photo by: Journal-World File

Judge Stacey Donovan, left, and Judge Sally Pokorny, both with the Douglas County District Court, are pictured.

Updated at 7:21 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2023

Suzanne Valdez’s conduct as district attorney has been “offensive,” “embarrassing” and unprofessional, and it has negatively impacted the administration of justice in Douglas County, two District Court judges testified on Wednesday at Valdez’s disciplinary hearing in Topeka.

“We can’t believe this is happening. We can’t believe this is the world we are living in,” Judge Sally Pokorny said of the impressions of local judges at regular meetings that are now largely consumed with discussing the “tension” and difficulties that Valdez’s behavior has created.

Despite the turmoil — and the special prosecutor’s recommendation to the hearing panel that Valdez’s law license should be suspended for a year — Valdez told the Journal-World after Wednesday’s hearing that she “absolutely” intended to run for reelection in 2024.

Pokorny, who has been on the bench since 2009, and Judge Stacey Donovan, who has been on the bench since 2020, both shared their experiences with a three-member panel with the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys that is hearing Special Prosecutor Kimberly Bonifas’ case against Valdez, a Democrat who was elected in 2020.

Pokorny, testifying first on Wednesday after other judges had given similar testimony earlier in the week, described an atmosphere at the Douglas County Courthouse where judges and others walked on eggshells trying to protect the public’s view of the judicial system after Valdez has shown no hesitation to “smear” and “tar” the court in a “Facebook war” when she disagrees with judges.

Donovan agreed that the district judges in the past few years have been treating the Valdez situation with “kid gloves.”

“We just don’t know what is going to set off something else” from Valdez’s office that would unjustly cast the court in a negative light, she said.

“There’s a black cloud hanging over everyone’s head,” she added later.

photo by: Chris Conde/Journal-World

Douglas County District Attorney Suzanne Valdez is pictured at her disciplinary hearing on Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2023, at the Kansas Judicial Center in Topeka. With her are Deputy District Attorney Joshua Seiden, center, and Stephen Angermayer, Valdez’s attorney.

Pokorny and Donovan both addressed well-known public comments that Valdez had made claiming or insinuating that Chief Judge James McCabria was a sexist, racist liar. The comments arose after Valdez disputed the resumption of jury trials during the COVID pandemic, claiming she wasn’t consulted during the process — a claim that the court has vigorously denied.

Both Pokorny and Donovan defended McCabria’s character. Pokorny said she has known McCabria since 1994 and she described him as “one of the nicest and kindest men I’ve ever met in my life.”

She said that Valdez’s attack on him “has torn him apart” and that he was especially “devastated” by the harm that Valdez’s comments had done to the public’s perception of the court. Pokorny said Valdez’s attack on McCabria and other behavior from her had been an “upsetting experience for the last three years.”

Pokorny said that McCabria, whose conduct is governed by a judicial code of ethics, had not involved himself in any type of “tit for tat” with Valdez and that he has consistently taken the “high road.”

Donovan said the same during her testimony, describing McCabria as “incredibly formal,” polite and attentive to his ethical obligations as a judge, including to not engage in a public dispute with attorneys.

“He’s very thoughtful in how he treats people,” she said. His inability to publicly counter Valdez’s comments has been hard, if necessary, to watch.

Donovan and Pokorny both described instances of being out in public and being asked about the situation with Valdez. Though judges are bound to not indulge such conversations, Donovan said the fact that people had such questions was “uncomfortable and embarrassing.”

“It’s eroded the public’s trust in the judicial system,” she said. “Just last night I was in a restaurant and was asked about it.” She said she had even personally seen McCabria get questioned in public.

When asked about Valdez’s reputation in the legal community, Donovan testified that when Valdez was elected people were “curious” about how she would do, especially because Valdez, a law professor, came from an academic setting and didn’t have much trial experience. But people were hopeful, Donovan said.

Does Valdez, three years into her term, have a good reputation? Bonifas asked Donovan.

“I would say no,” Donovan replied.

Pokorny echoed those sentiments, saying that she “could hardly go three days” without someone asking, “What is going on in the DA’s office?”

Pokorny described how relations between the DA’s office and the bench had changed since Valdez became DA. She said that judges and the DA’s office could previously “come together” to discuss court matters, but that had “completely fallen apart” with Valdez. Pokorny said the resulting tension “is ongoing even today” and that there was no trust at all between Valdez and the district judges.

Donovan said that judges were careful to put communications in writing so that they could not be publicly misconstrued and spun by Valdez, and she indicated that judges did not like to meet with Valdez alone for the same reason.

“We meet with her with more than one person (present) just out of an abundance of caution,” she said.

Donovan also addressed Valdez’s claim that McCabria sat in on trials conducted by other judges so that he could keep an eye on Valdez or somehow intimidate her.

“Absolutely not,” Donovan said. McCabria frequently watches other trials in the courthouse, where he is chief judge, and the practice has nothing at all to do with Valdez, she said.

In addition to McCabria, Pokorny also came to the defense of Valdez’s former employee Eve Kemple, who had worked as a prosecutor in Pokorny’s division for three years. Valdez in response to the disciplinary complaint against her had impugned Kemple’s job performance and conduct and claimed that Kemple had left the office because she was tied to an old way of doing things when she worked for the previous DA.

Pokorny called Kemple an “excellent attorney” who was always prepared and was “100% honest” with her. She said Kemple loved her job and appeared to work at least 60 hours a week. She had hoped to retire from the DA’s office, but that hope faded, Pokorny said, when difficulties with Valdez arose.

Donovan additionally discussed how Valdez’s comments about resuming jury trials had been harmful to Judge Amy Hanley, who had led a state task force on the COVID-related issue.

It was “at a minimum offensive,” Donovan said of Valdez’s conduct toward Hanley and her insinuations that the court was not adequately considering public safety. Her comments were “dismissive of all the hard work Judge Hanley did,” Donovan said.

Though Valdez tearfully indicated the day before at her hearing that she was sorry and embarrassed about her conduct, Pokorny told the hearing panel that Valdez had never publicly acknowledged that she had done anything wrong but instead persisted in blaming others and describing the disciplinary case against her as “frivolous.”

Valdez’s testimony resumed on Wednesday after the two judges testified.

Despite multiple female judges singing McCabria’s praises, Valdez persisted Wednesday with her claim that McCabria is sexist. She said she came to that conclusion shortly after McCabria, who worked as a prosecutor in DA Charles Branson’s office, was sworn in as a judge in 2014. She told the panel that she was in his court representing a woman during a contentious divorce from a male athlete, who was not named. Valdez claimed that McCabria treated her differently from the man’s lawyer — that he seemed deferential to the male athlete but would interrupt Valdez, for example. Valdez said she discussed with her client whether it would be better for her to be represented by a man in front of McCabria.

Valdez also indicated repeatedly that she believed that media reports rather than her own behavior had affected the public’s perception of the judicial system and had consistently cast her in a bad light. She said that she had been on the front page of the newspaper 15 times in relation to her alleged conduct toward the court and that all the press had been negative.

Valdez answered a series of questions from her attorney, Stephen Angermayer, of Pittsburg, about specific instances during her term when she and her office worked collaboratively with the court. She described the culture in her office as egalitarian, happy and professional, with policies encouraging employees to bring in their dogs regularly and even their children when need be.

Valdez said there were other people in her office who asked if they could speak to the panel on her behalf, but she said she would not allow any more employees to get involved.

“This is on me. I’m not going to parade people in here,” Valdez said.

Bonifas later said that Valdez’s handling of witnesses in the disciplinary hearing was an aggravating factor that the panel should consider when deciding on a punishment. In closing arguments, she said that Valdez went out of her way to demand that two employees of the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, Krystal Vokins and Gayle Larkin, recuse themselves from this case because Valdez expected to call them as witnesses, but that neither of them had been called or even mentioned during the hearing.

On cross-examination, Valdez said she took issue with Bonifas calling her actions “conduct” and said that her press release and Facebook post about McCabria were “speech” and therefore protected. Bonifas pointed out that the attorney code of professional conduct made no distinction and that “speech” was considered conduct.

Valdez said she also took issue with how Bonifas involved former employees who left the office. Bonifas said that in her own complaint, there were just a few lines about the former employees, while in Valdez’s response, there were nearly 11 pages worth of attacks and allegations against her former employees.

Valdez was adamant that she had tried to apologize to McCabria and the other judges, but in response to repeated questions from Bonifas she said that she did not actually apologize to any of them at any point, via email or otherwise, despite being in the same building with them every day for years.

“I was hoping it was going to blow over,” Valdez said, later adding that “I have not been given the opportunity until this process.”

Bonifas asked what Valdez did to try to reach out to the judges. Valdez said that on two occasions she tried to get the county administrator and retired judge Kevin Moriarty, who works as a criminal mediator in the county, to set up a meeting to “work things out.” She said that she thought the judges would listen to Moriarty, a fellow judge, but that on both occasions McCabria refused to meet with her.

Bonifas later called McCabria back to testify about this, and McCabria said the county administrator did tell him that Valdez had asked the county to get involved and set up a meeting. But he also recalled the administrator telling him that the County Commission declined to get involved, as it was “not their role.”

McCabria also said that while he was reluctant to discuss the pending complaint against Valdez with anyone, he had discussed Valdez’s actions once with Moriarty after Moriarty had “seen it in the media.” After they talked, McCabria recalled, “Moriarty said Ms. Valdez has some things to learn about how to get along.”

Moriarty never broached the subject of setting up a meeting, McCabria said.

In closing arguments, Bonifas said that the harm that Valdez did to the public by the amount of time and productivity the court had lost was “immeasurable.” Bonifas said Valdez knowingly harmed the court, the profession and McCabria’s reputation; she said the harm to Valdez’s former employees was grave, both on a professional level and in terms of the stress they endured.

Bonifas also argued that Valdez had repeatedly attempted to shift blame to other people.

“She blames Branson, McCabria and her employees. Everyone has done something wrong but her,” Bonifas said.

Angermayer closed by saying that Valdez’s actions stemmed from her state of mind as a new DA going through a divorce in the midst of the COVID pandemic, and that the panel should not punish her for that. He said that in the situation that sparked the controversy — the resumption of trials during COVID — Valdez had only 54 days to get ready for high-level trials at an untested location that Valdez had testified had no written security plan in place.

“Were her comments ill-advised? Yes. Is she remorseful? Yes,” Angermayer said. Angermayer had recommended in his opening arguments that if Valdez were punished in any way, she should receive nothing more than a public censure.

The special prosecutor’s formal complaint specifically alleges that Valdez violated four parts of the state code governing attorney conduct:

• Making a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge;

• Engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct degrading to a tribunal;

• Engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

• And engaging in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

The panel for the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys will render a decision at a later date. Those panel members — all Wichita-based attorneys — are Stacy Ortega, Gaye Tibbets and Sylvia Penner. They will consider the three days of testimony they’ve heard, including Bonifas’ recommendation that Valdez be suspended for a year, and will write a recommendation for the Kansas Supreme Court to consider.