By KENNETH OFGANG
Staff Writer

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patrick B. Murphy was ordered removed yesterday by the Commission on Judicial Performance, casting doubt upon his purported resignation from office and his right to practice law.

"Judge Murphy, in claiming sick leave when he was not disabled and lying to his presiding judge, engaged in willful misconduct that displays moral turpitude and dishonesty," the commission said in its 9-0 decision. "The public will not, and should not, respect a judicial officer who has been shown to have repeatedly lied for his own benefit."

The commission order is effective in 30 days, subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court.

The commission acknowledged receipt of a faxed copy of Murphy’s May 4 letter of resignation to Gov. Gray Davis, but said it was proceeding with its decision because Davis’ office had not received the letter as of Tuesday.

Resignation Received

A spokesman for Davis said the resignation was received Wednesday—a fact apparently unknown to the commission, which met in San Francisco Wednesday and yesterday—and had been accepted.

Victoria Henley, director-chief counsel of the CJP, said it was unclear what effect that would have on the commission action.

The determination as to when Murphy’s resignation took effect, Henley suggested, would have to be made by the state Controller’s Office, which is responsible for paying his salary.

The commission said in its decision that it "believes that it is still within its authority to impose the discipline Judge Murphy merits, his removal from office." It added that "[i]f it is determined that Judge Murphy has resigned prior to this order of removal, this decision shall be considered a public censure of former Judge Patrick B. Murphy and a bar from receiving any assignment, appointment, or reference of work from any California state court."

The question of whether Murphy has resigned or been removed is crucial in determining whether he can practice law.

Judicial Discipline

Proposition 190, the state constitutional amendment governing judicial discipline, says that:

"A judge removed by the commission is ineligible for judicial office...and pending further order of the [Supreme] court is suspended from practicing law in this State."

The amendment goes on to say that "[t]he State Bar may institute appropriate attorney disciplinary proceedings against any judge who retires or resigns from office with judicial disciplinary charges pending."

The ultimate authority for determining whether Murphy has resigned or has been removed, State Bar Acting Chief Trial Counsel Fran Bassios told the MetNews, lies with the state Supreme Court.

But it is too early to tell what procedural vehicle would put the question before the court, or what action the State Bar would take if Murphy simply walked into a courtroom and purported to appear as counsel, Bassios said.

Henley said that the decision is the final action by the commission, which has no authority to grant rehearing, and that any relief from the decision would have to come from the Supreme Court.

If Murphy does purport to practice law, which he could not do as a removed judge, action would have to come from the State Bar rather than the commission, Henley added.

Murphy could not be reached for comment and has given no indication as to whether he intends to try to practice law.

No Taxpayers' Action

In any event, Murphy is likely to keep more than $300,000 in salary he has received since he stopped working regularly three years ago, an authority on taxpayer lawsuits said yesterday.

Richard I. Fine, a Century City attorney who has represented the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and other groups and individuals, said that as a judge, Murphy’s salary was constitutionally guaranteed up to the day he left office, whether he worked or not.

A taxpayer’s suit might be in order against court officials, Fine suggested, if they failed to perform their own duties in connection with Murphy’s absences.

That is apparently not the case.

The presiding judge of a trial court is required to notify the CJP of a judge’s absences for illness only when they total 90 days in a 12-month period. Murphy’s then-presiding judge at the old Citrus Municipal Court, Rolf Treu, made such a report to the commission in June 1999, just after the 90th day was tallied.

Murphy was a judge of the Citrus court from 1993 until the county trial courts were unified last year.

The commission had actually received complaints about Murphy’s absences before that, the decision recited, and had sent an investigative letter a month earlier.

The commission said yesterday that the proceedings had been drawn out because Murphy had offered "numerous medical explanations for his absences," been "less than forthcoming" in providing medical reports and releases, and continued to engage in conduct requiring investigation.

Murphy also told the commission, through his former attorney—the judge wound up representing himself—that he was going to apply for disability retirement in the fall of 1999. In fact, the commission said, he didn’t file until last summer, and was turned down.

"The commission, while sensitive to providing Judge Murphy with due process, has been concerned that it could not proceed more expeditiously in this case," the decision said.

Murphy Disbelieved

The commission adopted the findings of a panel of special masters, which held a four-day hearing in Riverside in January and found that Murphy had lied about the reasons for his absences from the court and malingered.

The commission, like the masters, rejected Murphy’s claim that a "phobia" of the court left him unfit to resume his duties on the bench.

The CJP noted that one of Murphy’s doctors told the Ross University Medical School on the island of Dominica that Murphy had no health problems that would preclude his studying medicine, at the same time that another of his doctors was telling court officials that he was unable to work.

But the misconduct began long before that, the commission said.

The commissioners found:

"Judge Murphy’s misconduct...continued over several years. His cavalier attitude to sick leave manifested itself as early as 1996 when he would teach law school in the evenings on days that he purported to be too ill to sit as a judge. In the spring of 1999, he demonstrated a complete disregard for his judicial duties as well as the impact his absences had on his colleagues and the court. In the fall of 1999, he felt justified in taking intense college level science classes in preparation for medical school while on sick leave. Even after he dropped out of medical school, he did not return to the bench for three months and did not file an application for a disability retirement until July 2000. Thus, the evidence shows that over several years Judge Murphy persisted in a reprehensible course of conduct."