Page 1
CJP Reports Disposing of 1,715 Cases Last Year
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Commission on Judicial Performance disposed of 1,715 complaints against California judges last year, it said in an annual report released yesterday.
Of those complaints, 1,600 were closed after an initial review revealed insufficient indications of misconduct. The commission reported that a number of these matters involved no allegations of malfeasance by the judicial officer and simply expressed dissatisfaction with a judge’s decision.
Following preliminary investigations, 71 referrals were closed without discipline based on determinations that the grievances were unfounded, unprovable, or adequately explained by the jurist. Discipline was issued in 39 of the remaining 44 complaints; five cases were closed following a judge’s resignation or retirement.
One judge was removed last year, six were publicly admonished, two were censured, and the remaining 30 jurists were disciplined by advisory letter or private admonishment.
Removal of Judge
Lassen Superior Court Judge Tony R. Mallery was the single judicial officer removed from his post for having “engaged in a wide-ranging course of willful and prejudicial misconduct over a significant period, reflecting either a troubling inability to conform his behavior to appropriate judicial standards, or a lack of understanding of what being a judge…requires.”
Mallery’s misconduct is said to have included discouraging court staff from cooperating with the commission, making false representations during the disciplinary investigation, attempting to eliminate plea bargains in criminal cases, using speech that could be perceived as revealing bias, treating subordinates poorly, and retaliation against attorneys who filed peremptory challenges.
The majority of the other cases in which discipline was issued involved findings of improper demeanor or decorum, with 16 of the 39 cases involving that category. Bias or the appearance of bias, not directed toward a particular class of people, ranked next highest as the basis for intervention, with 10 cases, followed by abuse of authority in the performance of judicial duties, with 7 matters.
Other misconduct leading to disciplinary measures includes improper ex parte communications, abuse of contempt proceedings or sanctions, sexual harassment or bias toward a particular class, improper political activities, misuse of court resources, and assorted off-bench conduct.
Private Discipline
Each year, the commission also summarizes the conduct for which judges received private discipline, with no identifying details of the court or the jurist involved.
Private admonishments were imposed last year for a pattern of poor demeanor, including saying “shut up” to an attorney and accusing another of “wasting everyone’s time,” using profanity on the bench, engaging in political commentary, making sexually harassing comments about staff, using an official email address to conduct personal business, and engaging in sanctionable conduct when appearing as a litigant and showing up hours late to work.
A presiding judge was cited for having made material misstatements on a matter relating to court business, and an appellate justice was admonished for issuing opinions more than three years after the matters were fully briefed, causing, in one instance, the unnecessary prolonging of a party’s incarceration.
Other conduct leading to private admonishment included intemperate conduct toward self-represented parties by, among other things, threatening the use of contempt powers, showing poor demeanor toward prosecutors and litigants, and making discourteous comments to staff and jurors.
Subordinate Judicial Officers
The commission also announced that it had concluded 85 cases in which complaints were filed against commissioners and referees. Superior courts are tasked with conducting the initial investigations, and the commission has discretion to conduct any further proceedings as it deems necessary.
Last year, it closed 82 of the cases, after concluding that the superior court’s handling of the complaints was adequate. Preliminary investigations were conducted into the remaining three matters; two cases were closed without discipline.
In the remaining case, the commission issued a private admonishment to a subordinate judicial officer for misusing a judicial title by sending correspondence in an official capacity, failing to disclose information relevant to a potential conflict, and sending sarcastic responses to a judge investigating allegations of the commissioner’s misconduct.
Also detailed in the report is the commission’s spending for the 2023-24 fiscal year. Final expenditures are said to have totaled $6.8 million, with approximately 44% of those funds going to investigative functions and 25% to costs associated with formal proceedings.
The commission reports that the remaining 31% of expenditures were devoted to facility costs, support staff, supplies, and security measures.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company