Utah Supreme Court Justice Resigns Amid Affair Allegations With Redistricting Lawyer
Hagen recused herself from the redistricting case in September and from all related hearings.
Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen has resigned amid an investigation into an alleged affair with David Reymann, one of the lawyers who argued cases before the court, including the redistricting case.
In February, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously rejected the state legislature’s appeal of the redistricting and ordered them to use the state-ordered map.
Reymann served as one of the lawyers for the League of Women Voters of Utah, a plaintiff.
“As a public servant for twenty-six years, I am keenly aware that public service requires sacrifice,” Hagen wrote in her resignation letter. “I have willingly accepted those sacrifices for the privilege of holding a position of public trust, where I could do my part to uphold the rule of law and protect the constitutional rights of every Utahn.”
Hagen added: “I also understand that public officials are rightly held to a higher standard and must accept a greater degree of public scrutiny and diminished privacy. But my family and friends did not choose public life. They do not deserve to have intensely personal details surrounding the painful dissolution of my thirty-year marriage subjected to public scrutiny.”
Hagen recused herself from the redistricting case in September and from all related hearings.
Hagen’s decision stemmed from “renewing close friendships with Reymann and Cheylynn Hayman, another attorney who is a shareholder in the firm where Reymann works.”
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission received the complaint last year with the allegations:
The complaint, which was obtained exclusively by KSL through a public records request, came from a Provo-based attorney who said Hagen’s ex-husband told him the justice had exchanged “inappropriate” text messages with David Reymann, one of the attorneys involved in a case about redistricting, which led to Utah getting a new congressional map.
Hagen strongly denies allegations of an inappropriate relationship of any kind. Reymann also called the allegations “false.” He does outside legal work for KSL and as an attorney for the Utah Media Coalition, of which KSL is a member.
The Judicial Conduct Commission conducted a preliminary investigation into the complaint and interviewed Hagen’s ex-husband but ultimately decided not to investigate further. Gov. Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz told KSL that’s concerning.
Hayman also serves as the chair of the Judicial Conduct Commission. She recused herself from the commission’s investigation.
The decision did not please Gov. Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, who launched their own investigation.
“An initial review by the Judicial Conduct Commission and the court left important questions unresolved,” the three men stated. “Allegations of this nature, especially involving public officials, must be examined with transparency and accountability to establish the facts and to maintain public confidence.”
Hagen’s ex-husband claimed the text messages between Hagen and Reymann started off as “silly” before becoming “more suggestive.”
The ex-husband did not approve of attorney Michael Worley’s filing of the complaint, but admitted it contained accurate details.
Justice Hagen told the Judicial Conduct Commission, “she was ‘faithful to my ex-husband for more than 30 years. I never engaged in extramarital sex with anyone prior to our separation.’”
“We will move forward with an independent investigation to ensure the facts are fully examined,” the Utah leaders also said. “This process will be conducted objectively and thoroughly, because maintaining trust in our institutions is essential.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Is “whore” too vivid? Perhaps “biased”
Yes. It seems to me that bias is routinely ignored for loads of pols and government employees in their marriages but is somehow abhorrent in other relationships.
Did she recuse herself before or after the February ruling?
Unless I missed something, I can’t tell what year each event occurred.
Before. She recused herself from the case as soon as their friendship became serious. As far as I can tell she did no wrong here.
When I read the headline my first prejudiced conclusion was ‘keep it in your pants, men, or you can torpedo your entire life real quick.’
Then I read the judge is a woman. What’s the female equivalent for ‘keep it in your pants?’
Regardless, did I miss the part where ‘an alleged affair with David Reymann, one of the lawyers who argued cases before the court’ resulted in Reymann will be disbarred for schtupping that judge??
The answer to your question is “Keep your legs together.”
Or “Keep your pants up”
From all that is public it seems that neither of them did anything wrong, and she had no obligation to resign, but chose to do so because her enemies were making her life miserable and she didn’t need this grief.
She did no wrong? Breaking her sacred vow before God and man to remain with her husband till death is not wrong?
What makes you think she ever made such a stupid vow? But even if she did, I don’t think she or anyone can be held to it. Certainly the law does not. I don’t know whether there’s any country in the world, other than Vatican City, where such a vow is considered binding, and even there it can be annulled.
Legally? Maybe/Maybe not with a lean towards not but the separate investigation will seek out additional information to shed more light. Morally? Seems like yes she did b/c her carefully worded statement about remaining faithful to her Husband (and vows) reveals she did engage in extramarital affair during the ‘separation’ aka before any divorce/annulment was granted.
Once they were separated, what moral principle would require her to wait for what is purely a matter of paperwork? Once a marriage is over, divorce is a legal and bureaucratic matter, not a moral one.
The marriage is ‘over’ when the same bureaucratic hurdles necessary to create it are cleared to dissolve it…for a purely secular marriage.
On the other side is moral question of whether the couple voluntarily entered into a non secular religious marriage where they had to jump through whatever hoops that particular faith required with a priest/minister officiating agreeing to x, y, z in their vows and compliance with the dictates of that religious sect. People should choose whatever kind of marriage ceremony and vows they wish…but those choices have consequences.
I cannot accept that, from a secular moral perspective, mere paperwork can have moral consequences.
Within certain religions marriage and divorce are more than paperwork, they are Divine commands and therefore do control what is moral within the context of those specific religions; but from the perspective of secular morality, i.e. the civic morality that governs US society and that we’re all expected to subscribe to, this is of no significance.
Only Catholics should care whether something is moral according to Catholic doctrine, only Jews should care whether something is moral according to Jewish doctrine, only Moslems should care whether something is moral according to Moslem doctrine, etc. It’s none of any outsider’s business whether someone is a good Catholic, Jew, Moslem, etc.
I guess this as good as any explanation, and a serious reminder that it is almost always a bad idea to fool around with co-workers – particularly when in position of authority to decide matters in other people’s life.
A judge and a lawyer are not co-workers.
And it’s extremely common for lawyers to pair up with other lawyers, because they spend so much time together. Same with other trades and professions; if you spend most of your day with people in a certain sector you’re more likely to end up with one of them.
In a larger sense, why does a contract between two (or more) people need to be registered and/or sanctioned by a government? More specifically, why should a marriage require a license from the state?
Please don’t give me religious or moral reasons, this is purely a secular matter. If people wish to register their union with the state, fine. If not, also fine.
The argument of “what about the children” doesn’t really apply because there are already laws related to parent’s obligations to their offspring.
I do not believe it is good to inject religion or morality into law. It should be entirely a matter of social good.
Leave a Comment