Although not an attorney, a South Carolina probate judge’s social media use constituted impermissible judicial conduct
A South Carolina probate judge has had a second run-in with the state supreme court for impermissible social media posts. In an order published on October 13, 2021, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued Judge Kenneth “Kenny” E. Johns, Jr. an eighteen-month suspension, partly in response to a 2018 Facebook post where the judge solicited hurricane relief donations to the American Red Cross. In addition to the suspension, the court ordered Johns to take an online judicial ethics training and pay the costs of the proceedings.
According to the order, the Facebook post in question read, “For my birthday this year, I’m asking for donations to American Red Cross. I’ve chosen this nonprofit because of food, water, and much more provided for those affected by Hurricane Florence in NC & SC.” Johns’ Facebook page identified himself as a probate judge of the Oconee County Probate Court.
In reference to the Facebook post, the judge admitted his conduct violated provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct that prohibit “the use of the prestige of judicial office to advance interests of the judge or others” and prohibit “a judge from personally participating in the solicitation of funds or other fundraising activities[.]”
The opinion also cited a second instance subject to disciplinary review, regarding a certification for submission in litigation pending wherein Johns attested, “I am aware of the fact that there is a claim in New Jersey that [Mr. S.] has made fraudulent conveyances of his mother’s money. THIS IS A COMPLETE AND UNADULTERATED LIE, AND COMPLETELY UNTRUE. There is NO VALIDITY TO THAT STATEMENT AT ALL.” Judge Johns, Jr. admitted to violating other provisions of the judicial conduct code here as well, including a provision that directly prohibits a judge from testifying voluntarily as a character witness.
Interestingly, the opinion notes that Judge Johns, Jr. is not a licensed attorney in South Carolina. In South Carolina, probate judges do not have to be lawyers. The opinion was sure to point out that regardless of his status as an attorney, “as an officer of the unified judicial system eligible to perform judicial functions in South Carolina, he is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Conduct.”
Johns’ eighteen-month suspension is actually the second time the South Carolina Supreme Court has suspended the probate judge: according to the ABA Journal, in 2016 “the state supreme court imposed a six-month suspension following Johns’ social media posts commenting on a matter pending before the court, endorsing a presidential candidate, and engaging in fundraising for a local church.” Judge Johns had apparently removed reference to himself as a judge on his Facebook page after his initial 2016 suspension, yet restored the reference and Facebook-fundraised in contravention of his original assurance “that he will do nothing further that could damage the reputation of the probate court.”
Although Johns was pushing for a lighter sanction, his attorney, Larry Brandt, called the judgment fair when speaking to Reuters. Because Johns was not an attorney, Brandt suggested that when Johns was posting, he “would have benefited from the help of lawyers who understood judicial ethics.” Brandt further added that Johns is “not a lawyer, but that doesn’t excuse violating the canon. Obviously if you’re not a lawyer you need to study a little bit and try to figure out what you can and can’t do.” The court seemed to agree, as it ordered Johns to complete an online judicial ethics training in addition to his eighteen-month suspension.
For our latest coverage on judicial ethics and social media, click here.
