Massachusetts Judge in Hot Water over Letters in Libel Case
In 2005, Massachusetts state court judge Ernest Murphy (pictured) won a $2.1 million libel verdict against the Boston Herald for a series criticizing his alleged lenient sentencing practices. Murphy sued over stories quoting “several courthouse sources” that allegedly heard Murphy say a teenage rape victim should “get over it.” Here’s the story, from the NLJ.
But after the original verdict, the Herald’s publisher, Patrick Purcell, received two letters from Murphy, written on the court’s letterhead, demanding payment of $3.26 million and telling Purcell that the Herald had little chance of winning on appeal. Murphy’s first letter warned Purcell that it would be a “mistake. In fact, a BIG mistake” to show the letter to anyone except “the gentleman whose authorized signature will be affixed to the check in question.” Murphy’s second letter said Purcell had “ZERO” chance of winning an appeal.
The Herald wound up paying Murphy $3.4 million including interest after Murphy won an appeal in May 2007.
Still, as it turns out, the sending of the letters just might catch up with Judge Murphy. The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended a $25,000 fine, a 30-day suspension without pay and a public censure for Judge Murphy for sending the letters. The commission made its recommendations to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which makes final rulings on judicial disciplinary cases.
The commission concluded that Murphy’s conduct was willful and that he attempted to both intimidate Purcell and persuade the Herald to pay him more than the courts had awarded him at that point in the case.
What does Judge Murphy care, he has the money.
“the sending of the letters just might catch up with Judge Murphy”. $25,000 - what a joke of a penalty, he still gets to keep millions!
Even in the world of the boneheaded Massachusetts judiciary, this idiot stands out. He has been on “Stress-related leave” since last Fall, and was last seen in public relieving his stress at the $100 window at Saratoga.
I suppose we would need to know more, but at first blush it would seem inappropriate to: (a) write the letters on court letterhead; and (b) write that it would be a big mistake to publicize the letter. But in all fairness the award did come through his position as a member of the judiciary, and he could have meant something non-threatening by his “big mistake” comment (such as, I could get more damages).
There’s always more than one side to every story.
Why are you appalled? The Herald libelled him. They didn’t think he would take them to court and they lost, even though Murphy was considered a public figure. He isn’t coming back to the bench anyway.
What is extortion?
Was the other reason that his letters were considered sanctionable was that they worked?
Obviously, he was right.He just went about it the wrong way. Result: a slap on the wrist, a vacation, and a letter in his file.Big deal. Whom did the Herald have as attorneys?
Can someone explain the exact nature of what was wrong with this - and make a stab at the point in fining him such a pittance?
Seems to me that for the letter to be threatening you kinda have to read a lot into it.
The leeterhead-period. The language is irrelevant and is standard posturing.
Tulane 2L - Obviously you have not taken professional responsibility or done your MPRE yet. Using the court’s letterhead in a situation like this is wrong because it gives the judge an appearance of impropriety, the public may think he is using his position in the judiciary to personal advantage. The small fine is because he didn’t really cause any harm or do anything truly improper. The public censure in most cases is a bigger deal than the fine.
Tulane 2L: Judges are not supposed to use their official letterhead to conduct personal business, such as demanding payment of a judgment.
Have you really made it through a year of law school already?
The Herald was represented by counsel. Judge Murphy was represented by counsel. A judge knows full well that people represented by counsel should let counsel do the communicating …
Even though he won the case against the Herald, Judge Murphy is still one of those scumbag judges who never saw a criminal he didn’t love.
C’mon “sheesh”, that was an inappropriate attack on a 2L.
It never ceases to amaze me that when improper conduct by a lawyer or a judge results in the lawyer or judge being “punished” by receiving a sanction that would hardly qualify as even a light slap on the wrist, the media still acts as though that very light tap on the wrist is severe punishment.
For instance, this particular judge collected 3.4 million dollars from his opponent, so therefore a twenty five thousand dollar sanction barely qualifies even as pocket change.
And a few months ago I read about a lawyer who for awhile had been charging extremely unsophisticated clients (if I remember correctly, they were recent immigrants who sspoke little or no English) about seven times more for his services than anything that could by any stretch of the imagination possibly be considered fair, appropriate, or reasonable. So the State Bar in the state that he operated in decided to “punish” that lawyer for taking unfair advantage of his clients and basically running a scam, ripoff, and theft operation.
That lawyer’s fees had been so outrageously high to those very unsophisticated clients, that therefore when he was caught he admitted he had charged many times too much, that he had taken unfair advantage, and he also said he was sorry and promised to cease and desist and not to do it anymore.
So how the State Bar “punish” that thief who used a pen and a briefcase instead of a gun to steal, and who everyone agreed, and including the lawyer, that he had been charging those clients at least seven times higher rates than anything that could possibly be considered reasonable and fair?
Did it make him give most or all of the money back to the clients he had so outrageously ripped off and stolen from? Did it suspend or disbar him?
No, all the State Bar made him do is give back only fifty percent of the money, and he and the State Bar and the newspaper reporter all agreed that supposedly he had been severely punished.
Mark, the State Bar only punishes an attorney for violations of the code of conduct. Those clients can still sue the attorney for damages.
Far worse is going on in the Massachusetts judicary. Judges who are willing to make false records for the benifit of insiders of the courts to steal property of others (such as lawyers seeking excessive fees, etc.) are openly and shamelessly promoted for their deeds. So, in the scheme of things, Murphy’s behavior is no big deal.
