Judge faces hearing over sexual impropriety accusations

Gary D. Hicks, justice of the peace in Libby, will eventually face a hearing before the Montana Judicial Standards Commission over allegations of sexual misconduct, after the Commission looked into allegations that he sexually harassed, even offering legal aid in exchange for sexual favors, to several women.

Hicks, who is married, is currently serving his second term as justice of the peace.

The 11-page complaint, filed by Kalispell attorney Stephen Berg, names six women, all of whom allege inappropriate remarks made by Hicks during interviews and summons.’

For instance, Hicks is reported as telling a defendant that she was “cute in blue,” referring to the color of jail uniforms, while another female was told that she was “too beautiful to be in trouble.” He asked one complainant if she had a boyfriend and if she was interested in being in a relationship with him.

But the most serious allegation states that Hicks apparently offered legal aide in exchange for sexual favors.

When the complainant appeared in 2006 regarding a criminal summons, he offered to “work with” her on her charges if she would agree to a physical relationship.

All the incidents in the complaint occurred between 2005 and 2007.

The original complaint was filed on April 19, 2007 with the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Department. But by May 29, 2007 it was decided that the investigation should be handed over to the Montana Department of Criminal Investigations, according to Detective Lt. Jim Sweet.

“That is done in order to maintain the integrity of our investigation and to avoid a conflict of interest,” explained Sweet. “We generally do that with sensitive cases.”

But it was immediately transferred to the Judicial Standards Commission who appointed Berg to conduct an independent investigation of the complaints.

The conclusion of the Judicial Standards Committee’s report states that Hicks violated three key ethical rules of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. They are the “avoidance of impropriety,” “avoiding a relationship that could influence a judicial concept,” and “a summary of Judicial Obligation” stating that a Judge should behave in a manner above reproach.

A hearing before that committee is not considered criminal, but they do have the power to remove a judge from office. Hicks faces several possibilities, ranging from a private censure to permanent removal from his duties.

Hicks has 15 days to issue a formal response to the allegations but the Commission does not expect a hearing until late summer or early fall.

Hicks could not be reached for comment.