How Bexar County senior district judge Mark Luitjen earned two Public Admonitions from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct

THE QUICK ANSWER

On a single day in December 2020, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished Bexar County senior district judge Mark Luitjen twice: once for an improper ex parte call to the prosecution during a recess and once for using ethnic slurs aloud in his courtroom.

 

CASE FILE AT A GLANCE
Judge Hon. Mark Luitjen (Senior District Judge, sitting by assignment)
Court Sitting by assignment, Bexar County district courts
County Bexar County, Texas
CJC Numbers 19-0833 & 20-0468
Sanction Two Public Admonitions (one with an Order of Additional Education)
Date Issued December 4, 2020
Signed By David Hall, Chairman, State Commission on Judicial Conduct

 

On December 4, 2020, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished the same judge twice. Senior District Judge Mark Luitjen, who sits by assignment in Bexar County, drew two separate public sanctions for two unrelated episodes about a year apart. One was a quiet procedural shortcut. The other was said out loud, in a courtroom, with staff, attorneys, and defendants present.

Neither was dramatic in the made-for-TV sense. Read together, though, they sketch a judge who repeatedly misjudged where the lines of his office were drawn and a discipline system measuring conduct by its effect on fairness and public confidence, not by whether the judge meant any harm.

The First Admonition: An Ex Parte Call During a Recess

At an August 31, 2018, hearing in a Bexar County criminal case, the defendant had moved to withdraw his plea and for a new trial. Judge Luitjen, sitting by assignment in the 399th District Court, questioned whether he still had jurisdiction to rule given how much time had passed. He recessed for about 45 minutes to research the issue.

Defense counsel was not in the courtroom during that recess. According to the Commission’s order, the judge had a prosecutor summon someone from the District Attorney’s appellate section to court to discuss the jurisdiction question, then consulted the chief of the office’s criminal trial division, who relayed word from the appellate chief that the State agreed the court lacked jurisdiction. When the hearing reconvened, the judge announced he had consulted the District Attorney’s Office and that the State believed he was right. Defense counsel objected to the ex parte contact; the judge replied that he believed he could consult anyone he wanted in researching a case.

“Ex parte” means from one side only. Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct bars a judge from initiating, permitting, or considering ex parte communications about the merits of a pending matter. The Commission found Judge Luitjen both initiated the communication (arranging for the prosecution to weigh in during the recess) and permitted it (allowing the State’s position to reach him while the defense was absent). His defenses that he had only invited the office to participate, that he had already decided the issue, and that he disclosed the contact once the hearing resumed did not cure it. The rule forbids arranging or allowing the contact; you do not have to be swayed by it to violate the canon. The Commission also noted that when he disclosed the contact, he neither admonished the State for it nor said he would disregard it.

WHY EX PARTE CONTACT IS BARRED

A one-sided conversation about a pending case (even about something that sounds procedural like jurisdiction) takes away the other side’s chance to hear it and respond. Canon 3B(8) bars a judge from initiating, permitting, or considering it. You do not have to be persuaded by the contact to break the rule; arranging or allowing it is enough.

 

The Second Admonition: Slurs in the Courtroom

August 7, 2019, was days after the mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart that targeted Latino shoppers. Judge Luitjen finished magistrating several undocumented immigrants and, during a recess, fell into a conversation with a court reporter about the shooting and the language used in news coverage to describe Mexican citizens. A Bexar County pretrial bond officer later filed an incident report. According to the Commission’s order, the judge said aloud, in front of the courtroom, that things had been easier in the past “when we called them” — followed by English and Spanish slurs for undocumented immigrants from Mexico. (We do not reproduce the slurs; the Commission’s own order redacts them, and so do we.)

In his response, the judge said he and the reporter had been discussing political correctness and changing sensitivities (i.e. that “what was appropriate yesterday can be scandalous today”) and that he was describing how people spoke in the past, not using the words to label anyone. He said he had never used those slurs to refer to any person, acknowledged they are considered inappropriate today though they were not when he was in high school and later apologized in a news article to anyone offended.

The Commission was unpersuaded by the framing. It found that the judge used the actual slurs aloud, in the courtroom, in public, while court staff, attorneys, and defendants were present. Under Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution (which bars a judge from willful conduct that casts public discredit upon the judiciary) that was enough. The Commission publicly admonished him and ordered him to complete two hours of additional education with a mentor, specifically in racial sensitivity training, on top of his required judicial education for the year.

What Ties the Two Together

The episodes look nothing alike (one a phone call, one a sentence) but they share a root. In both, the judge did not think he had crossed a line. In the first, he believed he could consult whomever he liked about a pending case. In the second, he believed that describing historical slurs was not the same as using them. The Commission disagreed both times, because judicial-conduct rules are not graded on the judge’s intentions alone. They are graded on what the conduct does to the fairness of a proceeding and to the public’s confidence in the courts. A one-sided call during a recess corrodes the first. Slurs spoken from the bench, days after a massacre aimed at the very community in the room, corrode the second.

For anyone who has to stand in front of a judge, both failures matter. You are entitled to a judge who keeps both sides in the room when your case is discussed and who extends the dignity of the office to everyone in the courtroom, including defendants and the communities they come from. When either breaks down, it is not a matter of manners. It goes to whether the proceeding was fair and whether the institution deserves trust.

The Rules He Broke

The two matters rest on different provisions of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and the Texas Constitution:

Rule What It Requires
Canon 3B(8) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications concerning the merits of a pending or impending matter.
Tex. Const. Art. V, § 1-a(6)A A judge shall not engage in willful conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of judicial duties or that casts public discredit upon the judiciary.

 

About the Sanctions

A public admonition is the least severe of the Commission’s sanctions. It can issue private or public admonitions, warnings, and reprimands, and in the gravest cases recommend censure or removal. Drawing two on one day is itself notable, and the second came paired with a rarer remedy: an order of additional education aimed squarely at racial sensitivity. The two matters rest on different footing: the ex parte admonition on Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and the courtroom-remarks admonition on the “willful conduct that casts public discredit upon the judiciary” standard of Article V, Section 1-a(6)A. Both were issued under the Commission’s Article V, Section 1-a authority to promote confidence in and high standards for the judiciary.

That is the thread worth keeping. Most judicial-conduct problems are not cartoon villainy. They are misjudgments by people who believe they are in the right with a shortcut here, a careless remark there. The rules, and the public record the Commission creates, exist precisely because good intentions are not the test.

How It Played in the Press

The slurs episode was public well before the Commission ever ruled. In August 2019 (more than a year before the admonitions) San Antonio media reported the remarks, including KSAT’s longtime courthouse reporter and the San Antonio Current. The coverage disclosed something the Commission’s later order does not dwell on: the remarks had already cost Luitjen his place on the area’s roster of available visiting judges, after the regional administrative judge removed him. In those interviews, Luitjen acknowledged the remarks, said “words matter,” and apologized to anyone offended while maintaining he had been describing how people used to talk rather than insulting anyone. That apology is the “news article” the Commission’s order later refers to. The reporting also flagged the open question of whether the matter would be referred to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. It was and in December 2020 the Commission added the two public admonitions to the record.

Where Is He Now?

Mark Luitjen is a former elected district judge (he won the 144th Criminal District Court in Bexar County and served from 1999 to 2006) who in the years since has worked as a senior judge sitting by assignment. After the 2019 remarks, the regional administrative judge removed him from the local list of available visiting judges; he later ran for an elected district-court seat again and was defeated by the incumbent. We found no clear public record confirming whether he is currently taking assignments. As with any senior judge, the two public admonitions are permanent and public, and would be part of the record considered before any future assignment. If that changes, the Gavel of Shame will follow up.

 

 

Worried Your Case Wasn’t Decided Fairly?

Ex parte contact, judicial bias, and procedural shortcuts can be grounds to challenge a ruling. Deandra Grant Law handles state and federal criminal defense across Texas.

Call (214) 225-7117  •  texasdwisite.com

The Gavel of Shame  •  Case File No. 19

By Deandra Grant  •  Deandra Grant Law  •  Published June 2026

Sources

Primary sources

  • Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Public Admonition of the Honorable Mark Luitjen, CJC No. 19-0833 (ex parte), Dec. 4, 2020. texas.gov
  • Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Public Admonition & Order of Additional Education of the Honorable Mark Luitjen, CJC No. 20-0468 (courtroom remarks), Dec. 4, 2020. texas.gov

News coverage

  • KSAT (Paul Venema, Aug. 14, 2019), “Local judge barred, apologizes after making racial slurs.” com
  • San Antonio Current (2019), “Visiting Judge Offers Apology After Using Racial Slurs Against Undocumented Immigrants in San Antonio.” com

Reference

  • Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3B(8) — ex parte communications. texas.gov

This post summarizes the findings of public sanctions issued by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. All quotations and findings are drawn from those public orders. In his responses, Judge Luitjen disputed that his conduct was improper. This is general commentary on a public record, not legal advice.