A federal judge has formally acknowledged that the working conditions inside her chambers at one point created what she now describes as an abusive environment, following a misconduct complaint filed by a former law clerk.
The findings were outlined in an order issued by Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, who oversaw the inquiry. The review stemmed from allegations that a judge engaged in bullying behavior and fostered a culture of intimidation during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although the order did not identify the judge directly, advocacy group representatives confirmed the jurist in question is Lydia Kay Griggsby, a Maryland-based federal district judge appointed in 2021. A court official declined to comment on her behalf.
The former clerk alleged that routine interactions inside chambers were marked by harsh criticism, insufficient guidance and an atmosphere that discouraged questions. According to the order, clerks reported feeling anxious about minor mistakes and pressured to avoid provoking the judge’s displeasure.
While the judge contested certain claims, Diaz wrote that she accepted responsibility for allowing conditions to deteriorate and acknowledged that the overall environment had become harmful to staff. He noted that some misunderstandings may have arisen from communication failures, but said the impact on employees was significant.
As part of the resolution, the judge agreed to participate in professional development sessions and management training. In addition, the circuit’s workplace relations director will hold periodic meetings with current clerks to monitor conditions in chambers going forward.
The complaint was filed with support from the Legal Accountability Project, an organization that advocates for stronger protections for judicial clerks. Its founder, Aliza Shatzman, criticized the outcome, arguing that internal corrective measures are insufficient to prevent similar conduct in the future. She has called on Congress to enact stronger oversight mechanisms.
The episode highlights a persistent gap in workplace protections within the federal judiciary. Unlike most federal employees, court staff are not covered by standard anti-discrimination statutes. Instead, they must rely on internal reporting systems or judicial misconduct procedures, which critics say lack transparency and deterrent power.
The case adds to growing scrutiny of how effectively the judiciary regulates its own workplace culture — particularly as debates continue over accountability, transparency and structural reform.