Before his retirement in June, a prominent Richmond judge engaged in inappropriate conduct toward two female attorneys, a state judicial misconduct body concluded after an informal hearing. 

A Sept. 25 supervision agreement between Virginia’s Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission and retired Richmond Circuit Court Judge W. Reilly Marchant concludes Marchant violated two judicial rules, including one that requires judges to “refrain from speech, gestures, or other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment.” 

The agreement describes repeated efforts by Marchant to develop personal relationships with the two attorneys, both of whom had actively tried cases before the judge. 

Those efforts included multiple invitations for drinks and lunch, texts asking to come by one attorney’s home to wish her Merry Christmas and, on one occasion, Marchant telling the attorney he was on her doorstep after she told him she was sick. 

While Marchant denied some of the attorneys’ allegations — including that he sought to kiss one and told her he loved her and that he solicited long, lingering hugs and hand-holding from the other — JIRC concluded that his conduct violated judicial standards based on his admissions alone. 

Marchant “acknowledged that his effort to obtain a social relationship with these individuals as a sitting judge who presided over their cases was improper” and “conceded that, with the benefit of hindsight, he now recognized that there existed an unbalanced power dynamic between himself as a judge and these individuals who appeared before them, such that they could not reasonably refuse his efforts to pursue a social relationship with them,” JIRC wrote. 

“While Judge Marchant maintained that his relationships with both witnesses were platonic and denied harboring any romantic intentions toward either … he conceded that he understood why that might have [been] perceived otherwise given the circumstances,” the agreement continued. 

The findings were the result of an informal conference held by JIRC with Marchant and his own lawyers this September. JIRC declined to move forward with a formal hearing and investigation in exchange for Marchant agreeing to not accept future appointment as a judge and to stay off of the list of judges available for temporary recall to the bench. 

In a statement to The Richmonder, Marchant said that “I did my best as judge for the city of Richmond for the 9 ½ years I served, and I think most people who kept up with it would say I did a pretty good job.” 

“If I got too close, platonically, to a couple of attorneys with whom I tried many difficult cases over a 9-year period, then that’s on me,” he continued. “Further, if I ever unknowingly and unintentionally did or said anything to make them feel uncomfortable, then I apologize to them. But never were any of my judicial decisions compromised or partial in any way, nor has or could anyone credibly say otherwise.”

Marchant has denied that his retirement in June 2024 had anything to do with the JIRC proceeding.

“Judge Marchant publicly announced his retirement several months before he became aware of the JIRC proceeding, and before some of the alleged incidents are alleged to have even occurred,” said David Lacy, one of Marchant’s attorneys, in an email. 

The disciplinary action imposed by JIRC on Marchant was made public due to new reporting requirements passed by the General Assembly in 2023. Prior to that year, annual reports issued by JIRC only had to provide information on how many complaints it received about judges and how many were dismissed.

The 2023 law, however, orders JIRC to also include the name of any judge who the commission concluded had breached the Canons of Judicial Conduct as well as details of the standards that were violated and the disciplinary action JIRC took against them. 

In a November 2023 advisory opinion, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares told JIRC the reporting requirement applies whenever the commission takes disciplinary action against a judge, which he defined as occurring when JIRC “files a formal complaint with the Supreme Court of Virginia, suspends a judge, or enters into a supervision agreement with a judge.” 

Information also continues to be made public if a judge’s violation of standards is serious enough to be sent to the Supreme Court of Virginia for possible censure or removal from office. 

Marchant was appointed to Richmond Circuit Court by the General Assembly in 2015 and became chief judge in 2020. In that role, he presided over some of the city’s most high-profile court cases in recent years, including litigation over the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue from Monument Avenue and the trial of Amari Pollard, who was convicted of killing Shawn Jackson in the May 2023 Huguenot High School graduation shooting. 

Prior to his time in Richmond Circuit, he acted as a substitute judge for 26 years and was in private practice with the firm Marchant, Thorsen, Honey, Baldwin & Meyer. He also dabbled in the restaurant business, opening up Pasture and Six Burner, which was later rebranded as Heritage. 

The events that led to the JIRC complaints occurred in 2023. The two female attorneys are unnamed in the commission agreement. 

The first attorney alleged that Marchant invited her to lunch and for drinks on multiple occasions and once messaged her offering to act as a “sounding board” for her while she was involved in litigation in another court. 

During one lunch, she told JIRC that Marchant told her “that if she wore a dress in his court, he would be too distracted to focus on the case.” Marchant “expressly denied” having made such a comment, the JIRC agreement notes. 

The attorney also detailed Marchant telling her during an October lunch that by declining and canceling lunch invitations, it seemed like she didn’t want to spend time with him. 

“It has been alleged that Judge Marchant acknowledged the awkwardness of his comment, observing that it feels very high school to be saying something like that to a girl and that he felt stupid having to say it,” the JIRC agreement says. 

Another interaction referenced in the complaint occurred Dec. 27, 2023, when the attorney said Marchant messaged her saying he wanted to come by her home “to say Merry Christmas and catch up.” His messages also asked whether the request was “too forward,” said he “care[d] a lot” for her and told her he was willing to “back up” if she wanted since he was “not great at reading signals,” according to the JIRC agreement. 

Later in the day, the JIRC report notes Marchant asked to join the attorney for a drink. She told him she had strep throat. Two days later, he messaged her offering to bring her soup, Jello or Gatorade. When she did not respond, Marchant texted again to tell her he was outside her house and was about to ring her doorbell. 

On Dec. 30, the JIRC report says Marchant texted the attorney saying he realized his “pursuit of a closer personal friendship” had put her in a “very difficult position.” 

The second attorney also alleged that during lunches with Marchant, the former judge commented on her appearance, solicited hugs from her and on occasion compared her to his second-grade teacher and told her that he loved her. After a Nov. 14, 2023 lunch at Tazza Kitchen, she alleged Marchant sought to kiss her on the lips but instead kissed her cheek after she turned her head. 

JIRC said Marchant “expressly denied” having told the second attorney that he loved her or having asked her for hugs or attempted to kiss her.

 “However, the judge admitted putting his arm around witness #2 upon returning to his car on that occasion, during which he maintained that their cheeks brushed,” the JIRC agreement notes. “While unable to account for the perception of witness #2 that he had attempted to kiss her, he acknowledged the possibility that her belief in this regard was sincerely held.” 

JIRC said that because of Marchant’s “concessions” about his behavior, it didn’t need to conduct a full investigation to resolve any disputes between him and the attorneys about what had occurred. Instead, it said it was “satisfied” in determining Marchant had violated the judicial rule governing conduct “that could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment” based on his admissions alone.