While Judge Wright was actively considering an appeal by Mr. Chamberlain regarding the actions of Judge Paul F. Harris, Jr. (#719 September Term 2014 Chamberlain v. Chamberlain), he was simultaneously acting as Commissioner for the Commission on Judicial Disabilities reviewing and extensive complaint with substantial evidence of numerous violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct by Judge Harris in the underlying action. This conflict of interest, as well as the questionable legal reasoning utilized by Judge Wright in his denial of the appeal, resulted in Judge Wright's recusal.
While Judge Wright was actively considering an appeal by Mr. Chamberlain regarding the actions of Judge Paul F. Harris, Jr. (#719 September Term 2014 Chamberlain v. Chamberlain), he was simultaneously acting as Commissioner for the Commission on Judicial Disabilities reviewing and extensive complaint with substantial evidence of numerous violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct by Judge Harris in the underlying action. This conflict of interest, as well as the questionable legal reasoning utilized by Judge Wright in his denial of the appeal, resulted in Judge Wright's recusal.
While Judge Wright was actively considering an appeal by Mr. Chamberlain regarding the actions of Judge Paul F. Harris, Jr. (#719 September Term 2014 Chamberlain v. Chamberlain), he was simultaneously acting as Commissioner for the Commission on Judicial Disabilities reviewing and extensive complaint with substantial evidence of numerous violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct by Judge Harris in the underlying action. This conflict of interest, as well as the questionable legal reasoning utilized by Judge Wright in his denial of the appeal, resulted in Judge Wright's recusal.
While Judge Wright was actively considering an appeal by Mr. Chamberlain regarding the actions of Judge Paul F. Harris, Jr. (#719 September Term 2014 Chamberlain v. Chamberlain), he was simultaneously acting as Commissioner for the Commission on Judicial Disabilities reviewing and extensive complaint with substantial evidence of numerous violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct by Judge Harris in the underlying action. This conflict of interest, as well as the questionable legal reasoning utilized by Judge Wright in his denial of the appeal, resulted in Judge Wright's recusal.