The Oklahoma Supreme Court has publicly reprimanded Tulsa County District Judge Sharon Holmes, finding in a Sept. 24 divided order that stepping away from the bench toward an agitated defendant with her fists raised amounted to "inappropriate and undignified" conduct.

The state's highest court also faulted Holmes for ex parte communications — one with a criminal defendant and one with a jury. At the same time, the court rejected the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints' recommendation that Holmes be removed from the bench. Removal is the most severe sanction, the court reasoned, and should be reserved for the worst conduct.

The Raised-Fists Incident

According to the order, Holmes stepped away from the bench and approached an agitated defendant with her fists raised. Witnesses quoted in the order also described a separate episode in which Holmes lashed out at an assistant public defender who was trying to organize photos for admission. She ordered the lawyer to the hallway and yelled at them in a way witnesses characterized as "very hostile and very nasty."

"The report concludes that Judge Holmes has demonstrated a pattern of undignified behavior, exhibiting her lack of impulse control and proper temperament. During her interview with the chief justice, Judge Holmes acknowledged that her behavior was inappropriate and undignified," the order states.

The Oklahoman reports that Holmes declined to comment on the matter through her county clerk.

The Ex Parte Communications

The order details two separate communication violations.

First, a criminal defendant asked in open court to speak with Holmes about a personal matter. She responded that she would speak with him privately, as long as his lawyer did not object. Neither the defense nor the state objected, and Holmes spoke with the defendant privately in the hallway. The district attorney's office then asked for a recusal. Holmes declined, saying the conversation had nothing to do with the case, according to the order.

Second, Holmes spoke privately with jurors for five to 10 minutes. When she returned to the bench, she would not tell defense counsel what was discussed, the order says. The state again sought recusal. Holmes initially refused but changed her mind the following day, "in the interest of efficiency to allow the case to move forward quickly," according to the order.

In a conversation with the state supreme court's chief justice, Holmes acknowledged that the jury communication was not appropriate, the order states.

Background

Holmes is an Air Force veteran who spent six years on its security police force. She entered the Oklahoma City University School of Law at age 40, according to an Oklahoma Magazine article. She began her career at the Tulsa County district attorney's office and later moved into private practice. Voters elected her to the bench in 2014.

Practical Consequences for Practitioners

For attorneys practicing in Tulsa County, the public reprimand settles the disciplinary question for now but leaves Holmes on the bench. Litigators who appear before her should document any concerns about bench conduct contemporaneously and raise recusal motions promptly, since the order shows recusal requests in both episodes were initially denied. The decision also signals how the Oklahoma Supreme Court calibrates judicial discipline: a reprimand, not removal, for a pattern of undignified conduct plus ex parte contacts, with removal reserved for the most serious cases.