A Maryland panel that investigates wrongdoing by state judges has filed charges against Anne Arundel County Orphans’ Court Chief Judge Vickie Gipson, alleging that she violated a range of ethics rules and laws during a highly public spat with another member of the probate bench.

Maryland’s Commission on Judicial Disabilities, following a probe by its investigative counsel, says Gipson violated about a dozen provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Allegations laid out in the commission’s complaint relate to Gipson’s long-running dispute with fellow Orphans’ Court Judge Marc Knapp, who was indicted in December after state prosecutors accused him of illegally recording his colleagues.

The commission filed the charges in late February, but the Maryland Judiciary only recently posted the documents on its website alongside a response from Gipson.

Through her attorney, Gipson denied breaking any rules and blamed Knapp for “workplace violence and discriminatory animus.”

Bringing charges against Gipson, her attorney said in the response, further “victimizes the victim.”

Charges brought by the judicial disabilities commission lead to a public hearing before the commission, according to the judiciary. If, after the hearing, the commission finds the judge “committed sanctionable conduct, or has a disability or impairment,” it refers the case to the Supreme Court of Maryland, which ultimately decides whether there should be any punishment.

Gipson and her attorney, Claudia Barber, declined to comment.

The commission’s charges describe “altercations” between Gipson and Knapp as “unprofessional” on both sides, but say that Gipson abused her authority as chief judge of the the Orphans’ Court, which decides disputes over wills in Maryland. She prohibited Knapp from working in the courtroom, signing orders and writing dissents.

“These actions had the effect of limiting [Knapp’s] judicial independence and otherwise inhibiting the operations of the Orphans’ Court,” the charges say.

According to the charges, Gipson went “so far as to call the police when he refused to leave the courtroom” and subsequently filed for a peace order against him in May 2024, asking that Knapp be barred from being at Orphan’s Court.

But in her complaint asking for the peace order, Gipson wrote she was “in fear of being hurt because of Judge Knapp’s on-going course of conduct for the last year which included berating, demeaning and hostile language as well as acts of aggression.”

He previously acknowledged having an argument with Gipson but denied wrongdoing, saying the problem was that Gipson regularly interrupted him.

“I object to this because I’m not going to be bossed around by an individual who I do not believe has the authority to do that,” Knapp said in an earlier interview.

Reached by phone, Knapp declined to comment, as did the attorney representing him in the criminal case, Peter O’Neill.

Gipson has been a judge on the county Orphan’s Court since 2018, while Knapp joined the bench in 2022.

The judicial commission’s charges said Gipson violated a rule against “lending the prestige of office to advance personal interests and public comments on pending cases” by repeatedly invoking her title, including in her complaint and peace order, and by talking about the case with several news organizations, which “served to undercut public confidence in the judiciary.”

It also said she violated rules that keep judicial discipline proceedings confidential.

In Gipson’s formal response to the charges, Barber blamed the commission for failing to take action against Knapp after Gipson reported him.

“Had the Commission put Judge Knapp on administrative leave back in April 2024, we would not be here today,” Barber wrote. “Judge Gipson takes responsibility for her actions, but she is not certain she could have done differently as she was explicitly denied peer review for possible guidance and there was no workplace violence harassment policy in effect.

“Therefore,” Barber continued, “it is illogical to reason that such a person in this situation should be determined to have violated the ethical rules because she did not intend to do so, and she sincerely apologizes. To penalize Judge Gipson under these circumstances further victimizes the victim.”