TEXAS COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS CORNEJO-LOPEZ; FINDS HER "WILLFUL AND PERSISTENT" CONDUCT DISCREDITS JUDICIARY

 Special to El Rrun-Rrun

The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct has issued a rare public reprimand to former 404th District Judge Elia Cornejo-Lopez after she admitted that she had answered a motion for her to recuse herself from the custody case of Jasmine B. Cuellar who was represented by Brownsville attorney Reynaldo Garza III with a 120-page scathing denunciation of Garza on issues irrelevant to the case.

The case, labeled Adam T. Garcia, Jr. vs. Jasmine B Cuellar, Case No. 2012-DCL-07509, a family law case regarding the modification of the parent-child relationship. The commission issued its ruling October 9, 2024.

On October 1, 2020,Garza filed a Motion to Recuse Cornejo-Lopez from the Garcia case. The following day, October 2, he filed an Amended Motion to Recuse. 

In both, he alleged that Lopez should be recused "because her impartiality can reasonably be questioned, and she has a personal bias or prejudice against the subject matter such that recusal is necessary. Judge Lopez and her staff (Court Coordinator Sandra Betancourt) have interjected themselves into the litigation in a manner inconsistent with the role of the judiciary."

On October 6, 2020, Lopez issued a Ruling on Motion to Recuse in which she recused herself' from the Garcia Case but responded to the allegations Garza made in the Motion to Recuse and the Amended Motion to Recuse.

In her 120-page Ruling on Motion to Recuse, Judge Lopez made very personal and disparaging statements about Garza which included, but not limited to, that Garza was mentally ill and corrupt and that he violated attorney-client privilege. Also, Lopez provided information regarding five other active cases where Garza was the attorney that she believed were examples to support her statements about Garza.

Later, on October 6, 2020, Garza filed an Agreed & Unopposed Emergency Motion to Seal with Judge Missy Medary, presiding Judge of the 5th Judicial Administrative Region, asking that Lopez's Ruling on Motion to Recuse filed in the Garcia Case and the other five cases should be sealed. Garza asserted that the Ruling on Motion to Recuse should be sealed because Lopez's response was irrelevant to the issues in the Garcia Case, served no legal purpose and appeared to be aimed at causing harm to Garza.

Garza stated lie wanted both the Motion to Recuse and the Amended Motion to Recuse to be sealed because or reasons that impact the continuing litigation between the parties' and the parties' desire to move forward in the litigation unencumbered by any issues associated with the recusal in the Garcia case.

On October 7, Judge Medary granted Garza's motion and sealed the Garcia case and the other unrelated five cases where the recusal notice was also filed. 

In her written response and testimony before the Commission,  Lopez stated she had filed the Ruling on Motion to Recuse in the other cases involving Garza because she was explaining the reason why she was sua sponte (on her own accord)  recusing herself from those cases where Motions to Recuse were not filed, and that she did not want her impartiality to be questioned in Garza's other cases.

She testified she signed an order granting an Order to Recuse for the Garcia case, but stated the Ruling on Motion to Recuse was "accidentally" filed...

The commission determined that (Lopez) "should be publicly reprimanded for: 

(1) failing to be patient, dignified and courteous towards Garza when she purposefully made very personal and disparaging statements about Garza in a response to the motions to recuse in the Garcia Case; and 

(2) willfully filed the response to the motions to recuse in the Garcia Case and five other cases in which Garza represented a party for the purpose of sua sponte recusing herself from those cases. (Her) failure in this respect constituted willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of  her duties and cast public discredit upon the judiciary or the administration of justice, in violation of Canon 3B(4) or the Texas Code on Judicial Conduct and Article V, Section 1-a (6)A of the Texas Constitution."