HOUSTON – After viral videos showing a Harris County judge’s courtroom behavior spread online, one attorney says he was ordered to appear in that same judge’s courtroom — after emailing him to criticize his conduct.
The videos, which have circulated widely on social media, show Harris County Civil Court Judge Nathan Milliron in tense exchanges with both an IT worker and an attorney.
Those moments prompted longtime criminal defense attorney James Stafford to reach out directly.
“I listened to it and it offended me as a citizen and also as a lawyer,” Stafford said.
Stafford, who has practiced law for more than five decades, told KPRC 2 he had never felt the need to email a judge about their behavior until now.
“I’ve never seen a judge act this way,” he said. “His conduct was way out of hand.”
After watching the viral clips — and others he says showed similar behavior — Stafford emailed Judge Milliron.
In that message, he wrote:
“I hope you issued him an apology for the way you treated him. I hope you were just having a bad day and this is not your typical judicial temperament.”
Judge Milliron responded by telling Stafford he “probably shouldn’t be communicating with the judge ex parte on his judicial email address” — and later ordered him to appear in court on April 9.
Stafford disputes that claim.
“I was not an ex parte, because I do not have any cases in this court,” he said. “There was nothing inappropriate. And it wasn’t an ex-parte communication.”
He also says he does not plan to comply with the ‘order.’
“The email is not a valid order, it has no legal enforcement and I do not expect to appear,” Stafford said.
Legal community raises concerns
The situation is now drawing reaction from other attorneys.
Brent Mayr, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, called the judge’s behavior “appalling.”
“This judge just very clearly crossed the line of what we expect and want of our judges,” Mayr said.
Mayr says the judge’s decision to order Stafford into court over criticism made outside of any case raises serious concerns.
“Anytime anyone is going to criticize this judge… are they going to get called in front of that judge… because the judge doesn’t like what they say?” Mayr said. “That violates our First Amendment rights.”
He warns the move could set a dangerous precedent — not just for attorneys, but for the public.
Both attorneys say the behavior seen in the videos — and the response that followed — raises broader questions about judicial temperament.
“The way he is treating that employee is disrespectful and it’s appalling,” Mayr said.
Stafford added that a judge’s role comes with responsibility and restraint.
“Their reputation and their legacy would be how they handle that power,” said Stafford.
KPRC 2 reached out to Judge Milliron for comment but did not receive a response.
We also reached out to the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct to ask for complaints against Judge Milliron.
The agency sent us the following:
“Please be advised that due to confidentiality laws that govern the release of information from this agency, the only documents we would be able to provide in response to such a request would be documents associated with a public disciplinary action taken against a judge. No prior or current public discipline has been taken against the judge, subject of your inquiry, therefore, we have no documents or records that are responsive to your request.
Please also be advised that the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct is not subject to the Texas Public Information Act (Chapter 552, Tex. Gov’t Code), as that Act relates only to those governmental agencies within, or created by, the executive or legislative branches of state government. The Commission is a judicial agency, established in 1965 by a constitutional amendment (Article 5, Section 1-a, Texas Constitution), and the release and publication of its records is governed by Rule 12 of the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration, and other constitutional and statutory provisions set forth below.
Rule 12 provides for public access to certain records made or maintained by a judicial agency in its regular course of business that do not pertain to its adjudicative function. The records you describe pertain solely to the Commission’s adjudicative function, and therefore, are not available for release or publication. Additionally, please be advised that pursuant to Rule 12.4(a)(4) of the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration, this agency is not required to respond to or comply with requests for judicial records from or on behalf of individuals who are imprisoned or confined in a correctional facility."