MS Coast judge faces fine and reprimand for misconduct, state Supreme Court rules
Jackson County Court Judge Mark Watts will find himself on the opposite side of the bench in April when he is publicly reprimanded and fined for violating state laws on judicial conduct by representing clients from his private practice after the six-month period to do so.
In a ruling late Thursday night, the state Supreme Court upheld a recommendation from the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance to fine Watts $2,500 and order him to face a public reprimand before a higher court judge at the beginning of the next court term in October.
Watts, the ruling said, did not dispute the claims and agreed to the fine and reprimand for violating the state law on judicial requirements.
However, Watts said during previous testimony that he had not accepted additional payments from the clients he represented after the cut-off period.
In some of his testimony, Watts tried to explain his actions.
“I didn’t — I didn’t try to keep practicing law,” Watts testified. “That was not my intention. That is not what I was doing. I wasn’t trying to make money on the side. I didn’t take any new clients. I didn’t charge. I didn’t even get any money for any of the these cases other than what they paid me — maybe way before — to handle something.”
He said in testimony he did the only thing he thought he could do for those clients: “(I) said, ‘Well, I’m not going to take any money. I just got to get out. And the only way I knew to do that was file motions to withdraw or continue them until somebody could take over.”
The Sun Herald reached out to Watts on Friday for additional comment, but could not reach him.
State law says county court judges shall not practice law in any courts in the county or otherwise, other than bringing to a conclusion cases from private practice within six months of taking office. Anyone found in violation can face immediate removal from office.
The commission said it did not find any clear evidence that would have warranted his removal from office.
Watts served as the county’s longtime prosecutor before voters elected him Jackson County Court judge on Nov. 6, 2018. His term began on Jan. 1, 2019. He replaced retiring County Court Judge T. Larry Wilson.
The rules of the courts prevent a sitting judge from continuing to represent clients from a private practice over six months after their term in office begins.
In court filings, Watts admitted he continued to file paperwork and represent clients in court after the six-month period to do so.
Watts said in testimony before the judicial committee that he had not accepted any additional pay during that time, but instead had only received what he had been paid at the time the clients hired him.
Here’s a look at date and nature of the offenses:
- July 1, 2019, when Watts filed a contempt of court complaint on behalf of a client and later the same month when he appeared as her attorney. He also filed other paperwork and presented a proposed judgment in an estate before in court.
- Aug. 5-8, 2019: Watts went before a court as private counsel for four clients.
- Sept. 3-Nov. 4, 2019: Watts served as private counsel for two additional clients.
The issue surfaced after an opposing attorney filed court papers on Aug. 13, 2019, to request that Watts be removed as attorney in one of the cases because he is a sitting judge.
“This (state Supreme) Court is the ‘ultimate decision-maker in judicial performance cases’ and makes the final determination as to the appropriate action to be taken when a judge has committed willful misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute,” the commission wrote.
Judge Watts told the commission he did not realize he was violating the standard of professional conduct as a judge by filing paperwork or taking other actions in the cases.
In its finding, the commission said it had found no evidence to suggest Watts had intentionally acted in bad faith. Watts admitted knowing about the six-month expiration period but didn’t think what he was doing violated the judicial mandates, the report said.
In addition, the commission said in one case where he went to court on behalf of a client that he his violations resulted from “acts of charity motivated by a desire to help .... clients avoid hiring new counsel and paying legal fees they could not afford.”
