THE GAVEL OF SHAME • CASE FILE NO. 2
How Fannin County district judge Laurine Blake earned a Public Admonition from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct
THE QUICK ANSWER
In 2025, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a Public Admonition to Laurine Blake, the longtime district judge in Bonham, Texas. As she prepared to retire, Blake worked behind the scenes to help one candidate win the election to replace her by promoting that candidate to community groups and texting damaging, partly inaccurate information about the opponent to influential local figures.
| CASE FILE AT A GLANCE | |
| Judge | Hon. Laurine Blake (retired December 31, 2024) |
| Court | 336th District Court, Bonham |
| County | Fannin County, Texas |
| CJC Number | 23-0921 |
| Sanction | Public Admonition |
| Date Issued | 2025 |
| Signed By | Gary L. Steel, Chairman, State Commission on Judicial Conduct |
Why This Case Is Different
Our first case file was about cruelty from the bench. This one is quieter, but it strikes at something just as important: the integrity of a judicial election. Texas is one of the states where voters, not politicians, choose their trial judges. That system only works if sitting judges keep their hands off the races to replace them.
Laurine Blake had been the district judge in Fannin County (a rural county northeast of Dallas) for two decades. As the only district judge in the county, she was, in her own words to the Commission, a figure without “the luxury of anonymity.” When she announced she would retire at the end of 2024, two attorneys, Kyle Shaw and Christina Tillett, entered the Republican primary to succeed her. In Fannin County, with no Democrat in the race, that primary would decide the seat.
The Commission found that Blake did not stay out of it. She put her thumb on the scale and the Code of Judicial Conduct says a judge cannot do that.
Building One Candidate Up
According to the Commission’s findings, after Tillett expressed interest in the seat in February 2023, Blake began opening doors for her. She personally informed and invited Tillett to a string of community and civic meetings among them the county’s Criminal Justice Committee, the Bail Bond Board, the Bonham Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs, and Fannin County Republican Women.
The problem was not networking itself. It was what happened in the room. The Commission found that at some of these meetings, Tillett was introduced as a judicial candidate and was endorsed by members of the organization while Judge Blake stood there. Blake also invited Tillett to help serve a meal at the Getting Ahead Program; the two posed for a photo together that was posted to the program’s Facebook page.
A sitting judge lending her presence and her introductions to one candidate, in settings where that candidate is then publicly endorsed, sends an unmistakable signal: this is my chosen successor. The Commission concluded that Blake had effectively authorized her name to be used in endorsing Tillett which is something the Code of Judicial Conduct flatly prohibits.
Tearing the Other Candidate Down
The more serious findings concern what Blake did to the other candidate. Before the primary, the Commission found, she sent a text message (“Did you know this?”) with five screenshots to a group of friends she described as people with whom she had close political ties or working relationships. That group included the county Republican Party chairwoman, the Fannin County Criminal District Attorney, a former party chair, the sitting county judge, a former county judge, and a former local newspaper owner. In a small county, that is a roster of the people who shape local opinion.
The screenshots were the results of a search of a Collin County court website for records relating to Shaw. Some of the cases genuinely involved him such as his divorces, a legal malpractice claim, cases he had worked as an attorney. But the Commission found the screenshots also swept in cases that had nothing to do with him: criminal cases involving a different “Kyle Shaw,” a divorce and a paternity case involving other men of the same or similar name, and a parent-child case involving people named Shaw who were not the candidate.
In follow-up texts to the party chairwoman, the Commission found, Blake went further by commenting on Shaw’s divorces, his children, and, in a particularly striking passage, raising the death of his son. The order quotes her framing the messages as simply making sure the party chair would not “be the last one who learns this.”
Blake defended herself to the Commission. She argued her relationship with Tillett was professional, not personal; that a candidacy is a matter of public interest rather than a private one; that the texts were not sent in her official capacity; and that she never explicitly claimed every record belonged to the candidate Shaw. She maintained there was no evidence she “intentionally or recklessly” misattributed anything. But she also acknowledged to the Commission that the information could influence how her friends voted, and that Shaw’s litigation history was “more detrimental to Shaw than … helpful in a political campaign.” The Commission was not persuaded by the defense.
| WHY THIS RULE EXISTS
Texas elects most of its trial judges. The Code of Judicial Conduct draws a hard line around how a sitting judge may behave in those elections: • A judge may say which political party they support but may not authorize the use of their name to endorse another candidate for office. • A judge or judicial candidate may not knowingly or recklessly misrepresent an opponent’s identity, qualifications, or record. • A judge may not lend the prestige of the office to advance anyone’s private interests including a favored candidate’s campaign. The point is public confidence. If the public believes the bench is handed down through favoritism rather than chosen by voters, trust in every ruling that follows is weakened. |
The Election — and the Investigation
Tillett won the March 2024 Republican primary, taking 53.48% of the vote (3,234 votes) to Shaw’s 46.52% (2,813 votes). With no Democrat in the race, that result decided the seat. When Blake retired on December 31, 2024, Tillett took the 336th District Court bench.
The Commission had already reviewed the allegations against Blake at its December 3–4, 2024 meeting before her retirement was even final. The case carried CJC No. 23-0921, and the Commission issued its order on February 7, 2025.
The Rules She Broke
The Commission concluded that Blake’s conduct violated four provisions of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, along with the Texas Constitution:
| Rule | What It Requires |
| Canon 2B | A judge shall not allow relationships to influence judicial conduct, and shall not lend the prestige of the office to advance private interests. |
| Canon 3B(4) | A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to lawyers and others the judge deals with in an official capacity. |
| Canon 5(1)(ii) | A judge or judicial candidate shall not knowingly or recklessly misrepresent the identity, qualifications, or record of a candidate or opponent. |
| Canon 5(2) | A judge shall not authorize the public use of their name endorsing another candidate for public office (though they may indicate support for a party). |
| Texas Constitution, Art. V, § 1-a(6)A | A judge shall not engage in willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of judicial duties or that discredits the judiciary. |
The Sanction — and What It Means
The Commission issued a Public Admonition. As we explained in the Introduction to this series, the admonition is the first rung on the three-step disciplinary ladder (below a warning and a reprimand). It is the least severe of the formal sanctions. But because it is public, Blake’s name and the Commission’s findings are now part of the permanent public record.
It is worth being precise about why this case may have landed at the bottom of the ladder rather than the top. Case File No. 1 (the Hereford reprimand) involved years of conduct, dozens of incidents, and direct cruelty to children and the poor. This case involved a single election cycle and conduct that, however improper, did not target vulnerable people in a courtroom. The Commission still found Blake’s conduct “willful and persistent” and “clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties” (the constitutional standard) but it calibrated the sanction to the seriousness of the conduct. That calibration is exactly what the ladder is for.
How It Played in the Press
Because the conduct involved an election rather than a courtroom confrontation, this sanction drew a more legal-trade and regional audience than a viral one. It was covered by North Texas e-News, the regional outlet MyParisTexas, and the legal-industry publication Law.com’s Texas Lawyer, among others, with coverage running from late February into March 2025.
The reporting added context the order leaves implicit. Local election coverage from before the primary shows that both Shaw and Tillett were experienced attorneys (Shaw with a largely criminal practice, Tillett with a broad civil and family-law background) each running on ordinary platforms about moving the docket and serving the county. In other words, this was a normal, competitive race between two qualified candidates. That is what makes a sitting judge’s intervention matter: the voters were entitled to choose between them without the outgoing judge shaping the field.
The Takeaway
Most people think about judicial misconduct as something that happens in a courtroom such as a bad ruling, a harsh word or a conflict of interest in a case. This case is a reminder that it also covers what a judge does to the institution itself.
When a judge uses two decades of accumulated standing to advance a chosen successor and undercut the alternative, the harm is not to one losing candidate. It is to every voter who was entitled to a fair contest, and to public confidence in the court that results. A judicial seat in Texas belongs to the voters and not to the person currently holding it.
Where Is She Now?
Laurine Blake is no longer on the bench. She retired as planned on December 31, 2024, after roughly 20 years as the 336th District Court judge with her retirement having been announced well before the Public Admonition issued. Christina Tillett, the candidate the Commission found Blake had improperly supported, won the primary and took the seat.
We found no public record of an appeal to a Special Court of Review, and no indication that Blake has sought or returned to judicial office since retiring. As with any retired judge, a Public Admonition does not by itself bar her from future judicial service (including sitting by assignment) but it is permanent, it is public, and it would be part of the record if she ever returned to the bench. If that changes, the Gavel of Shame will follow up.
| Who Sits on the Bench Affects Your Case
The judge assigned to your case shapes everything from bond to trial. At Deandra Grant Law, we know the courts and the judges across North Texas, and we put that knowledge to work for our clients. If you are facing a DWI or criminal charge in Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, Denton, Rockwall, or McLennan County, let our experience work for you. Call (214) 225-7117 • texasdwisite.com |
Sources
Primary source
- Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Public Admonition of the Honorable Laurine Blake, CJC No. 23-0921 (issued February 7, 2025). texas.gov
News coverage
- North Texas e-News, “Former district judge admonished by State Commission on Judicial Conduct.” ntxe-news.com
- MyParisTexas, “Retired Fannin County Judge admonished by State Commission on Judicial Conduct.” com
- com (Texas Lawyer), “Texas Judge Sanctioned Over Elections Behavior.” law.com
- KXII, “Two candidates running for Fannin County 336th District Judge” (pre-election coverage of the Shaw–Tillett race). com
This post summarizes the findings of a public sanction issued by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. All quotations and findings are drawn from that public order. Judge Blake denied wrongdoing in her responses to the Commission. This is general commentary on a public record, not legal advice.
