The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct has filed formal charges against retired District Court Judge Franco J. GoBourne over a March 25, 2025 hearing in Fall River District Court. In that hearing he ordered a public defender handcuffed and jailed for criminal contempt after telling him to stop pacing and face the bench. The lawyer, Nicholas Athanassiou of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, was held in a courthouse cell for about five hours before GoBourne withdrew the contempt finding and released him, according to the charges.
The commission announced the charges on Thursday, October 22, 2026. We read the five-page charging document and the hearing transcript attached to it. The Boston Globe and Fall River Reporter also reported the charges. They are allegations. GoBourne has not yet responded, and a public hearing will decide whether they are proved.
What happened in the courtroom
According to the formal charges, Athanassiou was in court that morning on a pretrial motion in a criminal case. He told the judge he had recently learned of potentially exculpatory evidence. When GoBourne asked when he had learned about it, Athanassiou turned to look at his file on the desk behind him and took a few steps toward it. The charges quote this exchange from the hearing recording:
- GoBourne: “This, Counsel, stop pacing. Face the…”
- Athanassiou: “Excuse me, Your Honor?”
- GoBourne: “Face the bench.”
- Athanassiou: “Excuse me, Your Honor.”
- GoBourne: “You better be careful… Wait. Before you come out with more words, Counsel, you better be careful what you say.”
- Athanassiou: “Your Honor…”
- GoBourne: “I’m asking you to stop pacing and face the court.”
- Athanassiou: “Your Honor, I understand.”
- GoBourne: “Okay.”
- Athanassiou: “I would respectfully ask the court…”
- GoBourne: “That’s enough. That’s enough.”
- Athanassiou: “Your Honor, my client has a right to be heard.”
The two then talked over each other. The commission alleges that Athanassiou’s tone “remained polite and professional throughout.” GoBourne then said, “I’m asking you to be quiet. And I’m asking you to face the court. Take him into custody. Take him into custody. I find you in contempt of court, Counsel.” The charges say the whole exchange lasted about three minutes.
Court officers handcuffed Athanassiou, took his personal items, put him in leg restraints and locked him in a holding cell, “in accord with standard Trial Court practice,” according to the charges.
Five hours in a cell
- Noon. Another CPCS lawyer, Benjamin Evans, asked to be heard on Athanassiou’s detention. GoBourne told him he would consider it at 2:00 p.m. The charges allege the judge had no other cases left to hear at that point and recessed immediately.
- 2:42 p.m. GoBourne returned to the bench. Evans asked him to release Athanassiou and withdraw the finding. He said he had listened to the court’s recording and that Athanassiou “never intended to disrespect the Court, never intended to disrupt the Court.”
- The judge’s response. According to the transcript, GoBourne said Athanassiou’s “attitude, his facial expressions, and his body expressions, and his rec- recalcitrance is contemptuous.” He also said: “I got a call from the Chief Justice, and he was telling me you don’t have it. But when you read the… when I read the… rules and what could be considered contempt, I feel that his… actions did fall as contemptuous.” He added, “Now I will admit maybe I should have been more… a little bit more patient.” He then said, “I’ll drop the contempt. Release him.”
GoBourne also told Athanassiou that he had practiced at CPCS himself for a long time and that Athanassiou had let him down, according to the transcript.
What the commission charges
The charges allege that GoBourne punished Athanassiou summarily “despite the absence of any factual basis” that summary punishment was needed to maintain order in the courtroom. They also allege that he never gave notice of the contempt charges and never found that holding Athanassiou in custody was necessary. The commission says this violated:
- G.L. c. 211C, § 2(5). The commission alleges willful judicial misconduct that brought the judicial office into disrepute, was prejudicial to the administration of justice, and was unbecoming a judicial officer.
- The Code of Judicial Conduct (SJC Rule 3:09). The charges cite Rule 1.1 (following the law), Rule 1.2 (promoting public confidence in the judiciary), Rule 2.2 (applying the law fairly and impartially), Rule 2.3 (bias or the appearance of bias), and Rule 2.8(B), which requires a judge to be “patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court personnel, and others.”
CPCS filed the complaint on June 6, 2025. GoBourne retired in September 2025, about six months after the hearing. He had been on the District Court bench since 2010. The commission issued a statement of allegations on July 16, 2026. GoBourne received it on July 27 and did not respond or ask to appear before the commission, according to the charges. The Globe reported that he could not be reached for comment.
In a statement reported by the Globe, Arnie Lucinda Stewart, deputy chief counsel of the CPCS public defender division, said, “The constitutional right to counsel means little if attorneys can be silenced for doing their jobs.”
When a judge can jail someone on the spot
Rule 43 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a judge to punish criminal contempt summarily, without a separate prosecution, only when four conditions are met: summary punishment “is necessary to maintain order in the courtroom,” the conduct happened in the judge’s presence, the judge makes a preliminary finding of contempt at the time, and the punishment does not exceed three months in jail and a $2,000 fine. Even then, Rule 43(b)(1) requires the judge to “give the alleged contemnor notice of the charges” and hold a hearing with “at least a summary opportunity” to present evidence and argument. Under Rule 43(b)(2), the judge may hold the person in custody before that hearing only if it is “necessary to maintain order in the courtroom or to assure the alleged contemnor’s appearance.”
The SJC has long treated summary contempt as an exceptional power. In Vizcaino v. Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 266 (2012), the court wrote that because due process protections are lost, “[s]ummary punishment always, and rightly, is regarded with disfavor,” and that Rule 43 “is narrowly written, and narrowly construed.” In Sussman v. Commonwealth, 374 Mass. 692 (1978), it reversed a summary contempt judgment against a public defender. The court said the use of the power must give “due weight to the importance of vigorous advocacy,” because otherwise it “would chill the less courageous attorney in his efforts to represent his client effectively.” Evans cited Sussman to GoBourne at the 2:42 p.m. hearing, according to the transcript.
There is a separate limit on the commission. Under G.L. c. 211C, § 2(4), it may not act against a judge for “applying the law as he understands it” unless there is fraud, corrupt motive, bad faith, or “clear indication that the judge’s conduct violates the code of judicial conduct.” Commission proceedings “shall not be a substitute for an appeal.” The commission’s position, as charged, is that this was not a mistaken legal ruling but conduct that violated the code.
What can happen to a retired judge
Retirement does not end the case. Under G.L. c. 211C, § 2(2), the commission’s jurisdiction includes the “conduct of a lawyer who is no longer a judge that occurred while he held judicial office.” The sanctions the commission may recommend to the SJC under § 8(4) include public reprimand or censure, a fine, assessment of costs, and “imposition of discipline as an attorney.” Removal from the bench is not relevant to someone who has already retired, but discipline affecting his law license is possible.
What happens next
- Response. GoBourne has 10 days from service of the charges to file a written response, under G.L. c. 211C, § 5(14).
- Hearing officer. The commission has asked the SJC to appoint a hearing officer. The Globe and Fall River Reporter reported that a public hearing is to be scheduled 30 to 60 days after the appointment.
- Burden. Under § 7, the hearing is public, the rules of evidence for civil cases apply, and the commission must prove the charges by clear and convincing evidence.
- Decision. The hearing officer reports proposed findings to the commission. The commission can recommend discipline only if a majority of all its members agree. The SJC makes the final decision.
Frequently asked questions
Why was a public defender jailed in Fall River District Court?
According to formal charges filed by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, Judge Franco GoBourne found CPCS attorney Nicholas Athanassiou in criminal contempt on March 25, 2025, after telling him to stop pacing and face the bench. Athanassiou was held in a cell for about five hours before the judge withdrew the finding.
Can a judge jail a lawyer for contempt in Massachusetts?
Only in narrow circumstances. Under Mass. R. Crim. P. 43, summary contempt requires that punishment be necessary to maintain order in the courtroom, that the conduct occur in the judge’s presence, and that the judge give notice of the charges and hold a hearing. The SJC has said summary punishment is “regarded with disfavor.”
Can a retired judge be disciplined?
Yes. G.L. c. 211C, § 2(2) gives the Commission on Judicial Conduct jurisdiction over conduct that occurred while a lawyer was a judge. The SJC can impose sanctions including reprimand, censure, a fine, and discipline as an attorney.
What happens after formal charges are filed?
The judge has 10 days to respond. The SJC appoints a hearing officer, and a public hearing follows at which the commission must prove the charges by clear and convincing evidence. The commission then decides whether to recommend discipline, and the SJC decides.
Sources: Commission on Judicial Conduct, Formal Charges, Complaint No. 2025-21 (dated September 9, 2026), and the March 25, 2025 transcript attached as Appendix A, read in full; The Boston Globe and Fall River Reporter, October 22, 2026. G.L. c. 211C, §§ 2, 5, 7 and 8 read at malegislature.gov; Mass. R. Crim. P. 43 read at mass.gov. Vizcaino v. Commonwealth and Sussman v. Commonwealth confirmed and read on CourtListener. The charges are allegations that have not been proved. General information, not legal advice.