Judge who won libel lawsuit faces ethics charges

Commission says he tried to bully Herald

The state judge who recently won a $2 million libel verdict against the Boston Herald now faces state ethics charges that he sought to bully the newspaper into giving him more money.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct filed charges yesterday with the Supreme Judicial Court against Judge Ernest Murphy, alleging that a series of letters he sent to the Herald constituted "willful misconduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute."

Murphy will be allowed to defend himself at a hearing, which has not been scheduled. He could be subject to a fine, reprimand, or censure, but only the Legislature can remove him from the bench.

Murphy's alleged infractions occurred in February 2005, days after a Suffolk County jury ordered the Herald to pay him $2.01 million for libeling him in a series of articles that portrayed the jurist as lenient on crime and quoted him as saying "Tell her to get over it" about a 14-year-old rape victim.

The SJC upheld the verdict in May, and the Herald last month paid him the sum plus $1.4 million in interest.

The commission alleges that after the jury verdict, Murphy sent Herald publisher Patrick J. Purcell a handwritten note requesting a private meeting to discuss getting more money from the tabloid.

The commission, in a 26-page charging document, asserts that Murphy sought to use his office for personal gain in a way that "casts doubt" on his impartiality.

"You will bring to that meeting a cashiers check, payable to me, in the sum of $3,260,000," according to the letter, written on Superior Court stationery. "No check, no meeting." Murphy wrote that it was in Purcell's "distinct business interests" to give him the money.

A one-page postscript warned Purcell that telling anyone about the letter would be "a BIG mistake."

The charges stem from an investigation initiated by complaints from the Herald, as well as questions raised independently by commission members.

The Herald had filed the letters in court in an unsuccessful attempt to get the libel verdict thrown out. The newspaper also published excerpts from the letters in 2005.

Purcell praised the commission's action in a statement yesterday evening.

"The threatening contents of his handwritten letters, using court stationery, speak volumes about this particular judge and reflect poorly on the administration of justice in this state," he wrote. "If the publisher of one of the region's major newspapers can be threatened by a member of the judiciary in this way, then who is safe?"

Murphy's lawyer, Michael Mone, called the charges "ridiculous." He said the judge has apologized for using court stationery.

"I'm confident that . . . he did nothing that violated the canons of ethics," said Mone.

In a written response filed in court, Murphy acknowledged writing the letters but denied any misconduct. He wrote that his use of court letterhead was "inadvertent."

"The publication of the letters by the Boston Herald constituted a breach of a personal agreement made by Mr. Purcell to treat communications between Purcell and the respondent as private, confidential, and privileged settlement negotiations regarding the matter pending between the parties," Murphy said in his written response.