The Times spoke to three of Judge Ross’s clerks and obtained an apology letter that some described as alarmingly ambiguous.
For weeks on end, I have been taken aback by the lack of coverage from the major outlets regarding the Judge Ross affair. In particular, I was astonished that neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post weighed in. I even noted how Bloomberg Law seemed to be out in front with the story.
As it turns out, the Times had something substantial in the works. Reporters Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs and Mattathias Schwartz published a piece this morning about Judge Ross, and it reveals a great deal. They spoke with three former law clerks and obtained a signed apology letter she drafted as part of a judicial reprimand.
The New York Times confirmed Judge Ross’s identity through interviews with three former clerks and two people familiar with the matter, and obtained the apology letter she wrote as part of a judicial reprimand.
First, the piece illuminates a long-standing secret passed from one year’s clerk to the next:
For years, Judge Eleanor Ross’s secret was handed down from law clerk to law clerk.
Whispers spoke of sultry jazz drifting from her chambers when a uniformed police commander—someone they referred to as her “visitor”—slipped into her private office. The clerks could sometimes hear unmistakable sounds of intimacy behind the door.
They chalked it up as one of the burdens of serving under Judge Ross, who routinely rubber-stamped drafts and added little beyond that before issuing them as rulings. Yet the clerks at the Atlanta courthouse felt powerless: should they report their married boss, a federal judge, for conducting a clandestine in-office relationship with a law enforcement officer?
One day last year, a clerk did exactly that.
Second, Judge Fogel—unlike Judge Wood—spelled out the obvious. The punishment imposed was woefully inadequate.
Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal judge who advises on ethics questions, noted that some in the judiciary disagreed with how Judge Ross’s case had been resolved. “Many of the sitting judges I’ve spoken with believe the findings, taken as a whole, warranted a more substantial sanction,” he said.
Another judge who remained unnamed wrote to me, challenging and demanding that I apologize for my post about Judge Wood. I added an update to my post, but my criticism remains even stronger in light of the correction.
Third, we learn more about her chambers:
She settled on the 17th floor of the federal courthouse, occupying an office furnished with two couches, a meeting table, and windows that looked out on the Atlanta Falcons’ stadium.
Among the room’s decorations was a portrait of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg paired with a lyric from a Beyoncé and Drake song overlaid: “All them fives need to listen when a ten is talking.” Elsewhere, she displayed an apology letter from a lawyer she had chastised for being underdressed and underprepared in court.
During their first year of the renowned two-year clerkship, Judge Ross’s clerks sat at a desk mere feet from the door to her office. In addition to handling their legal duties, they were responsible for greeting visitors and kept a small CCTV screen nearby to monitor who was outside.
And details about the sexual conduct:
Thus it was odd to see a uniformed police officer walk down the hallway toward the back door of Judge Ross’s office.
The walls were thin, and the clerks could sometimes hear music and the judge and officer chatting. Then the music would fade, and the talking would stop. On other occasions, what they overheard was more explicit.
The three clerks told The Times their stomachs churned once they realized what was taking place. But combined with her other actions, it also represented something deeply painful: a person in a position they held in high regard, a person whose job was to interpret America’s laws, appeared not to care about how they cared.
Fourth, the clerks grew even more distressed by her blatant disregard for the civil docket. They assert that barely five percent of civil orders were reviewed, and even then only for typos and grammar.
One clerk felt as if the very foundation of their faith in the legal system had been ripped away, leaving them to wonder whether they should stay in the field of law.
While the clerks said they might have tolerated isolated personal missteps, they were far more unsettled by the broad neglect Judge Ross showed toward civil disputes brought before her.
While Judge Ross was occupied with criminal matters, the clerks—many newly minted lawyers—told investigators that she largely let them decide how to rule on pivotal motions in civil cases. It was not unusual for weeks to pass without much input from her beyond a brief email—“Please docket”—a few minutes after they had sent her a draft order, according to three clerks.
They estimated that she edited roughly five percent of the civil orders drafted in her name, and even then mainly for grammar or typographical issues.
Judge Ross later disputed the clerks’ account to the judicial committee, claiming edits on thirty to forty percent of drafts.
The Eleventh Circuit could have cross-checked her draft orders against the final published orders, but chose not to pursue this line of inquiry.
Fifth, the Times obtained a copy of the “apology” note. I would describe the letter as woefully insufficient; it reads like a bare apology to avoid offense rather than a genuine acknowledgment.
Ultimately, the committee required the judge to send apology letters to the six law clerks who spoke with investigators.
The committee stated the letters “should be sufficiently specific so as to make clear to the recipient the sexual misconduct for which the judge is apologizing.”
The letters she sent, dated May 27, were three sentences long and identical.
“Thank you for your contributions to our court during your clerkship,” Judge Ross wrote, according to a copy obtained by The Times. “I offer my deepest apologies for not taking steps to ensure it was a more positive experience. I wish you all the best in your future legal endeavors and in life.”
I wonder if ChatGPT wrote this?
Sixth, the clerks found the letter “alarmingly unclear.”
The three former clerks who spoke to The Times described the letter as alarmingly unclear. One even decided to share it with the chief judge of the 11th Circuit, believing it did not satisfy the committee’s directive.
I agree. The whistleblower clerk should escalate this matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Chief Justice needs to address this fiasco.
Seventh, the Times managed to secure statements from members of the Atlanta bar.
Judge Timothy C. Batten, a former colleague of Judge Ross on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, worried that her conduct would color how the public perceives courts and judges.
“I’m truly sorry this happened and it reflects poorly on the court,” he said in an interview. Judge Batten retired last year as the district court’s chief judge and said he had never before heard of Judge Ross’s misconduct.
Now, some in Atlanta’s legal community wonder whether Judge Ross’s career will endure.
“I don’t know where you go from here,” said Don Samuel, a longtime Atlanta criminal defense attorney who has known and respected Judge Ross for years.
“There’s so much snickering around town that I can’t imagine what it will be like to sit on the bench and hear people wondering what others are thinking,” he added.
I hope this reporting triggers impeachment talk.
