ATLANTA — A federal judge in the 11th Judicial Circuit was privately reprimanded in February for engaging in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking police officer and making false statements during the subsequent investigation. The judge and the officer had sexual intercourse in the judge’s chambers during business hours within hearing distance of staff, according to multiple corroborated accounts.

The investigation began after a law clerk reported the judge had engaged in sexual activity with the officer on multiple occasions in the office. Multiple law clerks overheard sounds consistent with sexual activity—including kissing and moaning—coming from the judge’s chambers over a period of roughly two years. One law clerk reported hearing the officer use the word “affair,” and another was so disturbed by the noises that the clerk left work for the day.

The judge initially denied the allegations, calling them “outrageous” and “baseless,” and speculated in a follow-up email that a law clerk may have fabricated the claims in retaliation for being required to work in the office. The judge later admitted to the extramarital sexual relationship and recanted the false statements made during the investigation.

William Pryor, chief judge of the 11th Circuit, appointed a special committee to investigate. The committee reviewed courthouse logs and security footage showing the officer frequently visited the judge’s chambers in uniform around lunchtime. Six law clerks recalled seeing someone matching the officer’s description, and three clerks remembered overhearing what may have been sexual activity.

The Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit issued a private reprimand, which was affirmed by the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The judge agreed to write apology letters to six former law clerks, not accept the position of chief judge when eligible, and refrain from serving on any Judicial Conference committee.

The judge’s name and court location were not disclosed. The committee noted the judge had ended the relationship and committed to avoiding partisan political events, including one tied to a district attorney’s primary election victory party the judge attended.

“Although the special committee is deeply troubled by the conduct in which the judge engaged, the Subject Judge has demonstrated a strong propensity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service to the judiciary,” the committee’s report stated. The committee also cited the judge’s “otherwise exemplary service to the court” in opting for a private reprimand.

Lester Tate, a lawyer who often defends Georgia judges facing misconduct, called the punishment a “slap on the wrist.” He added, “I’m shocked that there was not a more severe punishment for the false statements that were made by this judge during the course of the investigation.” Tate said, “A person who is appointed for life and sits in judgment of others needs to be honest about their own flaws, and most people would likely find being held up for a little public scorn appropriate in this case.”