BEFORE THE JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN THE MATTER OF, COMPLAINT NO. 56-2020

PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC SHUCK,

The matter is before the Judicial Investigation Commission ("JIC") upon a complaint filed

by Judicial Disciplinary Counsel setting fo1ih ce1tain allegations against the Honorable Eric Shuck,

Judge of the 13 th Family Court C ircuit ("Respondent"). An investigation was conducted pursuant

to the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure ("RJDP"). After a review of the complaint, the

Judge's written response, the infonnation and documents obtained from the investigation and the

pertinent Rules contained in the Code of Judicial Conduct, the JIC found probable cause that Judge

Shuck violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 2.5(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct at a recent meeting

and ordered that he be publicly admonished pursuant to RJDP 1.11 and 2.7(c) as set fo1th in the

following statement of facts and conclusions found by the Commission.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Respondent successfully ran for Family Court Judge in the May 2016 election and took

office on January 1, 20 17. He has served continuously in that position since that time. At all times

relevant to the instant complaint, Respondent was serving in his capacity as a Family Court Judge.

On or about June 16, 2020, Judicial Disciplinary Counsel opened a complaint against

Respondent. The gravamen of the complaint was that Respondent was going to the homes of

litigants to detennine if certain disputed marital personal property was in the possession of the

occupant and/or to supervise the transfer of said items. By reply dated July 8, 2020, Respondent

admitted to taking such action in two separate cases in September and November 20 19. [n each

1
case, the Respondent stated that both parties were represented by attorneys; one attorney requested

the home visit to "see if property which w[as] to be provided to [his/her client] was still located at

the home;" "the marital home and the property were still under the jurisdiction of the Court;" and

there was no objection by the other lawyer.

On July 24, 2020, Judicial Disciplinary Counsel took Respondent's sworn statement.

Respondent opined that he believed it was proper to visit litigants' homes because a colleague had

engaged in the same practice for several years. 1 Respondent also stated that no one objected to the

home visit. He stated that had one paity raised an objection in either case, he would have denied

the home visit. Respondent likened the practice to a jury view or similar continuation of the court

proceeding and stated that as a finder of fact it was necessary to determine whether a party could

be held in contempt for not turning over personal property as previously ordered by the Cou1t.

When asked , Respondent could provide no statute, rule or case that gave him the authority

to conduct home visits. Respondent also acknowledged that there was nothing in the contempt

powers that gave him the authority to conduct a home visit. Respondent confessed that he never

held anyone in contempt prior to going to the home and that he failed to enter any order subsequent

to the visit reflecting what had happened at the residence, whether any items had been secured

and/or whether or not a party was in contempt. Respondent admitted that he never had any clear

or written procedures for conducting a home visit, including but not limited to, when the

proceeding should be utilized and how the process should take place. He also acknowledged that

he never took a court reporter to the scene and that he only recorded one of the two visits. Upon

1
The colleague, who is also the subject of a judicial disciplinary proceeding, recently engaged in a visit to a litigant
ex-husband's home to search for marital property that had been the focus of a contempt proceeding. The ex-husband
was not represented by a la\vyer and was not advised of the purpose of the visit prior to the judge, his ex-wife and her
lawyer going to the home. Once there, the ex-husband moved to disqualify the judge but was told the motion was not
tin1ely and would have to be submitted in writing.

2
reflection, Respondent agreed that the practice could make him a potential witness to a future

proceeding which could then result in his disqualification.

CONCLUSIONS

The Commission unanimously2 found that probable cause exists in the matters set fmth

above to find that the Honorable Eric Shuck, Judge of the 13 th Family Coutt Circuit, violated Rules

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2.5(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct as set forth below:

1.J - Compliance With the Law

A judge shall comply with the law, including the West Virginia Code of Judicial
Conduct.

1.2 - Confidence in the Judiciary

A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integlity, and impattiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

l.3 - Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office

A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or
economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.

2.5 - Competence, Diligence and Cooperation

(A) A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties, competently and
diligently.

The Commission further found that fonnal discipline was not essential as Respondent had

no prior disciplinary actions and had been led astray, in part, by another colleague's actions.

However, the Commission found that the violations were serious enough to wa1Tant a public

admonishment.

The Preamble to the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and
competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The

2
The vote was 8-0. The Honorable H.L. Kirkpatrick, IIl, Judge of the I 0th Judicial Circuit recused himself.

3
 role of the judiciary is central to the American concepts of justice and the
rule oflaw. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the precepts that judges,
individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as
a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal
system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes
and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.... Good
judgment and adherence to high moral and personal standards are also
important.

Home visits by a Family Court Judge to locate and/or secure personal properiy in a

contempt proceeding are ill-advised and inappropriate. Such visits are not authorized by any

statute, rule or case law, and a family court judge runs the risk of disqualification if he/she were to

become a witness in a subsequent proceeding pertaining thereto. Judges have a duty to preside over

cases whenever possible and should limit their activity so as to avoid the risk of disqualification.

The risk is clearly more 1ikely when a judge fails to document proceedings either by transcription,

recordation, or order.

The burden of proof in a contempt proceeding rests with the moving party. In other words,

it is the moving party's responsibility to provide evidence in support of their contention that the

other side has failed to produce the items in question. When a judge goes to a scene to gather

evidence, he/she places himself/herself in the stead of the moving party and ceases to serve as a

factfinder. More impo1tantly, when a judge goes to a home to help enforce a prior court order, he

abrogates his responsibility as a judge in favor of some nonexistent role in the the executive branch.

Therefore, it is the decision of the Judicial fnvestigation Commission that the Honorable

Eric Shuck, Judge of the 13th Family Court Circuit, be disciplined by this Admonishment.

Accordingly, the Judicial Investigation Commission hereby publicly admonishes Judge Shuck for

his conduct as fully set forth in the matters asserted herein.

*****

4
 Pursuant to Rule 2.7(c) of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, the Respondent has

fourteen (14) days after receipt of the public admonishment to file a written objection to the contents

thereof. If the Respondent timely files an objection, the Judicial Investigation Commission shall,

pursuant to the Rule, file formal charges with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West

Virginia.

oats Chairperson
Judicial rnvestigation Commission

()8/25/2020
Date

ADM/tat