Rochester City Court Judge Maija Dixon censured by Commission on Judicial Conduct

Listen to this article

Rochester City Court Judge Maija C. Dixon has been censured by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Dixon, who is seeking re-election in November, improperly contacted the judge in a civil case in which she was the plaintiff in 2013.

Although the Commission’s counsel recommended that Dixon be removed from office, and two members of the Commission, including Perinton Town Justice Thomas Klonick, agreed, the other eight members voted for public censure.

“When a litigant seeks to privately impart favorable information about her case to the judge presiding over the matter, the entire system of justice is subverted. When the litigant who does so is a judge, in an attempt to advance her personal interests in her own case, respect for the judiciary as a whole is diminished,” the Commissioners said in the ruling.

In a 10-page dissenting opinion, Klonick described Dixon’s case as “one of the most serious the Commission has ever encountered for this type of conduct.”

In her testimony to the Commission, Dixon said: “As I am up for re-election, this is, the timing of this is very difficult. But I am hopeful that you will see that I am truly sincere and that I am truly remorseful.”

In a statement emailed by her lawyer, Lawton W. Squires, Dixon said: “I respect the Commission’s ruling on this matter. I made a mistake, which I truly regret. I am also grateful to be given a second chance. Thankfully, no one suffered injury as a result of my error.”

“To the people of the City of Rochester and my colleagues, I apologize,” she said in the statement. “I do not take the trust you placed in me for granted. I value the dignity of this office and the profession. Now that this matter is fully resolved, I will put this moment in perspective and move on to serve this community with the highest ethical standards.”

Almost 10 years ago, on June 23, 2006, Dixon’s parked car was hit by another vehicle. Dixon retained a lawyer to represent her and, in November 2008, accepted a $25,000 settlement from the no-fault carrier for her claim against the driver of the other car.

Dixon initiated another suit in September 2010 related to the 2006 accident. She sued her insurance carrier, GEICO, seeking additional compensation.

In May 2013, the case was before state Supreme Court Justice J. Scott Odorisi, who knew Dixon personally and professionally. They were on a first-name basis and their offices were in the same building. Before he was elected to state Supreme Court in 2012, Odorisi filled in for Dixon at times in Rochester City Court. And Dixon supported Odorisi in his bid for state Supreme Court.

After Dixon told her lawyer, Kristopher Schwarzmueller, that she wanted to settle the case, GEICO made an offer of $20,000 and Schwarzmueller sent Dixon a document for her to sign on Sept. 23, 2013.

Dixon did not sign the document at that time.

On Oct. 1, 2013, Dixon called Odorisi. Over Odorisi’s repeated objections Dixon told him she was unhappy with her lawyer and she wanted the case transferred out of Rochester and she wanted a conference with the attorneys and the insurance adjuster.

The call lasted about two to three minutes and Odorisi’s secretary, Maureen Ware, said she heard him tell Dixon several times that he could not discuss the case.

Afterward, Odorisi immediately called Schwarzmueller and GEICO’s lawyer and told them what happened. Subsequently Schwarzmueller left a telephone message and sent a letter to Dixon telling her not to contact the judge directly.

In the letter, Schwarzmueller reminded Dixon that her phone call was probably a violation of Judiciary Law and the Code of Ethics.

“Your case is not the type of case that you should be risking your professional career over,” Schwarzmueller wrote.

But on Oct. 7, 2013, Dixon mailed a letter to her lawyer and sent a copy by mail and fax to Odorisi, but not GEICO’s lawyer.

In the letter Dixon said she felt she had no alternative but to accept the $20,000 offer and enclosed a signed release. The letter also included information about the damages she sustained in the accident, medications she took because of the accident, her out-of-pocket expenses since the accident, and her objection to being challenged “with respect to my judicial career and a potential violation of judiciary law for contacting Judge Odorisi regarding the case.”

When the letter and fax arrived at his office, Odorisi did not read them. He sent Dixon’s letter to her lawyer and GEICO’s lawyer.

The case was settled for $20,000 and dismissed Nov. 6, 2013.

Dixon was not immediately available to comment.