STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE 2016 ANNUAL REPORT 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400 San Francisco, California 94102 (415) 557-1200 http://cjp.ca.gov INTRODUCTION The Commission on Judicial Performance, the frst judicial disciplinary body of its kind, was established by legislative constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1960 as an independent state agency. The commission’s mandate has always been threefold: to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confdence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system. The composition of the commission’s membership—six public members, two attorneys, one appellate court justice and two superior court judges—brings a diverse set of viewpoints to ensure that the perspectives of the judiciary, the legal community and the public are considered in determining the outcome of any particular case. While the vast majority of California judges are committed to maintaining the high standards expected of the judiciary, an effective method of disciplining judges who engage in misconduct is essential to the functioning of our judicial system. The commission’s proceedings provide a fair and appropriate mechanism to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Some have expressed frustration because not all of the commission’s work and deliberations are made public. While some aspects of the disciplinary process and the commission’s work have become more open over the years, California voters have consistently allowed for confdentiality in recognition of the important interests it protects. Confdentiality encourages complainants and witnesses to come forward without fear of reprisal or possible retribution while also protecting a judge’s reputation and the integrity of the judicial process from unwarranted and frivolous complaints. In 2016, the commission received a grant from the State Justice Institute to help establish a mentoring program for judges where an investigation has identifed problematic treatment of litigants and others appearing before the judge. The program has begun as a pilot program in Northern California. An eligible judge who elects to participate will work for up to two years with a mentor judge who has been trained from a curriculum designed by other judges, ethicists and a counselor. The judge’s success or lack of success in completing the program will be taken into consideration by the commission in determining the appropriate disposition of the matter. Should problems reoccur, the commission may take into consideration that the judge was previously given the opportunity to participate in the mentoring program. Poor judicial demeanor is one of the most common complaints to the commission and most frequently disciplined conduct, yet is rarely suffciently serious to warrant removal of a judge from offce. When removal is ordered, it is often after a succession of disciplinary sanctions that have been to no avail. The commission believes that a mentoring program, supplemented with educational and other resources for skills development, might effectively and effciently foster changed behavior in judges. This would have the dual benefts of disengaging the judges from the disciplinary system and protecting the public. I would like to thank the members of the judiciary, court staff, the legal community and the members of the public for their assistance in aiding the commission to fulfll its important function. I must also extend my sincere gratitude to the commission staff and the commission members who worked tirelessly throughout the year to ensure public confdence in the judiciary and in the judicial system. It has been an honor to serve on the commission and I look forward to the commission’s continuing service to all who live in the State of California. Anthony P. Capozzi, Esq. Chairperson 2016 Annual Report COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE 2016 ANNUAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page COMMISSION MEMBERS ...................................................................................................................................i SPECIAL MASTERS .........................................................................................................................................vi I. OVERVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT PROCESS The Authority of the Commission on Judicial Performance .................................................................1 How Matters Are Brought Before the Commission ...............................................................................1 Judicial Misconduct ................................................................................................................................1 What the Commission Cannot Do .......................................................................................................1 Review and Investigation of Complaints ...............................................................................................1 Actions the Commission Can Take .......................................................................................................2 Confdential Dispositions .................................................................................................................2 Public Dispositions ...........................................................................................................................2 Review ....................................................................................................................................................2 Confdentiality .......................................................................................................................................2 II. LEGAL AUTHORITY AND COMMISSION PROCEDURES Legal Authority ......................................................................................................................................3 Recent Changes in the Law .............................................................................................................3 California Constitution, Government Code and Code of Civil Procedure .....................................3 Commission Rules and Policy Declarations .....................................................................................3 Rules of Court ...................................................................................................................................4 Code of Judicial Ethics .....................................................................................................................4 Commission Procedures .........................................................................................................................4 Commission Review of Complaints .................................................................................................4 Investigation at the Commission’s Direction and Disposition of Cases Without Formal Proceedings ......................................................................................................4 Deferral of Investigation ...................................................................................................................5 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................5 Mentoring .........................................................................................................................................5 Formal Proceedings ..........................................................................................................................6 Hearing ..................................................................................................................................................6 Commission Consideration Following Hearing ...............................................................................6 Disposition of Cases After Hearing ..................................................................................................6 Release of Votes ................................................................................................................................7 Supreme Court Review ..........................................................................................................................7 Statute of Limitations ............................................................................................................................7 Standard of Proof ...................................................................................................................................7 Confdentiality of Commission Proceedings ..........................................................................................7 2016 Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Page III. ACTIVE AND FORMER JUDGES—2016 STATISTICS Complaints Received and Investigated .................................................................................................9 New Complaints ...............................................................................................................................9 Staff Inquiries and Preliminary Investigations .................................................................................9 Formal Proceedings ..........................................................................................................................9 Deferral of Investigation ....................................................................................................................... 10