A high-profile disciplinary hearing unfolded on Tuesday concerning Shreveport City Court Chief Judge Sheva Sims, who is accused of misconduct that includes improperly releasing domestic abuse suspects and displaying a disrespectful demeanor. The Louisiana Supreme Court is contemplating a recommendation to suspend Sims for a year without pay due to what has been described as “black robe-itis,” a term used to suggest misuse of judicial power, and treating her courtroom as her personal domain.

Judge Sims is not new to the disciplinary spotlight. Back in 2015, she was suspended for abusing her contempt powers, and the following year, she faced admonishment for her habitual tardiness. Now, the Louisiana Judiciary Commission is leveling additional ethics charges against her, raising concerns that her absence could overburden the remaining three judges of the four-judge court.

Michelle Beaty from the Office of Special Counsel addressed claims that Sims’ actions were isolated incidents. Beaty argued that the judge’s behavior forms a discernible pattern of misconduct, warranting severe penalties. With 14 years on the bench, Sims “should know better,” Beaty asserted, according to the Shreveport-Bossier City Advocate.

A detailed document from November outlines the proposed disciplinary measures, which include a year-long suspension and a reimbursement of $11,602.56 to the Judiciary Commission. The document accuses Sims of various ethical breaches that reflect a belief she can act without accountability because of her judicial position.

The investigation revealed clear evidence of Sims’ inappropriate conduct. Allegations include her impatience and condescension towards litigants, misuse of a publicly-funded court vehicle for personal commutes, and her disregard for legal procedures concerning bond conditions and sentencing. These findings underscore the repeated nature of her ethical violations, suggesting a pattern rather than isolated incidents.

The complaints, described as “numerous,” came from “anonymous” individuals, from managers of properties who said Sims was “rude and demeaning” when denying evictions, and from retired Justice Joseph Bleich.

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.