Deputy’s admission of affair raises ethics questions about former Clay County judge

A former Clay County judge may have violated the state judicial code of conduct by having a secret extramarital affair with a sheriff’s deputy while serving on the bench five years ago, legal experts say.

At the time, the deputy supervised bailiffs and oversaw security at the Clay County Courthouse, where Donald T. Norris served as an associate circuit court judge.

Such a relationship can undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judge and may raise an appearance of impropriety, a legal expert said.

It also means Norris should have recused himself from any cases involving the sheriff’s office to avoid possible claims that he was not impartial, said the expert, Peter Joy, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

Brenda Hasty admitted to the affair under oath. Her attorney in a civil case stipulated to it in court records. And messages sent between email accounts in 2010 suggest a romantic relationship, according to court documents, some of which had been sealed before The Star recently petitioned the court to open them.

Norris — who also has served as a deputy sheriff, county prosecutor, sheriff’s counsel and county counselor — recently told The Star that no affair happened and that someone must have faked the emails.

Of the affair, he said: “That’s ridiculous to even suggest.”

But when asked more than 20 times about the affair during a deposition, he refused to answer.

The affair became a contentious point in an employment discrimination lawsuit Hasty filed against Clay County and the sheriff’s office in 2013. The county settled late last year for $480,000, paid by the county’s insurance.

Norris, who served as legal counsel for the county sheriff from late 2011 through 2012, after leaving the bench, briefly represented Hasty, telling her she had a “great case,” records show.

That he became her lawyer just days after leaving his county-paid post with the sheriff’s office has raised concerns in Clay County legal circles. He learned about personnel issues, including a pending demotion for Hasty, and became involved with a different employment discrimination case while working as the sheriff’s counsel.

Some say his later involvement in the Hasty case may have violated state ethics rules for lawyers. Others call it a conflict of interest.

Norris told The Star that he did nothing improper because he no longer worked for the sheriff when he recommended in early 2013 that Hasty sue the department.

Hasty declined to comment.

In her lawsuit, Hasty contended she had been passed over for promotion for many jobs that were awarded to men with fewer qualifications, and then a newly elected sheriff was going to demote her three ranks.

However, lawyers for that sheriff, Paul Vescovo, argued that he demoted Hasty in part because the rumored affair between her and Norris had been disruptive to the department and was hurting morale, according to court records. Vescovo declined to comment about the lawsuit.

The rules of professional conduct in Missouri prohibit lawyers from providing legal counsel that might be detrimental to former clients if the case involves a matter in which they had inside knowledge gained in the previous job, experts said. Penalties can range from a reprimand to suspension of one’s law license to disbarment.

“He served as counsel to the sheriff’s department, then he leaves it, then he recommends to his friend that she should be suing them,” said R. Lawrence Dessem, former dean of the University of Missouri School of Law. “OK, the problem there is, there are duties owed to former clients.”

In a recent interview, Norris said he did not violate the conduct rule because his client was then-sheriff Bob Boydston, rather than the office as a whole.

But Vescovo, the current sheriff, said lawyers who serve as legal advisers work for both the sheriff and the department and are paid with public funds rather than out of the sheriff’s own pocket. That includes Norris, who was paid by Clay County.

Other legal experts, and current county officials, agree with that position.

“I do not know how you separate out being attorney for just the sheriff,” said Katee Porter, the county’s recorder of deeds and a former legal adviser for Vescovo.

The affair

While being deposed last October, Hasty, 54, said under oath that she had a close relationship with Norris for about 30 years — and a romantic and physical relationship with him in 2010.

She said she believed the physical relationship ended before Norris became the legal counsel for Boydston in the fall of 2011.

After Hasty filed suit, the sheriff’s office learned about emails from 2010 that seemed to verify the rumored affair. The emails, cited in court documents, were found on the county server, sources told The Star.

Some came from Norris’ work email address at circuit court or Hasty’s email address with the sheriff’s office.

Lawyers defending the county and sheriff in the employment lawsuit cited some of the email exchanges in court filings.

“I am pleased to think like the most beautiful person I know,” began one email sent from Norris’ private account to Hasty’s work email address. “I am so pleased that all I can think of is pleasing that person. I also think a lot about pleasuring that person. I think about that person constantly. I love to think about that person. I love that person.”

Another email from Norris carried the subject line “U R Gorgeous.”

In another, the only message was “Love you Sweetheart.”

An attorney for the sheriff’s office questioned Norris, 68, under oath, about the affair in October.

“I’m not answering any questions about anything that occurred in 2010,” Norris told the attorney, Tim Mudd, at one point. “It’s none of your damn business what I do in 2010.”

Asked how long the affair lasted, Norris responded: “Whatever Brenda Hasty said is fine with me.”

Mudd asked Norris if he violated the judicial code of conduct.

“Absolutely not,” Norris said.

Having a close association with a member of a law enforcement agency that brought cases before him could put the rights of defendants in criminal cases at risk, Mudd said during the deposition. It also could have influenced the outcome of a case if a defendant had threatened to disclose the affair publicly, Mudd said.

Norris did not respond to either assertion.

Appearances matter when it comes to upholding public trust in the judiciary, Dessem said.

“Is the judge learning things outside the judicial process, outside open public court?” Dessem said. “Or is the judge sharing information with the sheriff’s department through that employee?”

It’s not enough to say that nothing happened, Dessem said. “It’s a question of the appearances.”

The affair also raises questions on whether Norris should have become legal counsel for the sheriff after leaving the bench, another expert said.

“In an instance when a lawyer has a relationship with an employee of the organization that hires him, that itself is usually a conflict,” said Joy, the Washington University professor.

In two recent interviews with The Star, Norris described Hasty as a friend with whom he often went to the gym to work out.

“Close friends,” he said. “I know her husband, know her family, represented her family. I have known her for a long time.”

The Hasty lawsuit

Hasty joined the Clay County sheriff’s office in late 1984 and remained a deputy while working for multiple sheriffs over 25 years.

Boydston promoted her to lieutenant in January 2009.

Vescovo, who previously had served as sheriff, defeated Boydston in November 2012.

Soon after, Hasty learned that she was going to be demoted back to deputy under him.

Not wanting to accept a demotion and the roughly $10,000 pay cut that came with it, Hasty began looking for other work.

She talked to Norris about legal options that January. He told her “she had a great gender discrimination case,” Norris said during his deposition.

In February 2013, she secured a job as the marshal, or head of security, at the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, in downtown Kansas City.

Within weeks of Norris becoming Hasty’s lawyer, county officials asked Norris to become county counselor, creating an instant conflict of interest with any potential lawsuit.

Norris dropped his representation of Hasty and referred her to employee rights attorney Mark Jess, who filed a Feb. 4, 2013, complaint with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. That led to the lawsuit being filed six months later, in which she alleged she had been a victim of gender discrimination, age discrimination and retaliation.

She also alleged the demotion was part of a pattern of treatment from the eight years Vescovo previously had been sheriff.

Her lawyer sought as much as $6.3 million, according to court records.

Jess tried to have all allegations about the affair kept out of court. He argued that the sheriff’s office didn’t even mention the affair as a demotion reason until long after the lawsuit was filed.

“It was something they ginned up after the fact,” he told The Star in a recent interview.

Many of the court records detailing Norris’ involvement with Hasty and the case were kept hidden from the public, filed under court seal.

Lawyers for The Star filed a motion to intervene and then argued that the court should unseal the records. A judge agreed, ruling that most of the records had been closed improperly.

Among the most striking revelations in the pleadings, defense lawyers say privately, was Norris’ “appalling” conflict of interest in being legal adviser to Boydston from late 2011 to the end of 2012.

“Having anything to do with it (Hasty’s lawsuit) is radioactive,” said Lou Accurso, who now represents the Clay County sheriff’s office.

And late in the case, Mudd also raised questions about whether the judge, Charles Curless from Barton County, had a conflict of interest.

Curless inherited the case after all Clay County judges recused themselves.

While deposing Norris in October, Mudd said he had heard thirdhand that Norris had said something troubling at a 2013 Christmas party.

“What concerns me,” he told Curless in a break in that deposition, “is I have information being fed to me that Donald Norris was at a Christmas party shortly after you were appointed on this case indicating something to the effect that the fix is in.”

Mudd then asked whether Norris and Curless were friends.

“It’s none of your goddamn business, to tell you the truth,” Curless responded, according to the deposition transcript.

Curless did not respond to requests for comment. Mudd declined to comment.

Norris denied having a close friendship with Curless and said he did not recall saying the fix was in.

“I never made a statement like that,” he said.

Citing Curless’ tirade as an example of bias, Mudd asked the appeals court to remove him.

Two appellate judges denied the request. The appeals court didn’t recuse itself even though Hasty was responsible for the judges’ security in that courthouse at the time — a fact pointed out in a footnote on the cover page of the appeal petition.

Days after losing the appeal to have Curless removed, and as the trial was set to begin, the sheriff’s office and county settled with Hasty.

This story was originally published May 30, 2015 at 3:58 PM with the headline "Deputy’s admission of affair raises ethics questions about former Clay County judge."