Opinion: Perform the Autopsy Without Assigning Blame

Opinion: Perform the Autopsy Without Assigning Blame

When a public institution reaches a moment of crisis, the easiest thing to do is pick a side.

One side says, “She must be guilty.”

The other side says, “She must be under attack.”

But the public deserves something better than tribal reaction. The public deserves an honest autopsy.

Not an autopsy designed to destroy a person.

Not an autopsy designed to excuse failure.

But an autopsy designed to tell the truth, repair the institution, and protect the people who depend on the court.

That is how we should look at the situation involving Jefferson County Probate Judge Yashiba Blanchard.

The Judicial Inquiry Commission has filed a complaint against Judge Blanchard with the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. Public reporting says the complaint includes allegations involving failure to discharge judicial duties, failure to follow the law, bias against attorneys, failure to disqualify, harassment or retaliation involving staff, allowing intimidation by court officials under her control, and failure to maintain competence in judicial administration. Those are serious allegations. But they remain allegations until tested through the proper process. ([https://www.wbrc.com][1])

Alabama’s judicial-discipline structure makes that distinction important. Once a complaint is filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission with the Court of the Judiciary, the judge is disqualified from acting as a judge while the complaint is pending, without loss of salary. That suspension is part of the process. It is not, by itself, a final finding of guilt. ([Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission][2])

So we must separate two things.

The first response deals with the individual and the allegations.

The second response deals with the operation of the court.

Those two responses are related, but they are not the same.

Response One: The Individual Allegation Process

The first process must ask: What did the judge do? What does the evidence prove? Did the conduct violate the Canons of Judicial Ethics? And if it did, what kind of violation was it?

Alabama’s Canons require judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and to perform the duties of office impartially and diligently. ([Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission][3]) But every violation is not the same kind of wrong.

That is where we need a matrix — not to minimize the allegations, but to classify them honestly. Because eerything does not rise to a Cardinal Sin (i.e. an offense so malicious that it is automatically a cause for removal).

Charge Matrix: Poor Judgment, Malicious Intent, and the Cardinal Sin

Yet Willful Misconduct Must Be Carefully Vetted.

When we talk about willful misconduct, we have to be careful.

We cannot treat every intentional act as malicious intent.

A person can intend to do something and still exercise poor judgment. A person can make a decision on purpose and still not fully understand the consequence, the legal impact, the human impact, or the institutional damage that decision may create.

That is why the adjudication must go deeper than simply asking, “Did she mean to do it?”

The better questions are:

What did she know when she did it?

Was the rule clear?

Had she been formally warned?

Was there a corrective directive?

Was the harm foreseeable?

Was there an opportunity to correct?

Was the action taken for an improper purpose?

Was it done to punish, intimidate, retaliate, deceive, or cause undue harm?

That is the difference between bad judgment and malicious intent.

Bad judgment says, “I made a decision, but I did not fully understand the consequence.”

Reckless disregard says, “I knew there was a serious risk of harm, but I moved forward anyway.”

Malicious intent says, “I knew this was out of bounds. I knew it violated duty, policy, or fairness. And I did it anyway to harm, punish, intimidate, or retaliate.”

Those are not the same categories.

And justice requires that they not be treated the same.

A mistake may justify correction.

A pattern may justify discipline.

Reckless disregard may justify suspension.

But malicious intent — if proven — raises the deeper question of fitness to hold judicial power.

So when we perform this autopsy, we must not simply ask whether something was done intentionally. We must ask whether it was done with knowledge that it was wrong and with an improper motive.

That is the dividing line.

Because poor judgment mishandles authority.

Reckless disregard ignores the risk of harm.

But malicious intent weaponizes authority.

And only when authority is knowingly weaponized to punish, intimidate, retaliate, deceive, or cause undue harm do we cross into the category of a cardinal sin.

Response Two: The Operational Stabilization Process

The second response is different.

The Probate Court cannot stop functioning while the disciplinary process runs. Families still need guardianship matters heard. Estates still need resolution. Commitment cases still involve urgent liberty interests. Elections still require lawful administration. Staff need direction. Attorneys need clarity. The people need the courthouse to work.

That is why the appointment of retired Probate Judge Sherri Friday must be viewed as an operational stabilization decision. Reporting says retired Judge Friday was brought in after Judge Blanchard’s suspension, and the temporary assignment was designed to maintain the orderly administration of justice. ([BirminghamWatch][4])

That phrase matters: orderly administration of justice.

It means the trains must run.

The dockets must move.

The backlog must be identified.

The urgent cases must be prioritized.

The staff structure must be clarified.

The public must know the court is open, stable, and functioning.

That appointment does not automatically prove guilt. It proves the institution needed stabilization.

And that is an important distinction.

If we treat operational stabilization as proof of guilt, we abandon due process.

If we treat due process as a reason not to stabilize the court, we abandon the people.

We must do neither.

The Autopsy Must Serve the People

So yes, perform the autopsy.

Ask what happened.

Ask where the system failed.

Ask whether warnings were complaints or true corrective directives.

Ask whether this was poor judgment or malicious intent.

Ask whether progressive discipline was available before the most severe remedy.

Ask whether the operation had enough training, structure, staffing, and administrative rhythm.

But perform that autopsy without assigning blame before the evidence is heard.

Judge Blanchard deserves a fair process.

The public deserves a functioning court.

The staff deserves order.

The attorneys deserve clarity.

Families deserve timely hearings.

Patients in commitment matters deserve due process.

And the institution deserves repair.

The suspension protects the process.

The temporary appointment protects the people.

The final judgment must wait on the evidence.

But the public should insist on this much now: the Probate Court must come out of this stronger than it went in.

The courthouse belongs to the people. And when the people come to court, they should not meet confusion, delay, intimidation, or disorder. They should meet justice that is timely, competent, fair, and worthy of public trust.

That is the real standard.

And that is why the final question is not simply whether something went wrong.

The final question is what kind of wrong it was.

Was it correctable failure?

Was it poor judgment?

Was it reckless disregard?

Or was it willful misconduct with malicious intent?

Until that answer is proven, we should be careful with blame, firm about accountability, and relentless about restoring the orderly administration of justice.

[1]: https://www.wbrc.com/2026/05/22/jefferson-county-probate-judge-accused-ethical-judicial-misconduct/?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Jefferson County Probate Judge accused of ethical, judicial misconduct”

[2]: https://jic.alabama.gov/constitutional-provisions/?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Constitutional Provisions”

[3]: https://jic.alabama.gov/canons-of-judicial-ethics/?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Canons of Judicial Ethics”

[4]: https://birminghamwatch.org/2026/05/22/retired-judge-friday-steps-in-for-suspended-probate-judge-blanchard/?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Retired Judge Friday Steps in for Suspended Probate …”