The two members of Anne Arundel County Orphans’ Court who were involved in a spat that spilled out of chambers and into court papers and news reports have now been accused of ethical violations by a panel that investigates wrongdoing by state judges in Maryland.

The ethical charges filed by the Commission on Judicial Disabilities in February, but made public last week, draw from the contentious and highly public dispute between Orphans’ Court Chief Judge Vickie Gipson and Judge Marc Knapp.

Gipson’s charges were made public and reported by The Banner early last week and Knapp’s charges posted to the commission’s website toward the latter part of the week.

Each is accused of violating numerous provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct during arguments in chambers, court proceedings and in comments to news organizations. Attorneys who investigated them for the commission described their behavior as mutually “unprofessional,” although they labeled Knapp as the “aggressor.”

Gipson declined to comment, as did her attorney, Claudia Barber. In an official response to the commission’s charges, Barber wrote that reprimanding Gipson “victimizes the victim.”

Knapp declined Monday to address the allegations in the commission’s charges against him, but said he and his attorney would be crafting an official response when his criminal case is resolved. In December, state prosecutors secured an indictment against Knapp, charging him with illegally recording his colleagues. He pleaded not guilty.

Charges brought by the judicial disabilities commission lead to a hearing before the commission, according to the Maryland 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 has been a judge on the county Orphan’s Court since 2018, while Knapp joined the bench in 2022.

At first, their relationship was “professional and cordial,” the commission’s investigative counsel wrote. But “acrimony developed” between them around March 2023, and soon Knapp was engaging in “repeated verbal altercations with [Gipson] in chambers, including during periods the Orphans’ Court was open to the public.”

Both were unprofessional, their charges say. “However, Judge Knapp was the primary aggressor in these confrontations and would act in a hostile, aggressive, disrespectful, and unprofessional manner towards [Gipson], routinely using profanity and invading [Gipson’s] personal space and that of other court staff who would attempt to intervene or who Judge Knapp seemed to believe were aligned with [Gipson].”

In response to his aggressions, the investigative counsel wrote, Gipson issued decrees preventing Knapp from working in the courtroom, signing orders and writing dissents.

The probate judges’ dispute reached a crescendo when 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 Orphans’ Court.

“In response, Judge Knapp escalated his behavior towards [Gipson] to the point of engaging in what could reasonably be described as harassment and covertly recording the conversations and deliberations of other judges in chambers,” the investigative counsel wrote.

The 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.”

Knapp faces the same charges related to speaking publicly about the case.

In her complaint leading to the peace order proceedings, 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.”

Knapp 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 told a reporter.

In her response to the commission’s complaint, Gipson’s attorney blamed the commission for failing to take action against Knapp after she reported him.

“Had the Commission put Judge Knapp on administrative leave back in April 2024, we would not be here today,” wrote attorney Claudia Barber. “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.”