Embattled U.S. District Judge Sam Kent is an easy target these days (all previous posts here). Along those lines, Chronicle legal columnist and blogger Mary Flood makes the following statement in this blog post on the Chronicle’s latest story about the allegations against Judge Kent:

The law sees the judge as innocent until proven guilty of these allegations, though so far he faces no criminal or civil lawsuits over the matter anyway. But it is important to note that his fellow judges removed him from work (albeit with pay) for the last four months of the year and reprimanded him for sexual harassment (emphasis added).

Flood’s above assertion may be correct, but we do not know that at this time. The Judicial Council’s order certainly says no such thing. The order states that a judicial complaint alleging sexual harassment was filed against Judge Kent and that a special investigatory committee reviewed the allegations and expanded the investigation to review other allegations of “inappropriate behavior” toward other federal employees. The order goes on to state that, after completing the investigation, the investigative committee recommended a reprimand and other “remedial courses of action.” The Judicial Council accepted the committee’s recommendation of reprimanding Judge Kent and concluded the proceeding “because appropriate remedial action had been and will be taken, including but not limited to the Judge’s four-month leave of absence from the bench, reallocation ofthe Galveston/Houston docket and other measures.” The Judicial Council’s order also admonished Judge Kent “that his actions . . . violated the mandates of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and are deemed prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and the administration of justice.”
Thus, here’s what we know. A judicial complaint alleging sexual harassment was filed against Judge Kent. An investigation ensued and was expanded beyond the allegations contained in the initial complaint to other “inappropriate behavior.” Judge Kent presumably defended himself in regard to the allegations, but he is precluded by applicable rules relating to such investigations from discussing the matter publicly. The Judicial Council reprimanded and admonished Judge Kent, but the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the council based its reprimand have not — and probably will never will be — made public.
Thus, at this point, stating that Judge Kent was “reprimanded for sexual harassment” is speculation. He may have been, but the reason could also have been inappropriate behavior not related to sexual harassment, such as a drinking problem or simply acting badly toward subordinates. Further legal proceedings appear to be likely, so I’m inclined to wait to see what information develops in a forum where he can defend himself before jumping to conclusions in the matter of Judge Kent.

The Houston Chronicle continued its investigative series into the matter of Galveston U.S. District Judge Sam Kent with this Lisa Olsen/Sunday edition article that provides the most detailed account to date of courtroom deputy Cathy McBroom’s sexual harrassment allegations against Judge Kent (previous posts here). The Chron’s account is based primarily on the Chronicle’s interviews with a close friend — Charlene Clark, a San Antonio schoolteacher — with whom McBroom apparently confided after the alleged incident with Judge Kent, Ms. McBroom’s mother and another former courtroom deputy of Judge Kent, Felicia Williams.
Under the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sanctions order relating to the matter, Judge Kent is barred from commenting on the matters relating to the investigation and his attorney — Maria Wyckoff Boyce of Baker & Botts — has refused all requests for interviews and referred all questions to the Fifth Circuit. Judge Edith H. Jones, chief judge for the Fifth Circuit, has also refused comment on the investigation.
According to the Chronicle’s account of McBroom’s friend, the following is what McBroom told her occurred:

McBroom was summoned to the judge’s chambers on Friday, March 23, at about 3 p.m.
Her hands were full of legal papers when the judge ó a former high school athlete who is more than 6 inches taller and at least 100 pounds heavier ó asked for a hug.
She told him she didn’t think that was appropriate, but reluctantly approached.
The judge grabbed Mc-Broom, pulled up her blouse and her bra and put his mouth on her breast. Then, Kent forced her head down toward his crotch.
As McBroom struggled, Kent kept telling the married mother of three what he wanted to do to her in words too graphic to publish. The papers fell to the floor. The pet bulldog Kent kept in his chambers began to bark.
The incident was interrupted by the sound of footsteps from another staff member in the corridor, and the judge loosened his grip. As she left, the judge said McBroom was a good case manager and then made suggestions about engaging in a sexual act.
McBroom ran out crying. [. . .]
Between 2003 and 2007, McBroom experienced about 15 to 20 other incidents of alleged harassment, five involving improper touching, according to Clark and another source.
“He talked incredibly crudely when he was under the influence,” Clark said. “He described sex acts. . . “

Olsen reports that McBroom, Ms. Williams (the other former case manager) and at least three other women later gave statements to Fifth Circuit investigators regarding Judge Kent’s alleged abuse of employees. According to Olsen, women with knowledge of Judge Kent’s actions contend that the first incidents of alleged harassment and unwanted physical contacts with female court employees began about ten years ago. Williams, who is now retired, also spoke with Olsen regarding her experience with Judge Kent:

Williams, who had worked for Kent from 1993 to 2002, said her firing came days after she apparently offended the judge with a comment she’d made about his arriving late for a hearing, though she says she was given no official reason at the time.
Williams told the Chronicle that over the years she frequently had seen Kent appear inebriated at work after long lunches with lawyer friends, was regularly asked for “hugs” and subjected to lewd remarks.
The judge said he could “service me when my husband was being treated for prostate cancer,” Williams said. “He told me sexual dirty jokes, and (I) was expected to listen to his rude comments regarding other people.”
Williams said she never told co-workers or even her husband about most of the comments out of loyalty to the judge ó and out of fear that he would retaliate.
“I need to relay how Cathy and I felt threatened due to (Kent’s) power and authority and were always concerned about our positions and knew we could be dismissed at a moment’s notice,” Williams said. “Since (I) no longer work for him, I feel more comfortable talking but will always feel the emotional pain.”
Williams later worked at the federal courthouse in Houston until her retirement in 2006 with 33 years of U.S. government service.

McBroom filed an internal judicial conduct complaint against Kent on May 21st. On Sept. 28th, the Judicial Council’s formal reprimand was issued and, about a month later, Judge Kent was reassigned to Houston. Judge Kent remains on a leave of absence until January, 2008.
With these latest revelations, my bet is that the matter of Judge Kent is headed to the House Judiciary Committee after the first of the new year.