NJ Judge Loses Retirement for Aiding Fugitive Boyfriend

New Jersey was entitled to withhold hundreds of thousands of dollars of a judge’s retirement money because she was suspended for years after helping her boyfriend evade the law.

Former Superior Court Judge Carlia M. Brady received approval from Gov. Phil Murphy (D) to receive retirement benefits, all criminal charges against her were dropped, and the state high court curtailed her punishment. Still, the state has discretion to block retirement benefits for judges who violate ethics rules the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division ruled Wednesday.

“If an employee’s misconduct is unrelated to one’s job duties, that factor is considered favorably in the balancing process. But it does not, as Petitioner argues, foreclose application of” state law, the court said in its unauthored opinion.

The ruling raises the stakes for ethical missteps for New Jersey judges, heightening the possibility for hefty penalties even for infractions that receive slight reprimands.

Brady had been a Superior Court judge for roughly two months before she ran afoul of local police when she neglected to help officers arrest her live-in boyfriend who had outstanding warrants. She was removed from the bench indefinitely, but after 57 months the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a three-month suspension order and reinstated her.

She claimed the ordeal contributed to disabling health problems for which she received the governor’s approval to retire with state benefits. However, the retirement system has the discretion to block those payments when considering 11 factors, including how long a public employee served, the relationship between the misconduct and the public official’s duties, and the gravity of the misconduct .

“Contrary to Petitioner’s claim, the Board properly applied the eleven-factor analysis according to the statute and relied on substantial evidence in reaching its forfeiture decision,” the appeals court said.

All three judges in an Oct. 1 oral argument raised concerns that this standard creates and “always on” ethics regime for judges who could be stripped of benefits for crossing the line in their personal lives away from the bench. However, that’s the power invested in the state by New Jersey’s statutes.

“The Board weighed ‘heavily’ the fact Petitioner had only two years and four months of creditable service,” the court said. “The Board concluded ‘Petitioner’s receipt, after dishonoring the bench just over two months into her relatively brief judicial service, of a lifetime pension amounting to three-fourths of her judicial salary would be an unwarranted windfall.’”.

Judges Maritza Berdote Byrne and Jeffrey R. Jablonski decided the case.

Szaferman Lakind represents Brady.

The cases are: Brady v. Bd. of Trs. of the Judicial Ret. Sys., N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., No. A-3054-23, 11/12/25.