Judge Accused of Ethics Violations Over Ties to Cops and Misconduct

Judge Antonio Inacio admits to multiple violations of judicial conduct, including conflicts of interest, unauthorized language interpretation, and inappropriate courtroom behavior.

A public hearing will be held on Monday, October 27 at 10:30 a.m. before the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) in Trenton to review allegations against Antonio Inacio, Judge of the Clark Township Municipal Court. The hearing will take place at the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex and will be livestreamed by the New Jersey Judiciary.

Judge Inacio, a part-time municipal court judge since 1994 and a practicing attorney, faces formal charges of judicial misconduct as outlined in a complaint filed by the ACJC on March 5, 2024. He submitted a verified answer on March 22, admitting to all factual allegations and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Conflicts of Interest in the Courtroom

The primary charge centers on conflicts of interest stemming from Judge Inacio’s private legal representation of Clark Township employees—particularly police officers and a code enforcement officer—whose professional roles intersected with the court over which he presided.

According to the complaint, Judge Inacio represented four police officers—Officers Miguel Acabou, Sergio Henriques, Ricardo Oliveira, and Antonio Manata—in various personal legal matters, including real estate transactions and divorce proceedings, between 2014 and 2019. Despite those relationships, he later presided over traffic and ordinance violation cases in which these officers were complainants.

In total, Inacio disposed of over 130 tickets issued by these officers after having represented them. The judge also represented Clark Township Code Enforcement Officer Michael Khoda—whom he described as a longtime friend and “drinking buddy”—while simultaneously presiding over at least five cases involving Mr. Khoda as the complainant.

Judge Inacio admitted that while none of these individuals testified before him, he failed to recognize or recuse himself from the cases, acknowledging that his past professional relationships could have created the appearance of partiality.

Improper Use of Foreign Language Without Interpreter

In a separate matter, the ACJC charged Judge Inacio with violating judiciary language access rules by conversing directly in Spanish with litigants during court sessions without using certified interpreters.

Judicial guidelines require the use of qualified interpreters for any communication with individuals who have limited English proficiency. Reports from the Union Vicinage’s Municipal Division Manager and the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Courts observed Judge Inacio frequently conducting brief exchanges in Spanish from the bench.

While Judge Inacio confirmed he never interpreted testimony, he acknowledged speaking to litigants in Spanish or Portuguese to expedite proceedings when an interpreter was not immediately available. He now concedes that this violated best practices outlined in Administrative Directive #21-23 and has ceased the practice.

Inappropriate Courtroom Remarks

The complaint also cites a 2020 courtroom exchange in which Judge Inacio made personal remarks to a defendant about his appearance and relationship status. During a hearing, Inacio commented on the defendant’s apparent lack of income while being well-groomed and accompanied by a girlfriend, asking, “Where do I find one?”

In his response, the judge stated that the comments were intended as lighthearted and meant to humanize the proceeding. However, he now recognizes the remarks could have been perceived as mocking or disrespectful and expressed regret for his conduct.

Failure to Report Attorney Misconduct

The fourth count involves Judge Inacio’s failure to self-report an ethics complaint filed against him in his capacity as an attorney. In 2023, the District XII Ethics Committee found that Inacio had signed a legal order without his client’s authorization and falsely notarized it. He admitted to the violations but did not inform the ACJC, his Assignment Judge, or the Administrative Office of the Courts, as required by Canon 3, Rule 3.15(B).

Judge Inacio stated he was unaware of the requirement to self-report and claimed there was no intent to deceive. He has since reviewed the judicial canons and pledged adherence moving forward.

Mitigating Factors and Remorse

In his response, Judge Inacio noted personal circumstances that affected his professional conduct, including the unexpected loss of his son in 2020. He expressed deep remorse for his actions and emphasized that he has taken corrective steps to prevent future violations.

The hearing on October 27 will determine whether disciplinary action is warranted and, if so, what sanctions may be imposed. The proceedings are governed by New Jersey Court Rule 2:15 and can be followed live via the Judiciary’s livestream platform.

For more information, the full text of the judicial rules and hearing access can be found at njcourts.gov.