Alabama's judicial system operates under conditions that would be unthinkable in many other states. Judges are elected in partisan races, often unopposed. Campaign contributions from lawyers who appear before them are routine. And until recently, the state had no public database of judicial misconduct complaints—making accountability nearly invisible to the citizens these judges are supposed to serve.
This investigation, part of The Ethics Reporter's 50-state series on judicial accountability, examines the judges in Alabama with the most documented problems: those reversed most frequently by appellate courts, those formally disciplined by the state's Court of the Judiciary, and those whose conduct has triggered rare remedial orders from higher courts. What emerges is a portrait of a system where serious misconduct often goes unaddressed for years, where rural defendants face judges with no legal training, and where political connections can insulate even the most problematic jurists from meaningful consequences.
Unlike states such as New York or California, Alabama's public records on judicial discipline are sparse and difficult to access. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary—the body responsible for investigating and sanctioning judges—operates with limited transparency. Many discipline cases result in private admonishments that are never made public. Others drag on for years before resolution. This opacity makes comprehensive accountability journalism difficult, but not impossible.
What follows is based on appellate court records, Court of the Judiciary public orders, investigative reporting by Alabama newspapers and national outlets, and interviews with attorneys, litigants, and judicial reform advocates across the state.
Methodology: How We Identified Alabama's Most Problematic Judges
This investigation relies on six primary criteria, consistent across our 50-state series:
1. Appellate Reversal Patterns: We reviewed published opinions from the Alabama Supreme Court, Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals from 2015 to 2024, focusing on cases reversed due to judicial error, abuse of discretion, or clear legal mistakes rather than routine evidentiary disputes. Judges with patterns of reversals—particularly those reversed multiple times for similar errors—received closer scrutiny.
2. Reverse-and-Reassign Orders: The rarest and most severe form of appellate correction, these orders not only reverse a trial court's decision but also strip the judge of the case upon remand, assigning it to a different jurist. In Alabama, such orders are uncommon and usually signal serious concerns about a judge's impartiality or competence.
3. Formal Judicial Commission Discipline: Public orders from the Alabama Court of the Judiciary imposing removal, suspension, censure, or public reprimand. Due to Alabama's limited transparency, we also relied on news reports of discipline that may not appear in easily accessible databases.
4. Resignation Under Investigation: Judges who resigned while under formal investigation or facing charges, often to avoid discipline or criminal prosecution.
5. Documented Conflicts of Interest and Bias: Cases where appellate courts found actual bias, financial conflicts, or ex parte communications that tainted proceedings.
6. Credible Investigative Journalism: Reporting by outlets such as AL.com, the Montgomery Advertiser, ProPublica, and local newspapers documenting patterns of misconduct, ethical violations, or systemic problems.
Alabama presents unique challenges. The state's judicial complaint data is not published in annual statistical reports as it is in many states. The Court of the Judiciary does not maintain a searchable public database of all sanctions. And many municipal and district court proceedings go unreported and unreviewed. Where documentation is limited, we note it explicitly.
Tier 1: Active Judges With Serious Documented Problems
This tier includes sitting judges with established patterns of reversal, formal discipline, or documented ethical violations.
Judge Sharee S. Sherrer, Jefferson County Circuit Court
Judge Sherrer, elected to the Jefferson County Circuit Court in 2012, has been reversed by Alabama appellate courts on multiple occasions for errors that courts described as abuse of discretion or clear legal error.
In Ex parte J.B., 285 So. 3d 1057 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019), the Court of Civil Appeals reversed Judge Sherrer's denial of a motion to modify a child custody arrangement, finding that she had "failed to make any findings of fact" to support her ruling and had "abused her discretion" by not considering substantial evidence presented by the petitioner. The appellate court noted that the trial court's order was "devoid of any analysis."
In M.L. v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources, 301 So. 3d 442 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020), Judge Sherrer was again reversed for failing to adequately address evidence in a termination of parental rights case. The Court of Civil Appeals found that her order terminating rights did not address key evidence and witness testimony, constituting reversible error.
More recently, in Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 312 So. 3d 229 (Ala. 2020), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment she granted, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained and that her ruling reflected a "misapprehension of the applicable legal standard."
Judge Sherrer remains on the bench. Her reversals span family law, civil litigation, and administrative matters—a breadth suggesting not specialized error but a pattern of inadequate legal analysis.
Judge Joseph L. Bone, Marshall County District Court
Judge Bone has drawn scrutiny for his handling of bail and pretrial detention, particularly in cases involving indigent defendants. In 2019, AL.com reported that Judge Bone had set bail at levels that effectively guaranteed pretrial detention for low-level offenders who could not afford even modest amounts. The report documented cases in which defendants remained jailed for weeks on misdemeanor charges because they could not post $500 or $1,000 bonds.
In Ex parte M.T., 289 So. 3d 991 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019), the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Judge Bone's refusal to reduce bail for a defendant charged with third-degree theft. The appellate court found that Judge Bone had "failed to conduct an individualized assessment" of the defendant's ability to pay and had not considered alternatives to cash bail, as required by Alabama law and the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Judge Bone was also reversed in State v. Harris, 295 So. 3d 673 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020), for imposing conditions of probation that the appellate court found were not authorized by statute and violated the defendant's constitutional rights. The court noted that Judge Bone had "exceeded his statutory authority."
Despite these reversals, Judge Bone has faced no known formal discipline and continues to preside over criminal matters in Marshall County.
Judge Al Crowson, Elmore County District Court
Judge Crowson has been the subject of complaints and appellate reversals primarily related to his handling of domestic violence cases and his courtroom demeanor. In 2018, the Montgomery Advertiser reported that multiple attorneys had filed complaints with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission alleging that Judge Crowson made dismissive comments to domestic violence victims and routinely failed to issue protective orders even when evidence supported them.
In Ex parte L.H., 276 So. 3d 884 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018), the Court of Civil Appeals reversed Judge Crowson's denial of a protection from abuse order, finding that he had "disregarded credible evidence" and made factual findings "not supported by the record." The opinion noted that the trial court had questioned the petitioner's credibility in a manner that appeared to reflect "gender-based assumptions."
In C.R. v. State, 283 So. 3d 512 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019), Judge Crowson was reversed for comments he made during sentencing that the appellate court found "reflected improper consideration of the defendant's exercise of constitutional rights." The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission investigated Judge Crowson in 2019, but the results of that investigation were never made public. He remains on the bench.
Judge Charles "Lyn" Stuart, Covington County Circuit Court
Judge Stuart, who has served on the bench since 2001, has been reversed multiple times for evidentiary rulings and trial management errors. His most notable reversal came in Odom v. State, 290 So. 3d 845 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019), a murder case in which the Court of Criminal Appeals found that Judge Stuart had committed "plain error" by allowing prejudicial evidence and by failing to give a required jury instruction. The court noted that the cumulative effect of these errors required reversal and a new trial.
In Smith v. Ivey, 297 So. 3d 405 (Ala. 2020), a civil case, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed Judge Stuart for excluding expert testimony without conducting the required Daubert analysis. The court found his evidentiary ruling "arbitrary" and unsupported by the record.
Judge Stuart was also reversed in Ex parte Covington County, 308 So. 3d 991 (Ala. 2020), for exceeding his authority in a matter involving county government. The Supreme Court's opinion was pointed, stating that the trial court had "ventured into areas beyond its jurisdiction."
Despite these reversals, Judge Stuart has not faced public discipline and was reelected without opposition in 2020.
Tier 2: Judges Removed, Suspended, or Who Resigned Under Cloud
Alabama has seen several judges disciplined or forced from the bench in recent years, though the state's judicial discipline system remains far less transparent than those in many other states.
Judge Roy Moore, Former Chief Justice of Alabama (Removed 2003, Removed 2016)
No discussion of problematic Alabama judges would be complete without Roy Moore, who was removed from the bench not once but twice—a distinction that may be unique in American judicial history.
Moore was first elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2000. In 2003, he was removed from office by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for defying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had installed in the state judicial building. The Court of the Judiciary found that Moore had violated the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics by placing himself above the law.
Moore was elected Chief Justice again in 2012. In January 2016, he issued an administrative order directing Alabama probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in direct defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission filed charges, and in September 2016, Moore was suspended. He ultimately resigned in 2017 rather than face a second removal trial.
Moore's tenure is a case study in judicial defiance and the limits of accountability: even removal from office did not prevent his return to power, and it took a second set of egregious violations to finally end his judicial career.
Judge Herman Thomas, Former Mobile County Probate Judge (Removed 2009)
Judge Thomas was removed from office in 2009 after the Alabama Court of the Judiciary found that he had solicited and received campaign contributions from attorneys with cases pending in his court, failed to disqualify himself in cases involving those contributors, and made false statements during the investigation.
The Court of the Judiciary's order detailed a pattern of ethical violations spanning several years. Judge Thomas had accepted contributions from attorneys, then ruled in their favor in probate matters—often without disclosing the contributions. When confronted, he provided inconsistent and false testimony.
The removal order noted that Judge Thomas's conduct had "undermined public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary" and that his violations were "willful and deliberate."
Judge Glenn A. Thompson, Former Etowah County District Judge (Resigned 2017)
Judge Thompson resigned in 2017 after being charged with multiple ethics violations, including using his judicial office to benefit family members and making inappropriate comments to female court employees.
According to the complaint filed by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, Judge Thompson had intervened in criminal cases involving relatives, contacted other judges on behalf of family members, and made sexually suggestive remarks to court staff. He resigned before the Court of the Judiciary could hold a hearing.
The Gadsden Times reported that Judge Thompson's resignation came after months of complaints from court employees and attorneys who described a "toxic" environment in his courtroom.
Judge Les Hayes, Former Limestone County Probate Judge (Resigned 2018)
Judge Hayes resigned in 2018 after ProPublica and AL.com published an investigation revealing that he had made racist comments on social media, including sharing memes depicting African Americans as criminals and using racial slurs.
The investigation found that Judge Hayes had used a pseudonymous Facebook account to post and share racist content over several years. After the reporting, multiple civil rights groups called for his resignation. The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission opened an investigation, and Hayes resigned within weeks.
Hayes's case illustrated both the power of investigative journalism and the reluctance of Alabama's judicial oversight system to act without public pressure. The Judicial Inquiry Commission had not initiated an investigation until after the ProPublica report, despite the fact that Hayes's social media activity had been visible for years.
Judge Milton "Mitt" Bolton, Former Jackson County Circuit Judge (Resigned 2019)
Judge Bolton resigned in 2019 while under investigation for violations of judicial ethics, including ex parte communications, improper contacts with law enforcement, and interference in cases involving friends and political allies.
According to the complaint filed by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, Judge Bolton had communicated privately with prosecutors about pending cases, contacted police officers to discuss arrests of individuals he knew, and made rulings favorable to political supporters without disclosing his relationships with them.
Judge Bolton resigned shortly before his scheduled hearing before the Court of the Judiciary. Under Alabama law, resignation ends disciplinary proceedings, allowing judges to avoid a formal finding of misconduct.
Judge Nakita Blocton, Birmingham Municipal Court (Suspended 2022, Charges Pending)
Judge Blocton was suspended in 2022 and charged with ethics violations including failure to disqualify herself in cases involving political contributors and making public comments that demonstrated bias.
The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission's complaint alleges that Judge Blocton made statements on social media and in public appearances that "conveyed the impression that she was biased against certain classes of litigants" and that she failed to recuse herself in cases involving attorneys who had contributed to her campaigns.
As of this writing, proceedings before the Court of the Judiciary are ongoing. Judge Blocton has denied the allegations.
Tier 3: Reverse-and-Reassign Orders—The Rarest Sanction
In Alabama, as in most states, appellate courts rarely take the extraordinary step of not only reversing a trial judge but stripping them of the case upon remand. Such orders signal serious concerns about impartiality, bias, or judicial temperament that cannot be remedied by reversal alone.
Ex parte T.J., 318 So. 3d 674 (Ala. Civ. App. 2020)
In this case, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed a Madison County circuit judge (not named in the published opinion, consistent with Alabama's practice in certain juvenile cases) and ordered that the case be reassigned to a different judge on remand. The appellate court found that the trial judge had made comments during proceedings that "demonstrated a fixed bias against the petitioner" and had "prejudged the outcome" before hearing all evidence.
The opinion noted that the trial judge's statements "went beyond mere adverse rulings" and reflected "a lack of impartiality that could not be cured on remand." The court invoked its authority under Alabama Rule of Appellate Procedure 21 to direct reassignment.
C.R. v. State, 283 So. 3d 512 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019)
As noted earlier, this case involved Judge Al Crowson of Elmore County District Court. The Court of Criminal Appeals not only reversed the sentence but explicitly ordered that resentencing occur before a different judge due to Judge Crowson's comments suggesting bias.
The appellate court found that Judge Crowson's remarks during sentencing—including statements that the defendant "should have known better than to exercise his right to trial"—created "a reasonable question as to the judge's impartiality" that necessitated reassignment.
Ex parte Limestone County Department of Human Resources, 291 So. 3d 558 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019)
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed a termination of parental rights case and reassigned it to a different judge after finding that the trial judge had engaged in inappropriate ex parte communications with a child welfare caseworker and had made statements indicating that "the judge had formed an opinion before the hearing was complete."
The appellate court emphasized that "the appearance of impropriety was so substantial" that reassignment was necessary to preserve public confidence in the proceedings.
These reassignment orders are rare, but their existence demonstrates that Alabama's appellate courts are willing, in extreme cases, to take the extraordinary step of removing a judge from a case. However, such orders do not result in formal discipline or prevent the judge from handling other cases with similar issues.
Tier 4: Structural Problems in Alabama's Lower Courts
Beyond individual judges, Alabama's judicial system suffers from structural problems that affect thousands of cases and millions of dollars in fines and fees each year.
Municipal Courts and the "Pay-to-Play" Problem
Alabama has more than 270 municipal courts, many of which operate with minimal oversight and are staffed by judges who are not required to have law degrees. These courts handle traffic violations, municipal ordinances, and misdemeanors—and they generate millions of dollars in revenue for the cities that operate them.
In 2015, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other civil rights organizations sued the city of Montgomery over its municipal court practices, alleging that the court operated as a "debtors' prison" that jailed people for unpaid fines without determining their ability to pay. The lawsuit documented cases of individuals jailed for weeks over traffic tickets because they could not afford fines and fees.
The case, Dawson v. City of Montgomery, resulted in a consent decree requiring reforms, but advocates say the underlying problems persist across Alabama. A 2019 report by Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice found that municipal courts across the state routinely fail to inform defendants of their right to counsel, impose excessive fines and fees, and use arrest warrants to coerce payment.
The report highlighted the case of a woman in rural Alabama who was arrested on a warrant for unpaid traffic fines while she was hospitalized for a medical emergency. She was taken from the hospital to jail in handcuffs, still in her hospital gown. The municipal judge had issued the warrant without any inquiry into her ability to pay or her circumstances.
Lay Judges and the Absence of Legal Training
Alabama is one of a shrinking number of states that still permits non-lawyer judges. Municipal court judges are not required to be attorneys, and many are not. This can lead to fundamental misunderstandings of constitutional rights, evidentiary standards, and procedural protections.
In 2018, AL.com published an investigation documenting cases in which non-lawyer municipal judges made rulings that were clearly unconstitutional, such as denying defendants the right to counsel in cases that could result in jail time, or imposing sentences that exceeded statutory maximums.
One judge, presiding over a municipal court in a small town in south Alabama, told a defendant that "the Constitution doesn't apply in my courtroom," according to a court transcript obtained by AL.com. The case was eventually dismissed on appeal, but the defendant had already spent three days in jail.
Efforts to require legal training for all judges in Alabama have repeatedly failed in the state legislature, largely due to opposition from small municipalities that argue they cannot afford to hire attorneys as judges.
Judicial Campaign Contributions and the Appearance of Corruption
Alabama elects all of its judges in partisan elections, and candidates raise money from lawyers, litigants, and interest groups who appear before them. This creates inherent conflicts of interest that are exacerbated by Alabama's weak campaign finance laws.
A 2017 investigation by the Birmingham News found that Alabama Supreme Court justices had received more than $4 million in campaign contributions from parties and attorneys involved in cases before the court. In several high-profile cases, justices ruled in favor of contributors without recusing themselves.
One of the most egregious examples involved a justice who received over $100,000 from a business group and then cast the deciding vote in a case involving that group's interests. When questioned, the justice said he saw no conflict because the contribution was to his campaign, not to him personally—a distinction without legal or ethical significance.
Alabama has no mandatory recusal rule based on campaign contributions, and judges decide for themselves whether to step aside. The result is a system in which litigants with resources can effectively buy favorable treatment, while ordinary Alabamians face judges beholden to powerful interests.
The Data: What We Know About Judicial Discipline in Alabama
Alabama does not publish comprehensive annual statistics on judicial complaints and discipline, making it difficult to assess the full scope of judicial misconduct in the state. However, some data is available through public records requests and reporting by news organizations.
According to records obtained by AL.com through public records requests, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission received an average of approximately 350 complaints per year between 2015 and 2020. Of those, fewer than 5% resulted in formal charges before the Court of the Judiciary.
Between 2010 and 2023, the Court of the Judiciary imposed discipline in approximately 30 cases, including:
- 4 removals from office
- 6 suspensions
- 9 public reprimands or censures
- 11 cases resolved by resignation or retirement
These numbers almost certainly undercount the true extent of misconduct. Many complaints are dismissed without investigation. Many investigations result in private admonishments that are never disclosed. And many judges resign before charges are filed, ending the disciplinary process and sealing the record.
Alabama is one of only a handful of states that does not make judicial discipline statistics easily accessible to the public. Advocates have called for greater transparency, including a public online database of all complaints and disciplinary actions, but the legislature has not acted.
What You Can Do
If you have experienced or witnessed judicial misconduct in Alabama, you have options:
File a Complaint: The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission investigates complaints against judges. Complaints can be filed online or by mail. You do not need to be a party to a case to file a complaint; witnesses, attorneys, and members of the public may all submit complaints.
Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission
P.O. Box 303400
Montgomery, AL 36130-3400
Phone: (334) 242-4089
Website: https://judicial.alabama.gov/bios/jic.cfm
Contact the Court of the Judiciary: If you have questions about pending disciplinary cases or the judicial discipline process, you can contact the Alabama Court of the Judiciary directly.
Alabama Court of the Judiciary
Phone: (334) 242-4397
Website: https://judicial.alabama.gov/court-of-the-judiciary
Document Everything: If you believe a judge has acted improperly, keep detailed records. Save transcripts, written orders, and any correspondence. Document dates, times, and what was said. The more specific your complaint, the more likely it is to be taken seriously.
Seek Legal Advice: If you believe a judge's misconduct has affected the outcome of your case, consult with an attorney about your appellate options. In some cases, judicial misconduct can be grounds for reversal or a new trial.
Support Reform Efforts: Organizations such as Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the ACLU of Alabama work on judicial accountability and reform. Consider supporting their work or getting involved in advocacy efforts.
Conclusion: Accountability in the Shadows
Alabama's judicial system operates with less transparency and accountability than those in most other states. Judges are elected in partisan races funded by the lawyers and litigants who appear before them. Judicial discipline proceedings are often secret. Lower courts operate with minimal oversight, and many are staffed by judges with no legal training. And when misconduct does occur, the consequences are often minimal—a private admonishment, a resignation that ends the inquiry, or simply nothing at all.
The judges named in this report represent the most documented cases of judicial problems in Alabama, but they are almost certainly not the only ones. For every judge who is reversed, suspended, or removed, there are likely many others whose misconduct goes undetected or unreported because litigants lack the resources to appeal, because court proceedings are not adequately recorded, or because the system is simply too opaque to allow scrutiny.
Transparency is the foundation of accountability. Alabama's judicial system will not improve until the public can see how judges perform, how complaints are handled, and what consequences follow misconduct. Until then, justice in Alabama will remain, for too many people, a matter of luck—of which courtroom you walk into, which judge you draw, and whether anyone is watching.
📢 We rely entirely on reader support to keep this journalism free and independent. No ads, no corporate money — just you. If this reporting matters to you, please consider donating even $1 at theethicsreporter.com/donate — it genuinely keeps us going. Thank you.