After a public trial, this judge was removed for her unethical behavior, abuse of employees and communicating with litigants about the outcome of the case

After a public trial Judge Nakita Blocton of Jefferson County, Alabama was removed from the bench by a special court order.

In May, a complaint was filed by the Yellowhammer State’s Judicial Inquiry Commission.

Count No. I: “Judge Blocton violated one or more of the following Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics by engaging in a pattern of ex parte communications with litigants and attorneys appearing before her and other judges in Jefferson County, and by engaging in a pattern of making other inappropriate communications to staff, lawyers, and litigants: [Canons 1, 2, 2.A, 3, and 3.A(4).]”

 Count No. II: “Judge Blocton violated one or more of the following Alabama Canonsof Judicial Ethics by engaging in a pattern of abuse of staff and a pattern of abuse, bias, and favoritism towards attorneys and litigants: [Canons 1, 2, 2.4, 2.B, 3, 3.A(2), 3.A(3), and 3.C(1)(a).]" 

Count No. III: “Judge Blocton violated one or moreof the following Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics by failing to avoid an appearance of bias, favoritism, and retaliati3.A(2), 3A@), 3.C()(@).] 

Count No. IV: “Judge Blocton violated one or more of the following Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics by engaging in andlor displaying inappropriate demeanor and indecorous behavior, including abusive behavior on the bench, in chambers, in text messages, and on Facebook, ie., around staff, attorneys, litigants, and others: [Canons 1, 2, 2.4, 2.B, 3.A(2), and 3.A@3).]" 

Count No. V: “By failing to promptly dispose of the business of the Court, Judge Blocton violated one or more of the following Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics: [Canons 2.A, 2.B, 3, 3.A(5), and 3.B(2).]" 

Count No. VI: “By engaging in an appearance of drug use and mental instability, Judge Blocton violated one or more of the following Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics: [Canons 1,2, 2.4, and 2.B.)" 

Count No. VII: “By engaging in a pattern of dishonesty and deception, Judge Blocton violated one or more of the following Alabama 

Based on the evidence presented at Judge Blocton’s public trial, this Court finds that the Commission failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Blocton either used or appeared to use drugs in an inappropriate manner. 

The Commission also failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Blocton is mentally unstable. Finally, this Court finds that the Commission failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Blocton made an improper campaign contribution to a mayoral candidate for the City of Birmingham. 

This Court does find, however, that the Commission proved by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Blocton engaged in ex parte communications and that she engaged in a pattern and practice of making inappropriate comments -- for example, calling one judge an "Uncle Tom" and another judge a "fat bitch” and calling an employee a "heifer."

 This Court also finds that the Commission proved by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Blocton engaged in a pattern of abuse of staff, attorneys, and litigants. For example, Judge Blocton referred to one employee as a "heifer" and verbally abused and belittled another employee. Judge Blocton also ordered employees to allow her to see their private cellphones so that information that might be relevant to the Commission's investigation could be deleted and she instructed them to provide to her their private login information to their work computers. Additionally, Judge Blocton made her employees work unreasonable hours, including excessive, unproductive, and unnecessary late nights and weekends, and she made repeated threats to fire employees in an attempt to intimidate them. 

Judge Blocton also called an attorney, forcing the attorney to beg Judge Blocton not to fire an employee who had spoken with a litigant about the harm she had suffered due to the delay in resolving the litigant's case. This Court also finds that the Commission has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Blocton used several Facebook aliases to communicate with litigants in a pending domestic-relations case in an effort to affect the outcome of the case. This Court further finds that the Commission has proved by clear and convincing evidence that, although she spent a substantial amount of time in her office, Judge Blocton failed to promptly disposeof many of the cases assigned to her, and that Judge Blocton is unable to effectively remedy her backlog of cases.

 Two judges were specially appointed to handle Judge Blocton's backlog after she left office in February 2021. One judge, who acknowledged that domestic-relations judges in Jefferson County have a high caseload, said that she was "appalled" by the number of Judge Blocton's cases that had been pending for an inappropriate amount of time without resolution. Theother judge testified that it was  clear that Judge Blocton had not established an effective way of handling cases, and he noted the adverse effect that the unreasonable delay in disposing of cases had on the citizens of Jefferson County and testified that the inordinate delays "gave a black-eye" to the judicial system.