The deadline to respond to conduct violations is 20 days. A formal hearing will follow
Lawrence Township Municipal Court Judge Lewis J. Korngut has been cited by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct for allegedly failing to meet judicial standards of conduct established by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The three-count formal complaint against Korngut was filed July 10 by Maureen G. Bauman, the disciplinary counsel for the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. All judges are expected to meet the judicial standards of conduct.
Korngut continues to serve as the Lawrence Township Municipal Court judge, pending resolution of the issues. He was appointed by the Lawrence Township Council to be the part-time judge in 2017. He was reappointed in 2018 for a three-year term and again in 2021. Despite making the appointment, township officials do not have oversight on the judge.
Korngut allegedly violated several standards of the Code of Judicial Conduct during 2021 and 2022, according to the complaint. The alleged violations include socializing with police officers at public and private events, and holding private conversations about pending cases without the presence of both the municipal prosecutor and the public defender or defense attorney.
The judge was also alleged to have used profanity in the presence of Municipal Court staff, although it was not directed at them.
He also allegedly gave sporting event tickets to the code enforcement officer, who regularly appears in Lawrence Township Municipal Court.
The complaint cited an instance in which the municipal court prosecutor advised Korngut that a case was weak because of the lack of corroborating statements or testimony from witnesses and the unavailability of the investigating police officer.
The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. The defendant subsequently hired a private attorney, who filed an emergent motion to permit his client to withdraw the guilty plea.
“Prior to deciding defense counsel’s motion to vacate the judgment and outside of defense counsel’s presence, Respondent (Korngut) engaged in a series of ‘ex parte’ discussions with the municipal prosecutor about the merits of the motion and the strength of the State’s case,” the complaint said.
The judge allegedly advised the municipal prosecutor of the investigating officer’s retirement and availability to be subpoenaed for trial, which (Korngut) obtained through a telephone call to the Lawrence Township Police Department, the complaint said.
By initiating and engaging in “ex parte” communications about pending matters with the municipal prosecutor and police officers – but outside of the presence of the public defender or defense attorney – Korngut violated a standard of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The standard prohibits a judge from initiating “ex parte” communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding. “Ex parte” means any contact or discussion with the judge about a pending case that does not include the presence of both the municipal prosecutor and the public defender or defense attorney.
The complaint also stated that during 2021 and 2022, Korngut allegedly spoke to Lawrence Township police officers who were waiting in the hallway in between trials and during downtime waiting for matters to begin.
The judge was allegedly observed speaking to a police officer in the hallway in front of a defendant against whom the officer was to testify, according to the complaint.
On another occasion, Korngut allegedly told a defendant that a particular police officer who had previously issued a summons to the defendant “is a buddy of mine, a great guy,” the complaint stated.
Korngut allegedly socialized with police officers at public and private events outside of the courtroom, according to the complaint.
He allegedly attended the annual “National Night Out” event on three occasions, most recently in 2022. Police officers are present at the event, which seeks to build police/community partnerships.
Also, Korngut allegedly attended a retirement party for the outgoing Lawrence Township police chief that was held at the municipal building and attended only by Lawrence Township police officers.
Korngut allegedly attended sporting events with Lawrence Township police officers and often went to a local Hooters restaurant with them.
“By his conduct in fraternizing with Lawrence Township police officers in the courthouse and at social events, Respondent (Korngut) acted in a manner that cast reasonable doubt on (his) capacity to act impartially as a judge” in violation of the standards of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the complaint said.
A judge is prohibited from “participating in activities that would appear to reasonable, fully informed persons to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity or impartiality,” according to the standards of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
On another occasion, the code enforcement officer showed the municipal court administrator some photos of himself at a New York Giants football game, using tickets he allegedly received from Korngut.
The code enforcement officer appears in front of Korngut regularly with respect to ordinance violations that he issues to residents. In 2022, he issued 74 ordinance violations – 12 of them issued after he attended the football game with tickets allegedly given to him by the judge.
Giving sporting event tickets to the code enforcement officer created the appearance of partiality, also in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the complaint stated.
Korngut allegedly has a tendency to use profanity, sometimes in relation to his inability to operate his laptop computer, the complaint stated. The profanity was not directed at municipal court staff and was not made in the presence of people who are appearing in Lawrence Township Municipal Court.
Nevertheless, Korngut’s repeated use of profanity violated the Code of Judicial Conduct “which requires a judge to maintain order and decorum in judicial proceedings and to treat all those with whom he deals with dignity, patience and courtesy,” the complaint stated.
“By his conduct as described above, Respondent (Korngut) demonstrated a failure to conform his conduct to the high standards of conduct expected of judges and impugned the integrity of the Judiciary, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct,” according to the complaint.
Now that a complaint has been filed, Korngut must respond to it. A judge must file an answer, even if the judge does not wish to contest the complaint, according to the Rules for the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.
The deadline to respond is 20 days, which may be extended. After receiving the judge’s answer or after the expiration of time within which the answer is due, the Advisory Committee will schedule a formal hearing and notify the judge of its time and place.
