By Michael Phillips | Virginia Bay News

Virginia lawmakers have moved to re-close the curtain on judicial discipline records—just one year after the state briefly pulled them into public view—raising fresh questions about accountability, institutional self-protection, and public trust in the courts.

In 2023, a bipartisan reform passed by the Virginia General Assembly required the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission (JIRC) to publicly disclose the names of judges who were found to have violated the state’s Canons of Judicial Conduct, along with the nature of their misconduct and any disciplinary action taken. The reform, sponsored by Republican Del. Wren Williams, was widely seen as a modest but meaningful step toward transparency in a system historically shielded from public scrutiny.

That transparency lasted exactly one reporting cycle.

In 2025, lawmakers unanimously passed new legislation—sponsored by Democratic Sen. Creigh Deeds—that quietly reversed the reform. Under the new law, JIRC’s annual report is first submitted to lawmakers, who then decide whether to release it publicly. Absent affirmative action by the General Assembly, the report—and the identities of disciplined judges—can remain sealed.

What the Public Learned—Briefly

The impact of the 2023 law became clear with the release of JIRC’s 2024 annual report, the first to name disciplined judges. The report revealed several serious ethical breaches that had previously been handled almost entirely behind closed doors.

Among the most notable cases:

• Former Richmond Circuit Court Chief Judge W. Reilly Marchant, who admitted to improper conduct involving repeated unwanted advances toward female attorneys appearing before him. The behavior included personal comments, solicitations for hugs, and invitations that acknowledged an inherent power imbalance. Marchant agreed not to seek future judicial appointments and retired from the bench in 2024.
• Roanoke Circuit Court Judge Onzlee Ware, who was found to have engaged in a personal relationship with the mother of a criminal defendant whose case was pending in the same courthouse, while allegedly providing legal advice related to the case. Ware entered into a disciplinary agreement before his death in early 2024.
• Juvenile and Domestic Relations Judge Todd G. Petit, who was cited for violations of judicial canons related to integrity and the appearance of impropriety. While the specific conduct was not detailed publicly, the report confirmed that the violation was founded and disciplinary action was taken. Petit remains on the bench.

Other cases involved off-bench conduct such as public intoxication and undisclosed ethical lapses resolved through supervision agreements—again, all information the public would never have seen prior to the brief transparency window.

Lawmakers’ Rationale—and Walkback

Sen. Deeds initially justified the 2025 rollback by citing concerns that unfounded or defamatory complaints could become public through open-records requests. However, he later acknowledged that he had misunderstood how the reporting system worked: the JIRC report included only founded violations resulting in discipline, not dismissed complaints.

Deeds has since said he is open to revisiting the law following public criticism, but as of early 2026, the damage is done. The 2025 JIRC report was notably absent from public release, signaling a return to the old norm of secrecy.

A Double Standard?

Legal scholars and ethics experts warn that the reversal sends the wrong message.

Judicial ethics expert Charles Geyh has argued that secrecy does more harm than disclosure, undermining confidence in a system that already asks citizens to trust judges with extraordinary power. Attorney Andi Geloo has called the change a “double standard,” noting that police officers, lawyers, and other public officials routinely face public disclosure when disciplined—while judges are once again insulated.

Virginia now stands out nationally for its lack of transparency. In many states, serious judicial misconduct leads to public hearings or published findings. In Virginia, even proven violations can now disappear into a legislative filing cabinet.

Why It Matters

The 2024 report demonstrated that transparency did not unleash chaos or smear innocent judges. Instead, it showed a system where most complaints are dismissed, a small number are substantiated, and discipline—often negotiated quietly—rarely reaches the level of removal.

What it did provide was sunlight.

By reinstating secrecy, lawmakers have effectively told the public: trust us, but don’t look too closely. For a judiciary that relies on legitimacy rather than force, that may be a risky bargain—especially at a time when confidence in institutions is already fraying.

Whether the General Assembly revisits the law remains to be seen. Until then, Virginians are once again being asked to take judicial accountability on faith.

---

Support Independent Journalism

Virginia Bay News is part of the Bay News Media Network — a growing group of independent, reader-supported newsrooms covering government accountability, courts, public safety, and institutional failures across the country.

Support independent journalism that isn’t funded by political parties, corporations, or government agencies
Submit tips or documents securely — if you see something wrong, we want to know

Independent reporting only works when readers stay engaged. Your attention, tips, and support help keep these stories alive.