Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission publicly reprimands District Judge Brittany McKenna over appearance of bias

Kentucky’s Judicial Conduct Commission on Tuesday issued a public reprimand to District Court Judge Brittany McKenna, the commission said, concluding that her conduct created the appearance of bias in a proceeding she presided over. The commission’s notice, reported by Kentucky Lantern, tied the reprimand to testimony given by a witness with whom McKenna had what the commission described as a close personal relationship.

According to the report, McKenna resigned from her judicial position on April 2, and the commission proceeded with its disciplinary action notwithstanding the resignation. The commission’s written notice stated that she fully cooperated in the matter and agreed to the commission’s resolution, the report said.

The commission’s action focuses on the integrity of the public process and the standard that litigants and the public should be able to trust that judges remain impartial not only in fact, but also in appearance. In its statement, the commission said the relationship between the judge and the witness presented an issue requiring remedial discipline, Kentucky Lantern reported.

The case at the center of the commission’s reprimand involved a hearing in which the judge presided and the witness’s testimony was part of the record. The commission characterized the judge’s relationship with that witness as a close personal relationship, and it treated that circumstance as creating an appearance of bias, which it said warranted a public reprimand.

A public reprimand is among the commission’s formal outcomes and is intended to place the judge’s conduct and the commission’s findings on the public record. Kentucky Lantern reported that the commission issued its notice publicly and that it referenced the timing of McKenna’s resignation and her cooperation with the process.

McKenna’s resignation on April 2 means she will not return to the bench in that district court post, but the commission’s order remains relevant for understanding how judicial conduct rules are applied to relationships that arise during cases. For litigants and parties, the matter underscores that Kentucky’s judicial ethics rules include standards designed to protect due process and public confidence even when a judge exits the bench.

The commission’s notice does not change the fact of the judge’s resignation, but it does document the commission’s conclusion that the circumstances warranted discipline. The public reprimand also serves as a record for other judges and court administrators considering recusal and disclosure decisions when personal relationships intersect with pending matters.