The Supreme Court of Missouri in Jefferson City, as photographed on May 24, 2023 (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).
The Missouri Supreme Court on Friday suspended an associate circuit judge for a year without pay for leaving numerous cases unresolved for years, leaving families in limbo on divorces, child support and custody and, in one case, potentially pushing a home into foreclosure.
The court imposed the suspension on Associate Circuit Judge Joe Don McGaugh of Carroll County after an investigation by the Commission on the Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges. The court increased the penalty recommended by the commission from six months to 12 months.
“His performance issues extend well beyond his own grossly untimely performance of his duties,” Judge Ginger Gooch wrote in the decision. “The uncontested allegations also establish he was untruthful with attorneys, parties, and the commission on multiple occasions. He repeatedly failed to respond to court staff and, even worse, blamed court staff when he knew he failed to perform his judicial duties.”
McGaugh, a Republican, was appointed in 2017 and re-elected unopposed to a new four-year term in 2022. He was a member of the Missouri House when he was appointed to the bench and succeeded in office by his mother, state Rep. Peggy McGaugh.
The last time the court disciplined a judge was in 2017, when two judges were suspended.
All seven judges of the Supreme Court agreed that McGaugh should be disciplined; Judges W. Brent Powell and Zel Fischer wrote dissents stating the high court did not have the constitutional authority to impose a discipline more severe than recommended by the commission.
The facts reported to the court show in detail the hardships imposed on families waiting for a ruling from McGaugh. In one case, McGaugh closed evidence on a divorce in September 2021 and did not issue his decision until February 2024.
During that time, the attorneys for both sides contacted McGaugh asking him when a ruling would be issued. In February 2022, McGaugh told the attorney for the wife that he had given the ruling to a court clerk but it could not be found.
At another point in 2022, the attorney warned McGaugh that the woman was in default on her home loan and faced foreclosure.
The commission asked McGaugh about the case in 2022 when it was not listed among the cases pending for a decision longer than 90 days. The commission again asked McGaugh about it in August 2023.
“Judge McGaugh responded the next day, ‘I submitted the judgment in person at my October law day in Ray County. I am at the State Fair until next week. I will follow up with the clerks,’” the decision states.
Among the discipline rules McGaugh violated, the court noted that one is “the duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law, shall take precedence over a judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities.”
In another case, McGaugh closed evidence on a child custody and support modification case in April 2018 but did not issue a decision until April 2024.
The decision lists seven other cases involving divorces, child custody and orders of protection where parties waited extraordinary periods for a decision.
“In sum, this is an egregious case of multiple instances in which a judge completely failed to timely perform his duties, compounded by a pattern of dishonesty toward lawyers, parties, court staff and the commission,” Gooch wrote. “At the time of this opinion issuing, multiple court cases remain unresolved due to Judge McGaugh’s delays, which have continued despite this extended disciplinary proceeding.”
McGaugh admitted to the charges against him in a stipulation filed with the discipline case but asked the high court to let him argue that an unnamed mental disability interfered with his ability to complete his work.
The commission included a finding that McGaugh has a mental disability “but the disorder should improve with time and treatment,” Gooch noted.
When an attorney claims a mental disorder, “including, but not limited to, substance abuse or dependency,” the disciplinary rules state, it does not excuse misconduct does allow for it to mitigate punishment.
To determine if McGaugh is ready to return to the bench in 2026, the court ordered him to continue treatments and undergo an independent evaluation in 10 months to determine if he has improved.
The court has the power to impose harsher, or lighter, punishments than the commission recommends, Gooch wrote, addressing the dissents.
There have been several previous instances where the commission recommended discipline but was not unanimous on the punishment, she noted. There was one case where the majority of the commission wanted the judge removed and one member voted for a six-month suspension and the court imposed the suspension.
The constitution “does not limit this court’s authority to impose such discipline as it sees fit after the commission recommends discipline be imposed,” she wrote.
In his dissent, Fischer wrote that past decisions were wrong and accepting or rejecting the recommendation of the commission is the court’s only choice.
“McGaugh’s repeated and astoundingly egregious failure to discharge his core judicial responsibilities is compelling evidence he is unfit to serve,” Fischer wrote. “If the constitution — the ultimate legal authority — so permitted, I would vote to remove him from office.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.