IN THE ALABAMA COURT OF THE JUDICIARY
IN THE MATTER OF:
CHRISTOPHER M. KAMINSKI
DISTRICT JUDGE
COFFEE COUNTY
CASE NO . 52
FINAL JUDGMENT
On July 16 , 2019 , the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission
( ” the Commission ” ) filed a complaint with the Alabama Court of
the Judiciary charging Christopher Kaminski with violating the
Canons of Judicial Ethics in his capacity as a District Judge
of Coffee County .
Pursuant to Rule 10 , Rules of Procedure of the Judicial
Inquiry Commission , the Commission and Judge Kaminski have
submitted an “Agreement and Stipulation of the Parties ” in
which they jointly seek to resolve the charges in the
complaint following a public hearing in accordance with Art .
VI , § 157 , Ala . Const . 1901 (Off . Recomp . ) and Rule 16 , R. P .
Ala . Ct . Jud . For the purposes of the agreement and if the
agreement is accepted , Judge Kaminski has expressly waived (I)
his right under Rule 5 , R. P . Ala . Ct . Jud . , to file an answer
or other responsive pleading to the complaint ; (2) his right
under Rule 8 , R. P . Ala . Ct . Jud ., to 30 days notice of the
date and time for a hearing of the complaint ; and (3) his
1
right of appeal under Art . VI , § 157 , Ala . Const . 1901 (Off .
Recomp . )
The complaint , among other things , “charges Judge
Kaminski with certain conduct relating to his romantic
relationship with an attorney who regularly practiced before
him . . . as violating the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics and
severely undermining the public ‘ s and the Bar ‘ s confidence in
the integrity , independence , and impartiality of the
judiciary . ” The complaint also includes allegations that
Judge Kaminski improperly acquired and distributed a portion
of a courthouse surveillance video recording . The complaint
includes several pages of factual allegations detailing the
conduct and circumstances that resulted in this matter being
filed . The complaint alleges three specific counts against
Judge Kaminski .
Count One contains four specific charges . Charge one of
Count One states : “On numerous occasions , by appointing the
attorney to cases while they were engaged in a romantic
relationship , Judge Kaminski violated the following provisions
of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics : [Canons 1 , 2 , 2A,
and 28) . ” Charge two of Count One states : “On numerous
occasions , by entering attorney ‘ s fee declarations orders for
2
the benefit of the attorney while they were engaged in a
romantic relationship , Judge Kaminski violated the following
provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics : [Canons
1 , 2 , 2A, and 2BJ .” Charge three of Count One states : “On
numerous occasions , by taking judicial actions .. . in cases in
which the attorney was an attorney of record while they were
engaged in a romantic relationship , Judge Kaminski viol ated
the following provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial
Ethics : (Canons 1 , 2 , 2A, and 28] .It Charge four of Count One
states : “On numerous occasions , by failing to
timely/immediately disqualify himself from cases in which the
attorney was an attorney of record while they were engaged in
a romantic relationship , and even after they publicly
acknowledged the relationship , Judge Kaminski violated the
following provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics :
[Canons 1 , 2 , 2A , 2B , and 3 (e) (1) I . ”
Count Two contains two specific charges . Charge one of
Count Two states : “By using the prestige of his office to gain
access to courtroom- security footage to advance the private
interests of the attorney and himself , Judge Kaminski violated
the following provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial
Ethics : (Canons 1 , 2 , 2A , 2B , and 2C] .ff Charge two of Count
3
Two states : “By supplying the footage to the attorney that she
shared on social media , Judge Kaminski violated the following
provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics : [Canons
I , 2 , 2A , and 2C] .”
Count Three contains a single charge , which states : ” By
failing to be completely forthright and truthful during the
Commission ‘ s investigation , Judge Kaminski violated the
following provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics :
[Canons 1 , 2 , 2A , and 28) . ”
In the “Agreement and Stipulation of the Parties , ” the
Commission and Judge Kaminski submi t the following to the
Court :
1 . The Commission and Judge Kaminski agree and stipulate
to the following :
a . At all times relevant to this
Complaint , Judge Kaminski was a
District Court Judge in the
County of Enterprise [sic] ,
Alabama .
b . From June 2017 to the
present , Judge Kaminski
has maintained a romantic
relationship with a local
attorney ( ” the attorney ” ) .
c . At all times relevant to this
Complaint , the attorney was based
in Enterprise and frequently
practiced before Judge Kaminski .
4
d . Shortly after his divorce was
finalized on February 26 , 2018 ,
Judge Kaminski and the attorney
went public with their romantic
relationship .
e . During a period of their romantic
relationship , Judge Kaminski
engaged in a pattern and practice
of 1) appointing the attorney to
cases ; 2) taking judicial actions
in cases in which the attorney
was an attorney of record , even
after their relationship was
publicly acknowledged ; 3)
entering attorney ‘ s fee
declaration orders for the
attorney ‘ s benefit ; and , 4)
failing to disqualify himself
from cases in which the attorney
was an attorney of record , even
after their relationship was
publicly acknowledged .
f . On or about June 14 , 2018 ,
Judge Kaminski improperly
used the prestige of his
office to gain access to
courtroom surveillance
footage to advance the
private interests of the
attorney and himself .
g . On or about November 28 , 2018 ,
Judge Kaminski ‘ s counsel
submitted a response to the
Commission regarding the
allegations under investigation .
On December 14 , 2018 , Judge
Kaminski ‘ s counsel submitted a
letter withdrawing the November
28 response .
2 . Based on Judge Kaminksi ‘ s resignation from
5
the bench on July 16 , 2019 , and the foregoing , the
Commission and Judge Kaminski agree to the
appropriateness of the Court of the Judiciary
entering a judgment finding that Judge Kaminski
violated Canons 1 , 2 , 2A, 28 , 2C , and 3C (I) I as
described in Counts I and II of the Complaint , and
jointly request the following resolution of the
Complaint :
a . Judge Kaminski be taxed with the
costs of this prosecution allowed
under Ala . R. Civ . P . 54 in the
amount of $2 , 346 . 67 , to be paid
within 90 days of entry of the
final judgment .
b . Judge Kaminski agrees to
never again seek judicial
office in the State of
Alabama .
c . No additional sanction or penalty
be imposed .
d . Count III of the Complaint be
dismissed .
e . Both parties agree not
any public statements
contrary to the terms
Agreement .
to make
that are
of this
The proposal was considered by the Court of the Judiciary
at a public hearing held in the Supreme Court courtroom of the
Judicial Building in Montgomery , Alabama on August 6, 2019 .
Both parties consented to the consideration of the proposal by
a maj ori ty of the Court but less than all members of the
Court . The Court of the Judiciary accepts the proposal of the
6
parties and hereby ORDERS the following :
1. Judge Kaminski is adjudicated guilty of
violating Canons 1 , 2 , 2A , 2B , 2C , and 3C (1),
as described in Counts One and Two of the
Complaint . Count Three of the complaint is
dismissed .
2 . Judge Kaminski is taxed with the costs of this
proceeding allowed under Ala . R. Civ . P. 54 and
the proceedings before the Judicial Inquiry
Corrunission including the amount of $2 , 346 . 67 ,
to be paid wi thin 90 days of entry of this
judgment .
3 .
4 .
Judge Kaminski
judicial office
agrees to never again
in the State of Alabama .
seek
Both parties agree
statements that are
this Agreement .
not to make any public
contrary to the terms of
Done and Ordered by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary
this the 6th day of August , 2019 .
~~c=~’\~ Judge Scott Donaldson , ~frey T. Brock
Chi::e ~ \Jclb=- gJ( ~’geLucin~ Cannon Judge Walter Body
Judge Elisabeth A. French
Brian P. Howell
7
II
~ Jll 2019 tl
II) Fl101} to
IN THE ALABAMA COURT OF THE JUDICIARY
IN THE MATTER OF; ~ _~Ilf: IJJ
CHRISTOPHER M. KAMINSKI,
District Judge,
Court of the ~~’- -“” iL~
Judiciary l€0E;st.
Coffee County Case No. 52
COMPLAINT
1 . Christopher M. Kaminski (“Judge Kaminski”) is the
District Judge for Coffee County. He was appointed to his
seat on May 14, 2015, and won election to a full term on
November B, 2016. In his capacity as District Judge , Judge
Kaminski presides over district-court criminal, civil, and
juvenile matters.
2. This Complaint charges Judge Kaminski with certain
conduct relating to his romantic relationship with an
attorney who regularly practiced before him (“the
attorney”) , as violating the Alabama Canons of Judicial
Ethics and severely undermining the public’s and the Bar’s
confidence in the integrity, independence , and impartiality
of the judiciary.
3. Judge Kaminski and the attorney began a romantic
relationship at the latest by June 1, 2017 . Upon
information and belief, that relationship continues to this
day.
,
4. During a period of their romantic relationship,
Judge Kaminski engaged in a pattern and practice of 1)
appointing the attorney to cases; 2) taking judicial
actions in cases in which the attorney was an attorney of
record, even after their relationship was publicly
acknowledged; 3) entering attorney’s-fee-declaration orders
for the attorney’s benefit; and, 4) failing to disqualify
himself from cases in which the attorney was an attorney of
record, even after their relationship was publicly
acknowledged.
5. Despite the clear evidence that Judge Kaminski and
the attorney were in a romantic relationship during a
period in which she practiced before him, Judge Kaminski’s
response, submitted by his counsel at the time, failed to
be forthright and candid with the Commission as to this
fact in the November 28, 2018 response to the Commission.
6. On or about June 14, 2018, Judge Kaminski used the
prestige of the judicial office to gain access to
courtroom-security footage, and he permitted the attorney
to post it on social media to refute accusations concerning
them.
2
7. The Coffee County legal community, including
attorneys who regularly practiced before Judge Kaminski,
began hearing rumors of an affair between Judge Kaminski
and the attorney as early as summer 2017. Thereafter, the
affair became well-known throughout the general community.
8. Judge Kaminski filed for divorce on December 21,
2017, and the final divorce decree incorporating the
parties’ settlement agreement was entered on February 26,
2018. Judge Kaminski and the attorney engaged openly in
their romantic relationship shortly after.
Judicial Actions while Disqualified
9. The following tables illustrate a number of cases
in which Judge Kaminski, during the pendency of his
romantic relationship with the attorney, a) appointed the
attorney; b) took judicial actions in cases in which the
attorney was an attorney of record; c) entered attorney’sfee-
declaration orders for the attorney’s benefit; and/or
d) failed to disqualify from cases in which the attorney
appeared.
10. The table below illustrates a number of Judge
Kaminski’s appointments to the attorney after June 1, 2017,
3
i.e., the latest date their romantic relationship
commenced.
Judge Kamins~i’s Appointing of the Attorney
After June 1, 2017
Case Date Appointed Appointment
19-DC-2016-208; -209; Oct. 18, 2017 Defense Attorney
& -210 (State v.
Hughes)
19-DC-2017-254 & -255 Oct. 6, 2017 Defense Attorney
(State v. Hooks)
71-DC-2017-514 & -515 Aug. 25, 2017 Defense Attorney
(State v. Reynolds)
71-JU-2014-128.09 June 8, 2017 GALl
19-JU-2014-155.02 Dec. 5, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2017-293.02 Nov. 30, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2017-294.02 Nov. 30, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2014-202.04 June 7, 2017 Father’s Attorney
71-JU-2015-15.06 June 9, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2015-168.04 Oct. 2, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2015-236.03 Sept. 1, 2017 GAL
1 Guardian ad litem.
4
71-JU-2007-231.06; 71- Sept. 1, 2017 GAL
JU-2015-12.05; 71-JU-
2015-235.03; & 71-JU-
2015-236.03
71-JU-2017-43.02 Nov. 20, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2017-85.01 June 20, 2017 GAL
19-JU-2017-107.01 July 26, 2017 GAL
19-JU-2017-110.01 June 1, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2017-178.01 June 6, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2017-179.01 June 6, 2017 Mother’s Attorney
71-JU-2017-197.01 Aug. 25, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2017-235.03 Oct. 12, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2017-246.01 Sept. 13, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2017-262.01 Oct. 11, 2017 Mother’s Attorney
71-JU-2017-293.02 Nov. 30, 2017 GAL
71-JU-2017-298.01 Nov. 17, 2017 GAL
11. The table below illustrates a number of
appearances by the attorney before Judge Kaminski after
June 1, 2017, i.e., the latest date their romantic
relationship commenced.
The Attorney’s Appearances before
Judge Kaminski after June 1, 2017
Case Appearance Date Notes
19-DC-2017-120; June 8, 2017 The attorney’s client
-121; & -122 (State waived prelims.
v. Ellender)
5
19-DC-2016-242 & June 8, 2017
-243; 19-DC-2017-
109, -110, -111, July 13, 2017 Following the hearing,
-112, -133, -134, & Judge Kaminski granted
-135 (State v. the attorney’s motion
McClasin) and released her client
from incarceration to
attend a rehab program.
71-JU-2006-324.03 Jan. 8, 2018 Motions Hearing
19-JU-2011-22.02 Oct. 4, 2017 Permanency Hearing
19-JU-2011-69.04 Sept. 14, 2017 Permanency Hearing
Feb. 7, 2018 Review Hearing
71-JU-2012-76.01 July 24, 2017 Permanency Hearing
Dec. 4, 2017 Review Hearing
19-JU-2013-147.06 June 6, 2017 Status Hearing
Nov. 7, 2017 Review Hearing
19-JU-2013-118.01 Aug. 8, 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2014-128.07 Sept. 5, 2017 Permanency Hearing
Feb. 5, 2018 Final Hearing
19-JU-2014-155.02 Feb. 7, 2018 Final Hearing
71-JU-2014-128.09 July 5, 2017 Probation Revocation
July 24, 2017 Adjudicatory Hearing
71-JU-2014-202.04 Oct. 17, 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2014-284.02 & July 28, 2017 Final Hearing
.03
71-JU-2015-15.06 July 24, 2017 Review Hearing
Nov. 20, 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2007-231.04 & June 5, 2017 Motions Hearing
.05; 71-JU-2015- Dec. 4, 2017 Permanency Hearing
12.03 & .04; 71-JU-
2015-235.01 & .02;
71-JU-2015-236.01 &
.02
6
71-JU-2007-231.06; Nov. 29, 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2015-12.05;
71-JU-2015-235.03;
71-JU-2015-236.03
71-JU-2016-101.01 Oct. 4, 2017 Motions Hearing
Nov. 7, 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2016-145.01 July 24, 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2016-161.01 Dec. 5, 2017 Shelter-Care Hearing
71-JU-2017-39.01 July 28, 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2017-43.02 Nov. 20, 2017 72-Hour Hearing
Dec. 4, 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2017-85.01 Sept. 5, 2017 Status Hearings
Feb. 5, 2018
19-JU-2017-107.01 Sept. 28, 2017 Trial
Nov. 30, 2017
71-JU-2017-151.01 Oct. 18, 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2017-165.01 June 7, 2017 Review Hearings
July 26, 2017
71-JU-2017-178.01 June 7, 2017 Shelter-Care Hearing
July 24, 2017 Dependency Hearing
Oct. 17, 2017 Trial
71-JU-2017-179.01 June 8, 2017 Shelter-Care Hearing
July 24, 2017 Dependency Hearing
Oct. 18, . 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2017-197.01 Oct. 2, 2017 Status Hearing
71-JU-2017-235.03 Nov. 6, 2017 Final Hearing
71-JU-2017-246.01 Oct. 2, 2017 Status Hearing
Jan. 8, 2018 Dependency Hearing
71-JU-2017-262.01 Nov. 6, 2017 Status Hearing
71-JU-2017-293.02 Jan. 8, 2018 Review Hearing
Feb. 6, 2018 Final Hearing
7
71-JU-2017-298.01 Dec. 1, 2017 Status Hearing
Jan. 10, 2018 Dependency Hearing
12. The table below illustrates a number of actions by
Judge Kaminski in cases in which the attorney was appearing
at the time of the action, but after June 1, 2017, i.e.,
the latest date their romantic relationship commenced.
Judge Kaminski’s Actions after June 1, 2017
While The Attorney in Case
Case Date of Action Action
71-DV-2017-28 June 19, 2017 Order decreeing
(Helgeson v. judgment in favor of
Helgeson) the attorney’s client
was satisfied.
19-DC-2016-208; -209; March 2, 2018 Granted State’s motion
& -210 nolle prossing cases
(State v. Hughes) against the attorney’s
client.
19-DC-2017-105 & -106 June 8, 2017 Judgment on the
(State v. Pridgen) attorney’s client’s
guil ty plea, suspended
6-month sentence, and
.24 months’
unsupervised
probation.
19-DC-2017-121 Aug. 16, 2017 Granted State’s motion
(State v. Ellender) nolle prossing case
against the attorney’s
client.
19~DC-2017-120 & -122 Nov. 6, 2018 Granted State’s motion
(State v. Ellender) nolle prossing cases
against the attorney’s
client.
8
19-DC-2017-254 & -255
(State v. Hooks)
19-DC-2016-242 & -243
(State v. McClasin)
19-DC-2016-242 &
-243; 19-DC-2017-109,
-110, -111, -112,
-133, -134, & -135
(State v. McClasin)
71-JU-2014-128.09
71-JU-2014-202.04
71-JU-2014-284.02 &
-.03
71-JU-2015-168.03
Oct. 17, 2017
June 8, 2017
July 13, 2017
Feb. 16, 2018
Jan. 22, 2018
Aug. 29, 2017
June 7, 2017
July 17, 2017
9
Denied the attorney’s
Oct. 16, 2017 motion
for a preliminary
hearing; granted the
attorney’s Oct. 16,
2017 discovery
motions.
Revoked the attorney’s
client’s bond.
Granted the attorney’s
motion to release her
client from
incarceration to
attend a rehab
program.
Set hearing on the
attorney’s motion for
release from custody.
Discharged child,
represented by the
attorney as GAL, from
probation upon release
from the Ala. Dept. of
Youth Services.
Granted the attorney’s
Aug. 21, 2017 motion
to continue.
Granted the attorney’s
June 5, 2017 motion to
continue.
Following Apr. 4, 2017
hearing in which the
attorney was GAL,
entered order
terminating the
father’s parental
rights.
13. The table below is a list of attorney’s-feedeclarationorders
2 issued by Judge Kaminski for the
attorney’s benefit, after June 1, 2017, i.e., the latest
date their romantic relationship commenced.
Judge Kaminski’s Attorney’s-Fee-Declaration Orders for
The Attorney after June 1, 2017
Case Date of Order
19-DC-2016-242 & -243; 19-DC-2017-109, -110, March 19, 2018 3
-111, -112, -133, -134, & -135
(State v. McClasin)
71-DC-2017-514 (State v. Reynolds) Dec. 4, 2017
CS-2015-900063.01 (State v. Donaldson) Dec. 4, 2017
71-JU-2006-324.03 Nov. 2, 2017
March 26, 2018
71-JU-2017-12.01 June 29, 2017
71-JU-2010-16.05 March 28, 2018
71-JU-2007-231.06 Jan. 19, 2018
19-JU-2011-22.02 June 26, 2017
Jan. 19, 2018
19-JU-2011-22.03 June 28, 2017
2 A judicial order certifying that the attorney presenting a
claim to the Office of Indigent Services for work rendered
provided legal representation in the matter; that the
matter is concluded; and that, to the best of the judge’s
knowledge, the bill is reasonable.
3 The attorney submitted an invoice for, and Judge Kaminski
entered an attorney’s-fee-declaration order for only 19-DC-
2016-242, but this encompassed all accompanying cases.
10
19-JU-2011-69.04 Sept. 19, 2017
March 22, 2018
19-JU-2013-118.01 Aug. 9, 2017
19-JU-2013-147.06 March 22, 2018
71-JU-2012-76.01 March 26, 2018
71-JU-2014-128.07 Feb. 16, 2018
71-JU-2014-128.09 Aug. 9, 2017
19-JU-2014-155.02 Feb. 16, 2018
71-JU-2014-202.04 Nov. 8, 2017
71-JU-2014-284.02 Aug. 29, 2017
71-JU-2015-15.06 March 26, 2018
71-JU-2015-12.03 March 26, 2018
71-JU-2015-31.04 March 26, 2018
71-JU-2015-21.04 Nov. 21, 2017
71-JU-2015-168.01 March 23, 2018
71-JU-2015-168.02 Aug. 29, 2017
71-JU-2015-168.04 March 19, 2018
71-JU-2016-59.01 Aug. 9, 2017
71-JU-2015-236.02 Nov. 9, 2017
71-JU-2016-101.01 Nov. 9, 2017
71-JU-2016-59.01 Aug. 9, 2017
71-JU-2016-145.01 Aug. 9, 2017
71-JU-2016-161.01 March 23, 2018
71-JU-2017-12.01 June 29, 2017
71-JU-2017-39.01 Aug. 25, 2017
11
19-JU-2017-107.01 Dec. 4, 2017
71-JU-2017-43.02 Jan. 1, 2018
71-JU-2017-8S.01 March 28, 2018
19-JU-2017-110.01 June 29, 2017
71-JU-2017-1S1.01 Nov. 2, 2017
71-JU-2017-16S.01 March 19, 2018
71-JU-2017-178.01 Nov. 2, 2017
71-JU-2017-179.01 Nov. 2, 2017
71-JU-2017-197.01 Jan. 30, 2018
71-JU-2017-23S.03 Nov. 8, 2017
71-JU-2017-246.01 Feb. 6, 2018
71-JU-2017-262.01 March 26, 2018
71-JU-2017-293.02 March 19, 2018
71-JU-2017-298.01 March 19, 2018
14. In many of the cases pending after Judge Kaminski
and the attorney discontinued attempting to keep their
relationship secret, Judge Kaminski still did not
disqualify. Instead, the attorney filed motions to
withdraw and, although Judge Kaminski was plainly
disqualified from taking any action in each case, he
granted her motions and continued to preside in those cases
despite being disqualified.
12
15. For example, in State v. McClasin, 19-DC-2016-242
and -243 and 19-DC-2017-109, -110, -111, -112, -133, -134,
and -135, the following occurred:
a.October 5, 2016: Judge Kaminski appointed the
attorney to represent the defendant on two criminal
charges.
b.May 11, 2017: After the defendant was charged with
seven new criminal offenses (19-DC-20l7-109, -110,
-111, -112, -133, -134, and -135) Judge Kaminski
appointed the attorney to represent him on those new
charges.
c. June 8, 2017: A hearing was held. The attorney
attended. The defendant’s bond on 19-DC-2016-242 and
-243 was revoked, and he was remanded to jail.
d. June 30, 2017: The attorney filed a motion to allow
the defendant to attend a rehabilitation program.
Judge Kaminski scheduled a hearing for July 13, ‘2017.
e. July 13, 2017: A hearing was held. The attorney
attended. Judge Kaminski granted the attorney’s
motion and released the defendant from incarceration
to attend the program.
13
f. February 16, 2018: The attorney filed a motion for
the defendant’s release from custody upon successful
graduation from the rehab facility, noting the
defendant was scheduled to graduate on February 24,
2018. Judge Kaminski scheduled a hearing for March
15, 2018.
g.March 15, 2018: A hearing was held. The attorney did
not attend as the defendant was represented by
different counsel. Judge Kaminski ordered the
defendant to be released upon posting a $1,000
recognizance bond.
h.March 19, 2018: Judge Kaminski entered an attorney’sfee-
declaration order for the attorney’s work on the
cases.
i.March 20, 2018: The attorney filed a motion to
withdraw ~for reasons known to the court.” Judge
Kaminski granted her motion that day.
16. As further example, in In the Matter of E.L., 71-
JU-2007-000047.03, a dependency matter, the following
occurred:
a.May 1, 2017: Judge Kaminski appointed the attorney as
a GAL.
14
b. October 18, 2017: Judge Kaminski held an adjudicatory
hearing. The attorney attended. Judge Kaminski
adjudicated the child dependent.
c.November 20, 2017: Judge Kaminski held a
dispositional hearing. The attorney attended.
d. February 22, 2018: Judge Kaminski issued an order
vesting custody of the child with the Department of
Human Resources (~DHR”) and giving DHR discretion in
planning and placement, ~with the concurrence of the
GAL [the attorney].” A review hearing was set for
April 9, 2018.
e.April 6, 2018: The attorney filed a motion to
withdraw ~for reasons known to the court.” Judge
Kaminski granted her motion three days later.
17. In addition, in In the Matter of L.B., 71-JU-2015-
000168.04, a petition for· termination of parental rights
(“TPR”) of the mother, the following occurred:
a.October 2, 2017: Judge Kaminski appointed the
attorney as GAL.
b. October 31, 2017: Judge Kaminski set the trial for
November 29, 2017.
15
c . January 19, 2018: After several continuances, the
mother filed a motion to dismiss.
d. January 25, 2018: Judge Kaminski denied the mother’s
motion to dismiss and granted DHR’s motion to
continue, resetting the trial for February 27, 2018.
e. February 26, 2018: Judge Kaminski granted the
mother’s motion to continue, resetting the trial for
March 8, 2018.
f.March 7, 2018: Judge Kaminski granted the mother’s
motion to continue, resetting the trial for March 26,
2018.
g.March 19, 2018: Judge Kaminski issued an Attorney’sFee-
Declaration Order for the attorney.
h.March 20, 2018: The attorney filed a motion to
withdraw ~for reasons known to the Court.” Judge
Kaminski granted the motion that day and appointed a
new GAL.
i.March 28, 2018: Judge Kaminski dismissed the petition
against the mother.
16
Lack of Candor with the Commission
18. On November 28, 2018, Judge Kaminski’s counsel
submitted a response to the Commission regarding the
allegations under investigation. The response was not fully
forthright and candid with the Commission, as the Canons
require. 4
19. The response acknowledged that there were rumors
in the community that Judge Kaminski was having an affair
with the attorney, but he “steadfastly denied these rumors
then and denies them now.” This is a misrepresentation-at
the latest, by June 1, 2017, Judge Kaminski was engaged in
a relationship with the attorney, and, upon information and
belief, it continues to the date of the filing of this
Complaint.
20. The response again relied on semantics when it
disingenuously read Judge Kaminski “did not date [the
attorney] until after his divorce, and their relationship
did not become steady until sometime thereafter.” This
statement is purportedly a direct response to the
4 On December 14, 2018, Judge Kaminski’s counsel withdrew
Judge Kaminski’s November 28, 2018 response, with no
explanation.
17
allegation that “[w]hile you were in a romantic and/or
intimate relationship with [the attorney], you presided in
cases in which [the attorney] was an attorney of record or
a guardian ad litem.”S This response obfuscated the plain
issue: whether he and the attorney had any relationship
that resulted in Canon violations. The evidence clearly and
convincingly proves they did.
Improper Use of the Prestige of the Judicial Office to
Advance Private Interests
21. On or about June 14, 2018, Coffee County Circuit
Clerk Amy Reeves held a gathering in the courthouse to
celebrate her recent appointment. Judge Kaminski and the
attorney attended along with many members of the community,
including Judge Kaminski’s ex-wife. Following the
gathering, a rumor began circulating around the community
that Judge Kaminski and the attorney engaged in
inappropriate behavior in the presence of Judge Kaminski’s
ex-wife.
22. In response, shortly thereafter Judge Kaminski
contacted Coffee County Deputy Sheriff Craig Victor
regarding courthouse-surveillance footage. Deputy Victor is
S Sept. 25, 2018 Investigation Letter, Exhibit 1.
18
the supervisor of courthouse security for Coffee County and
deals with Judge Kaminski frequently. In that capacity,
Deputy Victor manages access to the building’s surveillance
system. Judge Kaminski asked Deputy Victor for permission
to enter the courthouse-security office and access the
surveillance system. Deputy Victor consented. Shortly
thereafter, Deputy Victor informed his direct supervisor
and also the Sheriff to inform them of Judge Kaminski’s
request.
23. Upon gaining access to the surveillance f90tage,
Judge Kaminski made a copy of the footage he deemed
relevant to rebut the “malicious rumor.”
24. Judge Kaminski shared the copied surveillance
footage with the attorney, who then disseminated it via
social media.
CHARGES
COUNT I
Charge 1
25. On numerous occasions, by appointing the attorney
to cases while they were engaged in a romantic
relationship, Judge Kaminski violated the following
provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
19
Canon 1
Canon 2
Canon 2A
Canon 2B
A judge should uphold the integrity and
independence of the judiciary.
A judge should participate in establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing, and should
himself observe, high standards of conduct
so that the integrity and independence of
the judiciary may be preserved.
A judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all his
activities.
A judge should respect and comply with the
law.
A judge should conduct himself at all times
in a manner that promotes public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
A judge should at all times avoid conduct
prejudicial to the administration of
justice which brings the judicial office
into disrepute.
Charge 2
26. On numerous occasions, by entering attorney’s fee
declarations orders for the benefit of the attorney while
they were engaged in a romantic relationship, Judge
Kaminski violated the following provisions of the Alabama
Canons of Judicial Ethics:
Canon 1 A judge should uphold the integrity and
independence of the judiciary.
A judge should participate in establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing, and should
20
Canon 2
Canon 2A
Canon 2B
himself observe, high standards of conduct
so that the integrity and independence of
the judiciary may be preserved.
A judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all his
activities.
A judge should respect and comply with the
law.
A judge should conduct himself at all times
in a manner that promotes public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
A judge should at all times avoid conduct
prejudicial to the administration of
justice which brings the judicial office
into disrepute.
Charge 3
27. On numerous occasions, by taking judicial actions
(in addition to the appointments and attorney’s fee
declarations) in cases in which the attorney was an
attorney of record while they were engaged in a romantic
relationship, Judge Kaminski violated the following
provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
Canon 1 A judge should uphold the integrity and
independence of the judiciary.
A judge should participate in establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing, and should
himself observe, high standards of conduct
so that the integrity and independence of
the judiciary may be preserved.
21
Canon 2
Canon 2A
Canon 2B
A judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all his
activities.
A judge should respect and comply with the
law.
A judge should conduct himself at all times
in a manner that promotes public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
A judge should at all times avoid conduct
prejudicial to the administration of
justice which brings the judicial office
into disrepute.
Charge 4
28. On numerous occasions, by failing to
timely/immediately disqualify himself from cases in which
the attorney was an attorney of record while they were
engaged in a romantic relationship, and even after they
publicly acknowledged the relationship, Judge Kaminski
violated the following provisions of the Alabama Canons of
Judicial Ethics:
Canon 1 A judge should uphold the integrity and
independence of the judiciary.
A judge should participate in establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing, and should
himself observe, high standards of conduct
so that the integrity and independence of
the judiciary may be preserved.
22
Canon 2
Canon 2A
Canon 2B
A judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all his
activities.
A judge should respect and comply with the
law.
A judge should conduct himself at all times
in a manner that promotes public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
A judge should at all times avoid conduct
prejudicial to the administration of
justice which brings the judicial office
into disrepute.
Canon 3C(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a
proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.
COUNT II
Charge 1
29. By using the prestige of his office to gain access
to courtroom-security footage to advance the private
interests of the attorney and himself, Judge Kaminski
violated the following provisions of the Alabama Canons of
Judicial Ethics:
Canon 1 A judge should uphold the integrity and
independence of the judiciary.
A judge should participate in establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing, and should
himself observe, high standards of conduct
so that the integrity and independence of
the judiciary may be preserved.
23
Canon 2
Canon 2A
Canon 2B
Canon 2C
A judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all his
activities.
A judge should respect and comply with the
law.
A judge should conduct himself at all times
in a manner that promotes public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
A judge should at all times avoid conduct
prejudicial to the administration of
justice which brings the judicial office
into disrepute.
A judge should not lend the prestige of his
office to advance the private interests of
others.
Charge 2
30. By supplying the footage to the attorney that she
shared on social media, Judge Kaminski violated the
following provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial
Ethics:
Canon 1
Canon 2
A judge should uphold the integrity and
independence of the judiciary.
A judge should participate in establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing, and should
himself observe, high standards of conduct
so that the integrity and independence of
the judiciary may be preserved.
A judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all his
activities.
24
Canon 2A
Canon 2C
A judge should respect and comply with the
law.
A judge should conduct himself at all times
in a manner that promotes public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
A judge should not conveyor permit others
to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence him.
COUNT III
31. By failing to be completely forthright and
truthful during the Commission’s investigation, Judge
Kaminski violated the following provisions of the Alabama
Canons of Judicial Ethics:
Canon 1
Canon 2
Canon 2A
A judge should uphold the integrity and
independence of the judiciary.
A judge should participate in establishing,
maintaining, and enforcing, and should
himself observe, high standards of conduct
so that the integrity and independence of
the judiciary may be preserved.
A judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all his
activities.
A judge should respect and comply with the
law.
A judge should conduct himself at all times
in a manner that promotes public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality. of the
judiciary.
25
Canon 2B A judge should at all times avoid conduct
prejudicial to the administration of
justice which brings the judicial office
into disrepute.
It.:- t”‘-
Done this ~ day of July, 2019.
THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
Billy C. Bedsole
Chairman
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
26
EXHIBIT
J’JubicittI ~nquirll @nmmiru;inn
TELEPHONE (384) 242-4089 FAX (334) 353-4043
MAlLING ADDRESS.
POST OPTICE BOX 303400
MOll.””I’GOMERY..AI. 36l.3003400
STREET ADDRESS,
401 ADAMS AVENUE. SUITE 720
MONTGOMERY. AL 36l.04
September 25,2018
CERTIFIED MAIL
Personal & Confidential
Honorable Chris Kaminski
District Judge
P.O. Box 311244
Enterprise, AL 36331
Re: Complaint
Dear Judge Kaminski:
As required by Rule 6C, Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Inquiry Commission, adopted by the
Alabama Supreme Court, you will find enclosed a copy of the complaint filed against you
A copy of all material accompanying the complaint and accumulated or received by
Commission as of this date is also enclosed.
In addition, as required ~s to advise you the Commission has decided to investigate the
following allegations in_ omplaint:
1. While you were in a romantic and/or intimate relationship with Attorney
you presided in cases in which~as an attorney of record or a guardian ad
litem.
Judge Kaminski
September 25,2018
Page 2
The Commission does not request a response from you at this time.
Sincerely.
JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
~c
Billy C. Bedsole
Chairman
Attachment: Complaint