The publisher of the Boston Herald urged the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct yesterday to suspend Superior Court Judge Ernest B. Murphy from the bench, arguing that he abused his position by writing threatening and "bizarre" letters to the Herald on court stationery after winning a $2 million libel verdict against the newspaper.
"If this isn't misconduct, I don't know the meaning of the word," said Patrick Purcell, the Herald's publisher. He asked the commission to reject a hearing officer's recommendation that the judge's punishment be limited to a public reprimand and an order that he reimburse the commission for the cost of Murphy's disciplinary proceedings.
Purcell said the two letters he received from Murphy in 2005, demanding that he show up for a meeting without telling his lawyers and turn over a $3,260,000 check to the judge, were akin to a "ransom note" and were an effort by Murphy to intimidate the Herald into settling the libel case without pursuing its right to an appeal.
"He has expressed no regret," said Purcell, arguing in a 15-minute personal appeal that the public will lose confidence in the judicial system if Murphy isn't punished more severely for ethical violations.
But Murphy's lawyer, Michael E. Mone, mocked the Herald's position, telling the commission that getting a lecture from the newspaper on ethics "is like being called ugly by a frog."
Murphy has apologized for writing the letters on court stationery, but defended the contents as truthful and proper. The Herald, however, has never apologized for a series of stories in 2002 that defamed Murphy and traumatized the judge and his family, Mone said.
"So, please, I don't want to hear anything from Mr. Purcell about what ethics require," said Mone, urging the commission to adopt the hearing officer's recommendation.
The hearing officer, Peter W. Kilborn, a retired state judge, concluded in November that the letters were "improper in tone and content" but that Murphy was under "very substantial stress" as a result of the Herald articles.
In a written report filed this week, the commission's counsel objected to Murphy's punishment, saying a "more stringent sanction is appropriate."
Robert J. Guttentag, chairman of the nine-member commission, said yesterday that the panel would submit its report and recommendations within 90 days to the Supreme Judicial Court, which will decide the punishment.
In February 2005, a jury found that the Herald had maliciously published false and defamatory material about Murphy. The verdict was based on a series of articles, quoting anonymous sources, that asserted the judge had instructed lawyers during a conference in his chambers to tell a 14-year-old rape victim to "get over it." Murphy testified that he had actually said the victim would need help to get over the attack. Murphy said he was deluged with hate mail and threats to his family after the articles.
After the verdict, Murphy wrote two letters to Purcell, demanding that he settle the case, warning that it would be a "BIG mistake" to share the letters with his trial lawyers, and saying, "You have a ZERO chance of reversing my jury verdict on appeal."
Purcell told the commission yesterday that it was improper for Murphy to say he knew what the outcome of the case would be.
The Herald didn't settle the case as a result of the letters, but published excerpts from them in December 2005, about the same time Murphy launched an unsuccessful effort to have the newspaper's assets frozen until his case was resolved. Last year, after the SJC upheld the libel verdict, the Herald paid Murphy $3.41 million, which included the award plus interest that had accrued.
