This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A magistrate judge engaged in inappropriate conduct, including making age- and gender-biased remarks toward female attorneys, threatening public defenders, abusing judicial authority, and exhibiting bias in court proceedings. The judge also improperly modified a judgment ex parte, interfered in a case after recusal, and engaged in political activities while on the bench (paras 3-10).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, December 13, 2001: Filed a verified petition for discipline against the magistrate judge following a plea and stipulation agreement (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Recommended formal reprimand, participation in a mentorship program, and completion of a judicial education course as disciplinary measures for the judge's violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct (para 1).
- Magistrate Judge: Entered into a plea and stipulation agreement, admitting to the factual and legal conclusions and agreeing to the proposed disciplinary measures (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Did the magistrate judge's conduct violate the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- What disciplinary measures are appropriate for the judge's misconduct?
Disposition
- The magistrate judge was formally reprimanded, ordered to participate in a mentorship program, and required to complete a judicial education course on bias-free environments at their own expense (para 14).
- A district judge was appointed as the mentor to oversee the judge's compliance with the mentorship program (para 15).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Patricio M. Serna, Justice Joseph F. Baca, Justice Gene E. Franchini, and Justice Petra Jimenez Maes (Justice Pamela B. Minzner recused):
The Court found that the magistrate judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct and violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including those requiring impartiality, integrity, and avoidance of impropriety (paras 11-12). The judge's actions, such as making biased remarks, threatening attorneys, and abusing judicial authority, undermined public confidence in the judiciary (paras 3-10). The Court determined that the recommended disciplinary measures were appropriate to address the violations and ensure compliance with judicial standards (para 13).