Disciplinary charges based largely on alleged sexual harassment have been brought by the Commission on Judicial Performance against Court of Appeal Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson of this district’s Div. One. A public hearing before special masters is slated to start Monday at 9 a.m. at the Los Angeles office of the State Bar Court at 845 S. Figueroa Street.

Meanwhile, Tatiana Sauquillo, a California Highway Patrol officer whom Johnson is accused by the CJP of harassing, on July 17 brought suit against the jurist in Los Angeles Superior Court. Among her allegations is that he propositioned her, saying he wanted to take her clothes off of her.

In its notice to Johnson of charges against him, the CJP mentioned that alleged incident. It said: “On approximately four occasions, you commented on Officer Sauquillo’s appearance and made comments of a sexual nature to her,” and recited:

“On one occasion, when Officer Sauquillo was driving you home from a bar association function in Baldwin Hills, you asked her to pull over the vehicle so that you could have sex with her. You also told Officer Sauquillo that you wanted to take her for drinks and then back to your chambers to have sex.”

Johnson filed his own action this month, suing his own court as well as Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Elwood Lui of Div. Two for $10 million. Prior to charges being brought by the CJP, Lui, apparently through inadvertence, sent court employees an email telling of the investigation of Johnson. On Jan. 14, when the charges became public, Johnson’s lawyer, Paul S. Meyer, issued a statement that included a swipe at “irresponsible and unsubstantiated emails sent by a judicial officer to thousands of court personnel containing erroneous information.”

The hearing on Monday will be conducted before three masters: Court of Appeal Justice Judith L. Haller of the Fourth District’s Div. One, San Diego Superior Court Judge Louis R. Hanoian, and Imperial Superior Court Judge William D. Lehman.

The commission alleges that Johnson has “engaged in a pattern of conduct towards Justice Victoria Chaney” of his division “that was unwelcome, undignified, discourteous, and offensive, and that would reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment or as bias or prejudice based on gender,” uttered an inappropriate comment of a sexist nature to Justice Elizabeth Grimes of Div. Eight, and has otherwise persistently conducted himself in an improper manner toward female judges and attorneys.

He is also accused of appearing to be drunk in public.

On June 18, the CJP filed these additional counts:

Count 7D: At a law firm social event at a bowling alley, he is alleged to have told attorney Price Kent “that the human race was not meant to be monogamous” and “boasted to her” that he “had information about the sexual exploits of famous people, including President Barack Obama.” At a party at a restaurant later, he is said to have told Kent he “could do a lot for her career and that she needed to come visit” him in his chambers. It charged that, without her consent, he reached under the table, put his hand on one of her knees, and slid his hand up her thigh.

Count 7E: At a meeting of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, he was seated by attorney Roberta Burnette. It is set forth that he “told Ms. Burnette that she was very voluptuous” and, when he learned she plays the viola, told Ms. Burnette that she could use her viola hand to stroke his “big black dick.”

Count 7F: It is asserted that he made “inappropriate remarks” to attorney Taylor Wagniere and, on one occasion, “gave Ms. Wagniere an unwelcome, extended kiss on her lips, without her consent.”

In an answer filed June 24, Johnson said:
“Justice Johnson denies the allegations in that he does not recall that these events occurred. He also denies that the allegations as described by the witnesses have been accurately recalled or may have been influenced by contact with persons who had a personal motive to unfairly discredit Justice Johnson or by electronic mass distribution of information which encouraged persons to negatively interpret past events. He further alleges that the prima facie conduct alleged does not involve conduct affecting any case or matter before the court and does not constitute a violation of the canons by judicial action, bad faith or corrupt intent.”

The document alleges that the commission “did not exercise due diligence in a timely manner in order to obtain the information in their possession by way of an anonymous letter that identified an attorney representing the letter writer,” declaring:

“This failure of due diligence deprived Justice Johnson of a fair ability to defend himself within the time parameters ordered by the Special Masters. For this reason, the allegations should be stricken as a violation of Justice Johnson’s right to due process of law, and as cumulative under the principles of California Evidence Code section 352.”

Layfield has been released on bail and is presently residing in Delaware. He is facing trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on charges of mail fraud and money laundering,

Trial was initially set for May 15, 2018, was continued to Aug. 14, 2018, was set for Feb. 26, 2019, then put off to Sept. 10. On June 1, a stipulation was filed postponing trial to Jan. 21, 2020, which was approved June 3 by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.

On June 18, Layfield filed a motion to quash grand jury subpoenas seeking testimony and documents from Layfield’s father, who assisted his son in preparing 2016 tax returns, arguing that the object is not pursuant to the grand jury’s investigative function, but to secure pre-trial discovery. The motion seeks to block further grand jury subpoenas in connection with alleged tax violations and to suppress evidence already obtained.  A hearing on the motion is scheduled for today.

The prosecution began in connection with Layfield pocketing settlement funds belonging to Josephine Nguyen, who was a client of the erstwhile law firm of Layfield & Barrett. She was to receive 60 percent of a $3.9 million settlement of her personal injury claim, amounting to $2.3 million.

A superseding indictment expanded the scope of the prosecution to include tax evasion and fraud for 2016 and 2017.

The defendant, apprehended in New Jersey in March 2018, and incarcerated until August of last year, had previously fled to Costa Rica.

Attorney Anthony M. Solis, on Aug. 17, 2018, filed an emergency motion for an order modifying the terms of Layfield’s release to permit him to leave his residence to attend classes, paving the way for him to obtain a commercial driver’s license so he could seek employment as a truck driver. The motion was granted and he completed a seven-week course. On Oct. 16, District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the Central District of California granted a motion permitting him to accept employment with a trucking company.

Layfield was suspended from law practice by the State Bar of California after he failed to show up for his Jan. 24, 2018 disciplinary hearing. The State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel filed disciplinary charges against him on Sept. 20, 2017, alleging that the attorney misappropriated more than $3.4 million from his clients. He was disbarred Oct. 27, 2018.

Layfield acknowledges moving funds from the attorney-client trust account to his erstwhile firm’s general fund, but insists he thought there was enough money in the coffers to cover the clients’ shares of settlements. He ascribes blame to others, including the State Bar prosecutor.