A Louisiana judge finds herself in hot water as the state’s highest court considers disciplinary action against her. Chief Judge Sheva Sims of the Shreveport City Court faces serious allegations of misconduct, including improperly releasing domestic abuse suspects and displaying a disrespectful demeanor, which her critics have likened to treating her courtroom as a personal domain.

This isn’t Judge Sims’ first brush with the law’s disciplinary arm. In 2015, she was suspended for abusing her contempt powers, and a year later, she received a reprimand for her habitual tardiness in court. Now, the Louisiana Judiciary Commission has leveled a fresh set of ethics violations against her, which, if upheld, could leave her colleagues to manage her caseload during a proposed yearlong suspension without pay.

Michelle Beaty from the Office of Special Counsel addressed claims that Sims’ actions were merely isolated incidents. Beaty argued that these incidents form a troubling pattern of behavior, warranting punishment for what has been described as “black robe-itis,” a term used to describe a judge who oversteps their authority. Given Sims’ extensive 14-year tenure as a judge, Beaty emphasized that she should be well aware of the judicial standards expected of her.

In a detailed November report, the commission recommended a suspension along with financial reimbursement of $11,602.56. The document accuses Sims of multiple ethical violations, portraying her as someone who believes her judicial role permits her to act without consequence.

The investigation revealed Sims’ impatience and condescension towards litigants, misuse of a publicly funded vehicle for personal commutes, and the unauthorized use of documents to undermine a witness. Additionally, it highlighted her repeated failure to adhere to legal procedures concerning bond conditions and sentencing, all proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Numerous complaints have been lodged against Sims, some anonymously. These include grievances from property managers who described her as rude and dismissive during eviction proceedings, as well as from retired Justice Joseph Bleich. The outcome of this disciplinary hearing could significantly impact the operation of the Shreveport City Court.

Bleich alleged that Sims “failed to follow the law” when she released “several defendants charged with domestic abuse battery or crimes of violence on their own recognizance,” the documents continued.

The “varied misconduct,” the Judiciary Commission alleged, shows Sims is treating her court “as her fiefdom” and is “indifferent to whether she is abusing or exceeding her judicial authority and acting contrary to the law or her ethical obligations, as further evidenced by her lack of contrition in the present proceeding.”

As to the release of accused domestic abusers, the Commission said Sims “acknowledged that defendants charged with domestic abuse battery or crimes of violence cannot be released on their own recognizance” under the law.

“[W]hen asked about the reasons she released the ten individuals, Judge Sims offered broad defenses suggesting that the minute entries were incorrect or that she released the defendants due to medical issues, issues with the jail, or because the prosecutor and defense reached an agreement to dismiss the charges upon the completion of a diversion or probation program,” documents said, pointing out that the “direct language of the law” says “any” such defendant “ on his personal undertaking or with an unsecured personal surety[.]”

Sims’ lawyer Carl Hellmers, seeming to understand that prior discipline against his client could come back to haunt her, said that if the court determined that a sanction was warranted that it should be a suspension of up to 60 days, local CBS affiliate KSLA’s video of the attorney’s remarks showed.

“Part of that is based on the fact that a lot of the issues that have been raised here in connection with her management of courtroom issues either through evictions or through criminal issues are determinations that she made in the context of a good-faith effort to discharge her judicial duties,” the lawyer said, emphasizing the Judiciary Commission deemed two allegations of rudeness “unproven.”

One count for inappropriate “demeanor” during an eviction hearing did in part stand up in the Commission’s view, however.

While her behavior “might not ordinarily be considered serious enough to warrant a recommendation of discipline,” documents said, Sims’ “needlessly discourteous” treatment of a “relatively inexperienced yet respectful” pro se litigant — telling her, among other things, “I heard you the first time. I don’t have a hearing problem. Would you like to say it one more time, ma’am?” — nonetheless fell short of conduct befitting a judge.

“Throughout the eviction hearing, Judge Sims was rude to a pro se litigant in a courtroom full of other litigants and court personnel, focused on issues that were not relevant to the requested relief and appeared to rule against the weight of the evidence, and demanded that the litigant accept payment even after being informed it was against her company’s policy,” documents went on. “The Commission therefore also determined there to be clear and convincing evidence that Judge Sims’ actions at the O’Neal eviction hearing constituted ‘willful misconduct relating to her official duty’ and ‘persistent and public misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the office into disrepute[.]”

Hellmers, noting Sims has handled between 15,000 and 20,000 evictions, said his client admitted “different words could have been used” but that she was nonetheless within her right to sternly probe the litigant’s truthfulness about a tenant’s alleged lease violations.