Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission

Summary of Allegations

The Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) initiated formal proceedings against Chief Circuit Court Judge Daniel L. Ballou (34th Judicial Circuit) based on three primary counts of alleged judicial misconduct:

• Count I (The Incident and Order to Appear): Judge Ballou had previously established an administrative order and posted signs prohibiting cell phones and cameras in courtrooms. On August 25, 2025, Attorney Kerri Bartley filmed a video in the McCreary Circuit courtroom before court was in session and posted it to TikTok. The video featured the courtroom background and included a critical caption about "old yt [white] male judges". After learning of the video, Judge Ballou issued an "Order to Appear" for Ms. Bartley tied to an unrelated active criminal case (Commonwealth v. Kimberland), improperly forcing the notice and filing into that specific case file.
• Count II (The Hearing Conduct): During the September 22, 2025 hearing, Judge Ballou called Ms. Bartley first, publicly criticized her, interrupted her attempts to apologize, questioned where she attended law school, suggested she "might want to look into a refund," rolled his eyes, and excused her while he stared her down. The JCC alleges this behavior violated rules requiring judges to be patient, dignified, courteous, fair, and free from bias or harassment.
• Count III (The Prejudged Administrative Order): Prior to Ms. Bartley’s appearance, Judge Ballou drafted an administrative order branding her behavior as "childish, unprofessional, disrespectful, belligerent, immature, and extraordinarily arrogant" and turning the courtroom into a "Romper Room". The order banned her from possessing electronic devices across multiple courthouses and was handed to her at the hearing without giving her an opportunity to address or refute the allegations.

The JCC contends these actions violated multiple provisions of the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct (Rules 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3(B), 2.6, and 2.8(B)) and constituted misconduct in office under SCR 4.020.

Summary of the Response

Represented by counsel, Judge Ballou filed an Answer denying misconduct and raising numerous procedural and substantive defenses:

• Admissions of Fact: Judge Ballou admitted that multiple administrative orders banning electronic devices were posted, that Ms. Bartley violated them by filming and posting to TikTok, that she was summoned to court, and that she apologized during the hearing, describing her own conduct as "thoughtless". He also acknowledged the terms of the subsequent administrative order regarding courthouse security.
• Denial of Misconduct & Jurisdictional Claims: Judge Ballou denied that his actions constituted misconduct, arguing that the matters fell within the Court's inherent contempt powers, supervisory duties to maintain courtroom decorum, and constitutional authority. He asserted that the JCC lacks jurisdiction over contempt matters (which are properly remedied via appeal) and that the charges were untimely.
• Constitutional and Due Process Defenses: The response raises extensive constitutional challenges, arguing that:
• • The proceedings violate his free speech and judicial independence.
  • The JCC structure violates due process because the commission acts as both accuser and hearing body, and has allegedly prejudged the case.
  • The process denies him real discovery, subpoenas, and a hearing before a truly neutral hearing officer.
  • The matter constitutes selective prosecution motivated by political and free speech affiliations.
• Requested Relief: Judge Ballou has requested that the notice and charges be dismissed in their entirety, or alternatively, that any sanction be limited strictly to an admonition, accompanied by discovery access and a hearing before a neutral officer.