| THE QUICK ANSWER
In April 2026, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a Public Admonition and an Order of Additional Education to Steve Duble, a Justice of the Peace in Harris County, Texas. The Commission found that he ended two court-ordered receiverships without giving the parties notice or a hearing, and that he failed to hold roughly ten protected-property hearings within the deadline the law sets. |
| CASE FILE AT A GLANCE | |
| Judge | Hon. Steve Duble, Justice of the Peace |
| Court | Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Place 2, Houston |
| County | Harris County, Texas |
| CJC Numbers | 24-0092, 24-0789 & 24-0890 |
| Sanction | Public Admonition and Order of Additional Education |
| Date Issued | April 23, 2026 |
| Signed By | Ken Wise, Vice-Chairman, State Commission on Judicial Conduct |
When the Process Itself Is the Problem
This case file comes from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s April 2026 meeting. The conduct here is of a different and quieter kind. There is no dramatic ruling, no angry email, no headline-grabbing decision. The misconduct is about something more basic: hearings that were supposed to happen but did not.
It is the third Public Admonition we have examined in this series which is the bottom rung of the Commission’s three-step disciplinary ladder, below a warning and below a reprimand. The admonition came with an Order of Additional Education: the Commission concluded the judge needed not just a public sanction, but targeted retraining.
Two Receiverships, Ended Without a Word
The first set of findings involves two collection cases. In each, a lender had won a judgment against a borrower, and the court had appointed a receiver (a neutral third party named Kasey Bozhuk) to help manage the collection of the debt. Both receiverships had begun under Judge Duble’s predecessor, who had extended them until the debts were satisfied, because the debtors had signed payment agreements.
In May 2024, the Commission found, Judge Duble signed orders terminating both receiverships (one on May 15, the other on May 22) without giving notice to any of the parties and without holding a hearing. The creditor, the debtor, and the receiver were all entitled to know the receivership might end and to be heard on it. None of them got that chance.
Why that matters is straightforward. A receivership is a live legal arrangement with money and obligations attached to it. Ending one changes the rights of everyone involved. The law does not let a judge make that change silently; the parties are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard first. That principle (the right to be heard) is one this series has returned to again and again, and it applies in a routine debt-collection file just as much as in a criminal case.
The Property Hearings That Ran Past the Deadline
The second set of findings involves timing. When a creditor moves to seize a debtor’s property to satisfy a judgment, the debtor can claim that certain property is protected (exempt) from being taken. Texas law gives the court a firm window to resolve those claims: under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment debtor’s exemption claim must generally be determined within ten days, absent good cause to extend it.
The Commission found that Judge Duble failed to hold these protected-property exemption hearings within that ten-day window. By his own account, the problem touched about ten cases: seven that arose during his first six months in office, and three more carried over from his predecessor’s term that he failed to set on time.
There is a meaningful piece of context here, and the Commission’s findings include it. Once Judge Duble learned of the problem, he did not let it continue. He promptly set the overdue cases, held the hearings, and (according to the order) has conducted timely exemption hearings in every such matter since late 2023. The misconduct was a failure that was caught and corrected, not one that was left to fester.
| WHY DEADLINES AND NOTICE MATTER
Notice and a hearing. Before a court changes a legal arrangement that affects someone’s rights (like ending a receivership) the people involved are entitled to be told and to be heard. A decision made without notice is a decision made without the parties’ participation. The ten-day window. When a debtor claims property is exempt from seizure, the law requires the court to decide quickly. Until that claim is resolved, a person’s property (sometimes property they need to live and work) sits in limbo. The deadline exists so that limbo does not last. Justice of the peace courts handle the everyday legal business of ordinary Texans: debts, evictions, small claims. The procedural rules are how those courts stay fair when the docket is heavy. |
What the Judge Said in His Defense
Judge Duble responded to the Commission, and his answers are part of the public record. They are notable for a mix of acceptance and pushback.
On the receiverships, he accepted the point. The Commission’s findings note that Judge Duble admitted no notice was given and no hearing was held before he terminated the Cruz and Smith receiverships, and that he now recognizes that before ending a receivership he should give notice to the creditor, the debtor, and the receiver, and hold a hearing so all of them have the chance to be heard.
On the late exemption hearings, his response was more divided. He candidly admitted he had “dropped the ball” on the roughly ten cases. But he disputed the Commission’s characterization that this amounted to failing to comply with, or maintain competence in, the law. As he put it: “the failure to conduct hearings had nothing to do with ignoring or not understanding the law. It was an oversight during my initial chaotic months in office.”
It is a candid distinction, and an understandable one for a new judge to draw. But the Commission’s conclusion reflects a settled principle: the Code of Judicial Conduct’s requirement to “comply with the law” and “maintain professional competence” is not limited to knowing what the law says. It includes running the court so that the law’s deadlines are actually met. A missed hearing has the same effect on the litigant whether it was missed out of misunderstanding or out of an overwhelmed docket.
The Rules He Broke
The Commission concluded that Judge Duble’s conduct violated three provisions of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. It also pointed to the civil-procedure rules that set the notice and timing requirements at the heart of the case:
| Rule | What It Requires |
| Canon 2A | A judge shall comply with the law. |
| Canon 3B(2) | A judge shall maintain professional competence in the law. |
| Canon 3B(8) | A judge shall accord every person with a legal interest in a proceeding — or that person’s lawyer — the right to be heard according to law. |
| Tex. R. Civ. P. 501.4(b) | Notice of a requested court proceeding must be served on all other parties before the proceeding. |
| Tex. R. Civ. P. 664a | A motion to dissolve or modify based on personal-property exemptions must be heard promptly and determined within ten days. |
| Tex. R. Civ. P. 679b(c)(4) | The court must determine a judgment debtor’s exemption claim within ten days, absent good cause. |
One detail is worth noting for readers following how the Commission calibrates its sanctions. The order does not cite the Texas Constitution’s “willful or persistent” misconduct standard which is the provision that appears in the more serious case files in this series, including the Public Warning of Judge Morris in Case File No. 7. Its absence here is consistent with where this case landed: the bottom rung.
The Sanction and Why an Admonition
The Commission issued a Public Admonition, paired with an Order of Additional Education. The admonition, as we have explained throughout this series, is the lowest of the three public sanctions. The education order requires Judge Duble to complete two hours of mentored instruction (specifically in the timely execution of court business and in protected-property claims) on top of his regular annual judicial education, within 60 days of being assigned a mentor.
Why the lowest rung? Several features of the case point that way. The conduct was procedural rather than an abuse of power; the Commission found no improper motive. Judge Duble accepted responsibility for the receivership errors and described, accurately, the steps he had already taken to fix the late-hearing problem. And, as noted above, the order does not invoke the constitutional “willful or persistent” standard. Set against the reprimands earlier in this series (for a judge who jailed a mother without a hearing, or one who signed a knowingly false bench warrant) this is plainly different in kind. The pairing of the lowest sanction with a targeted education order fits the picture the Commission drew: a competence and court-management problem to be corrected, not corruption to be condemned.
That said, a Public Admonition is still a formal, public finding of judicial misconduct, and it is now a permanent part of Judge Duble’s record. As with any sanction, he had 30 days to appeal it to a Special Court of Review.
How It Played in the Press
This admonition drew modest coverage, most of it as the second half of a story about the April 2026 sanctions round. The statewide outlet Texas Scorecard reported it alongside the Morris Public Warning, noting that the Commission had sanctioned two Harris County judges in the same set of orders and walking through the receivership findings against Judge Duble.
Judge Duble is not a stranger to Houston news coverage, though for a separate reason. In August 2024, he drew significant local and statewide attention (and sharp criticism from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office) when he recalled roughly 12,500 outstanding Class C misdemeanor arrest warrants from his court, citing constitutional and due-process concerns. That warrant-recall decision is a separate matter; it is not part of this Commission case, and the Commission made no finding about it. The April 2026 admonition is narrowly about the receiverships and the late exemption hearings and nothing more. We mention the earlier episode only because it is part of why his name may be familiar to Houston readers.
The Takeaway
If the louder case files in this series are about what a judge must not do, this one is about what a judge must keep doing day after day, on an ordinary docket: Give the parties notice. Hold the hearing. Meet the deadline. None of it is dramatic, and that is exactly the point: the everyday machinery of a courtroom is where most people actually meet the justice system, and it only works if it runs on time and on the rules.
There is a fair word to say for Judge Duble here. He inherited part of this problem, he was new to the bench, and when he found the late-hearing backlog he moved to clear it and kept it cleared. The Commission’s findings credit that. But the lesson still stands. A litigant whose exemption claim sits past the deadline, or whose receivership is ended without a word, is not made whole by the explanation that the court was busy or the judge was new. The rules of notice and timing are the promise a court makes to the people in front of it and a public sanction is what follows when the promise is not kept.
Where Is He Now?
Steve Duble remains on the bench. He continues to serve as the Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1, Place 2 in Harris County, and the Public Admonition does not remove him from office. He has held the seat since January 2023.
He is also seeking another term. Judge Duble, a Democrat, ran for re-election in 2026 and was on the Harris County Democratic primary ballot on March 3, 2026; per public election records, the Republican primary for the seat was canceled. He is set to continue toward the November 2026 general election. Because the admonition issued in the spring of an election year, it is part of the public record voters will have in front of them so what they make of it is their decision.
On the discipline itself: we found no public record of an appeal to a Special Court of Review. Unless Judge Duble appealed, the Public Admonition stands, and the Order of Additional Education obligates him to complete the two hours of mentored training in court timeliness and protected-property claims. The admonition is permanent and public. If anything changes, the Gavel of Shame will follow up.
| Notice. A Hearing. A Deadline That Is Met.
The everyday rules of procedure — notice, a hearing, a timely ruling — are what protect a client’s rights, and making sure a court honors them is part of the job. At Deandra Grant Law, we hold the courts to the process our clients are owed. If you are facing a DWI or criminal charge in Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, Denton, Rockwall, or McLennan County, put our experience to work for you. Call (214) 225-7117 • texasdwisite.com |
The Gavel of Shame • Case File No. 8
By Deandra Grant • Deandra Grant Law • Published May 2026
Sources
Primary source
- Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Public Admonition and Order of Additional Education of the Honorable Steve Duble, CJC Nos. 24-0092, 24-0789 & 24-0890 (issued April 23, 2026). texas.gov
- Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Public Sanctions Issued FY 2026. texas.gov
News coverage
- Texas Scorecard, “Two Harris County Judges Sanctioned by State Commission.” com
Background
- Houston Public Media, “Harris County Justice of the Peace recalls all warrants for low-level crimes citing Constitutional concerns” (September 2024) — context on Judge Duble’s separate 2024 warrant recall, not part of the Commission case. org
- Ballotpedia, “Steve Duble.” org
This post summarizes a public sanction issued by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. All findings and quotations are drawn from that public order. Judge Duble provided written responses to the Commission, summarized above. This is general commentary on a public record, not legal advice.
