This complaint asks the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to investigate whether retired Judge Anne Ashby, while serving as a private arbitrator, failed to make complete, accurate, and timely disclosures concerning relationships that could reasonably call her neutrality into question.

The complaint is not based merely on adverse rulings. It identifies specific documentary evidence concerning Ashby’s sworn September 30, 2022 arbitrator oath, her later supplemental disclosures, her longstanding personal and professional relationship with Michael Collins, her connections to individuals associated with the underlying probate litigation, the timing of those disclosures, and the conduct and financial outcome of the arbitration.

The complaint further identifies an independently filed, sworn SCJC complaint by Mark Logsdon arising from a separate arbitration before Ashby. Although the Allison and Logsdon complaints involve different parties, lawyers, facts, and evidence and should remain separate matters, both raise a similar fundamental concern: whether material relationships were omitted or disclosed only after the proceeding was substantially underway, when a meaningful objection to the arbitrator’s continued service was no longer practical.

The Allison arbitration ultimately resulted in a judgment exceeding $4 million and included orders affecting assets of entities and trusts that the Complainant contends were not parties to the arbitration. The resulting award is now the subject of a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court of Texas challenging, among other things, whether the arbitrator exceeded the limits of her authority.

The Complainant therefore respectfully requests that the Commission investigate the accuracy and completeness of Ashby’s sworn disclosures, obtain the underlying conflict-check and AAA records, examine the relationships and conduct identified in this complaint, maintain the Allison and Logsdon matters as separate evidentiary records, and determine whether the evidence reflects an isolated disclosure failure or a recurring practice warranting broader Commission review.

At its core, this complaint presents a simple question of public confidence in the adjudicatory process: when a retired judge accepts extraordinary authority to decide a binding dispute, did she give the parties all material information they reasonably needed to evaluate whether she could serve as a neutral decision-maker?

The Complainant respectfully asks the Commission to investigate that question fully.