.

Maryland has taken the opposite approach: shielding judges from frivolous complaints while insisting that serious misconduct be handled in the open.

Why It Matters

Judges wield immense power over liberty, property, families, and livelihoods. Public confidence in the courts depends not on the absence of misconduct, but on credible accountability when it occurs.

Maryland’s system does not produce many removals—but when discipline is imposed, the public can see the evidence, the reasoning, and the outcome. In an era of declining trust in institutions, that transparency may be the judiciary’s strongest defense.

---

Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free

MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.

If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.

👉 Support Local Journalism

Have a tip or documents to share?

We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.

 👉 Submit a Tip