In Fadeley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-235 (10/22/08), the Tax Court denied deductions for various business and personal expenses claimed by Edward N. Fadeley, a lawyer who served in the Oregon Legislature for 25 years, until he was elected in 1989 to the Oregon Supreme Court.  He was re-elected to a second six-year term but resigned in 1998, as explained by the Tax Court:

In the mid-to-late 1990s, disciplinary questions were raised as to petitioner’s ability to continue performing judicial duties. In 1998, when petitioner was 68 years of age the disciplinary matter was settled. Under the settlement, petitioner agreed to retire as a justice of the Oregon Supreme Court but to retain his right to a judicial retirement pension.

Wikipedia fills in the details:

During his campaign in 1988 Fadeley violated the rules of judicial ethics by asking for campaign contributions. This led to the first time in the history of the Oregon Supreme Court that the court censured one of its own members. In 1996, the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability filed a complaint against justice Fadeley alleging sexual harassment, among other charges. It was said about Fadeley that: “During a period when women went from being office toys and decoration to serious partners in the world of work, I think Ed was one of those people who never really understood the transition.” Mary Botkin, labor lobbyist. Other comments about Fadeley included: “He thinks any woman wants to be told — even in a business setting — that they are good looking.” Betty Roberts former colleague in the Oregon State Senate, and former Oregon Supreme Court Justice. The following year the Commission recommended Fadeley be suspended, but the Oregon Supreme Court dismissed all allegations after Fadeley resigned from the court.

The Tax Court denied the claimed deductions:

Petitioner and his wife late filed their Federal income tax returns. During respondent’s audit and during pretrial, petitioner did not cooperate with respondent’s representatives, and petitioner did not participate in good faith in the Court’s pretrial stipulation process. Further, with regard to the expenses still in dispute, petitioner has not submitted credible evidence. …

On brief, petitioner states that “Taxpayer spent all the money claimed in the amount of every deduction for the purpose that was claimed.” Petitioner’s records in evidence and the credible trial testimony, however, do not adequately establish the nature and/or purpose of the items in dispute–particularly whether the items were incurred in connection with a trade or business.