Judge facing discipline for one-sided conversations with cops & prosecutors

A New Jersey judge is facing disciplinary action after he allegedly engaged in ex parte conversations with prosecutors and police officers.

An ex-parte conversation is when one party to a case communicates to the court without informing all other parties by proper notice and not on the public record, depriving them of their chance to respond.

The complaint, which was filed with the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC), alleges that Judge Lewis J. Korngut, 63, had a series of ex parte conversations with prosecutors and police officers about cases that were pending before him.

A former Deputy Attorney General, Korngut is registered to vote in Mercer County and is affiliated with the Democratic Party. Korngut was appointed Lawrence Township Municipal Court Judge in April 2017, replacing Kevin P. Nerwinski, who resigned the position in order to accept appointment as Township Manager.

The complaint alleges that Korngut discussed the evidence in the cases, as well as his views on the likelihood of conviction, with the prosecutors and police officers.

The complaint also alleges that Korngut gave the prosecutors and police officers advice on how to proceed with the cases.

Ex-parte communications are those that take place outside of the presence of the opposing party. They are generally prohibited in court proceedings, as they can give one side an unfair advantage.

The complaint against Korngut was filed by a defense attorney who was representing a client in one of the cases.

The attorney alleges that Korngut’s ex-parte communications gave the prosecution an unfair advantage and that they prejudiced his client’s case.

The ACJC is currently investigating the complaint against Korngut. If the ACJC finds that Korngut violated the rules of ethics, it could recommend that the New Jersey Supreme Court discipline him.

The allegations against Korngut are serious and could have a significant impact on his career.

If he is found to have violated the rules of ethics, he could be censured, suspended, or even removed from the bench.

The outcome of the investigation by the ACJC is still pending. However, the allegations against Korngut have raised serious questions about his ability to impartially preside over cases.

Judge Lewis J. Korngut, 63, allegedly spoke with the municipal prosecutor outside the presence of the defendant’s attorney in 2022 – and in one case, discussed the facts of the case with a police officer, according to a complaint released today by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.

The complaint alleges that Korngut had a series of ex parte conversations with prosecutors and police officers about cases that were pending before him.

The conversations reportedly included discussions about the evidence in the cases, as well as the judge’s views on the likelihood of conviction. The judge’s conduct was first brought to light by a defense attorney who was representing a client in one of the cases.

The attorney filed a complaint with the state’s judiciary ethics commission, which is now investigating the matter. If Korngut is found to have violated the rules of ethics, he could face a number of sanctions, including censure, suspension, or even removal from the bench.

The New Jersey judiciary has a strict policy against ex parte communications. The policy states that “no judge shall engage in ex parte communications with any party or person interested in a proceeding before the judge, except as authorized by law or by the rules of court.”

The policy is designed to ensure that all parties to a case have a fair opportunity to present their case and that the judge is not influenced by any outside information. Korngut’s conduct in this case is a serious breach of the rules of ethics. It is important that judges uphold the highest standards of conduct, and that they do not give one side an unfair advantage.

Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.The complaint alleges that Korngut had a series of ex parte conversations with prosecutors and police officers about cases that were pending before him. The conversations reportedly included discussions about the evidence in the cases, as well as the judge’s views on the likelihood of conviction.The judge’s conduct was first brought to light by a defense attorney who was representing a client in one of the cases. The attorney filed a complaint with the state’s judiciary ethics commission, which is now investigating the matter.If Korngut is found to have violated the rules of ethics, he could face a number of sanctions, including censure, suspension, or even removal from the bench.The New Jersey judiciary has a strict policy against ex parte communications. The policy states that “no judge shall engage in ex parte communications with any party or person interested in a proceeding before the judge, except as authorized by law or by the rules of court.”The policy is designed to ensure that all parties to a case have a fair opportunity to present their case and that the judge is not influenced by any outside information.Korngut’s conduct in this case is a serious breach of the rules of ethics. It is important that judges uphold the highest standards of conduct, and that they do not give one side an unfair advantage.The outcome of the investigation by the ethics commission is still pending. However, if Korngut is found to have violated the rules, he should be held accountable for his actions.

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) is a body that investigates complaints against judges in New Jersey.

If the ACJC finds that a judge has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct, it may choose to discipline the judge privately or recommend that the Supreme Court issue public discipline.

Private discipline is a letter to the judge that says the ACJC has found wrongdoing and is issuing to the judge either:

• Guidance: This is the least serious form of private discipline. It is a letter that simply reminds the judge of the rules of conduct and asks the judge to take steps to correct the behavior.
• Caution: This is a more serious form of private discipline. It is a letter that warns the judge that further misconduct could result in more serious sanctions.
• Admonition: This is a formal warning from the ACJC. It is a letter that tells the judge that the judge’s conduct was inappropriate and that the judge must take steps to correct the behavior.
• Reprimand: This is the most serious form of private discipline. It is a letter that tells the judge that the judge’s conduct was serious and that the judge must take steps to correct the behavior or face more serious sanctions.

Public discipline is discipline that is made public. Only the New Jersey Supreme Court may publicly discipline a judge. The ACJC could recommend the following forms of public discipline:

• A dismissal of the case with or without private discipline: This means that the case against the judge would be dismissed, but the judge could still be disciplined privately.
• Public admonition: This is a formal warning from the Supreme Court. It is a public statement that tells the judge that the judge’s conduct was inappropriate and that the judge must take steps to correct the behavior.
• Public reprimand: This is a more serious form of public discipline. It is a public statement that tells the judge that the judge’s conduct was serious and that the judge must take steps to correct the behavior or face more serious sanctions.
• Public censure: This is the most serious form of public discipline. It is a public statement that tells the judge that the judge’s conduct was a serious breach of the rules of conduct and that the judge’s ability to serve as a judge is in question.
• Suspension: This means that the judge would be temporarily removed from the bench.
• Removal from the bench: This means that the judge would be permanently removed from the bench.

The ACJC’s decision of whether to discipline a judge privately or recommend public discipline is based on a number of factors, including the severity of the misconduct, the judge’s past record, and the impact of the misconduct on the public’s confidence in the judiciary.