There isn't anything in that 'indictment' to suggest a less than professional realtionship existed. All the evidence seems to consist of is that these women attended a number of functions all connected with their professional work.
It seems ludicrous to claim that a judge should not be allowed to attend a Woman's Bar Association function on the grounds that it might be attended by politicians. Surely a Bar Association function is a legal rather than political function?
To characterise a speech given to a large gathering as some sort of personal and intimate encouragement to a particular attorney seems disingenuous to say the least as does categorising the attorney as a friend of the judge with the scant evidence presented.
About the 'indictment' of Justice Marshall, did this ever actually lead to anything or was it just a bit of grandstanding? The 3rd count seems completely non-sensical since presumably the Judge's opinion would be a matter of public record and when given would be the end of the case, and therefore the case could not have been pending or impending in any court.
Was there any actual indictment in a legal sense? Or indeed any actual legal or professional fallout? At the moment this indictment and the similar Pawlick complain simply seem to be a lot of noise thrown out by a group with a clear vested interest in overturning the decision rather than with upholding the ethical standards of the Massachusetts courts.
TTFN,
WK