After years of criticism, California's judicial discipline agency shows signs of a sharper bite

After years of criticism that it was being too passive, the Commission on Judicial Performance appears to be stepping up its oversight, issuing more public discipline, closing more cases and fielding a record number of complaints--signs that the watchdog agency may be sharpening its bite.

According to data compiled in the commission's latest annual report issued Wednesday, complaints to the agency have shot up in recent years, possibly because of more extensive media coverage and website improvements. But the commission has also investigated and closed more cases than in past years.

"In 2024, the commission removed one judge, publicly censured two judges, and imposed six public admonishments," stated. "The commission also issued 11 private admonishments and 19 advisory letters."

"The commission has received and resolved more complaints in recent years," Gregory Dresser, commission director-chief counsel, said in an email. "My educated guess is that the ability to file complaints with the commission online has led to the increases."

Next year's report may show a continuation of these trends. The commission has publicly admonished three judges during the first three months of 2025, one of whom retired. Attorneys who represent attorneys in misconduct cases, speaking anonymously, confirmed their belief that the commission has become more aggressive in recent months.

The report included a 10-year review of statistics from the agency. These showed the commission received 1,718 complaints about judges in 2024, up from 1,245 in 2015. But these numbers did not really begin to rise until 2022.

The commission also drove down its backlog of pending cases for the second straight year. It entered the year with 131 pending cases and closed with 114. As with previous years, at least three quarters of complaints were against criminal, family court or civil court judges, in roughly equal numbers.

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved that audit in 2016, but it did not come out until 2019 because of a protracted court case over the California State Auditor's access to commission discipline records. The final report found "weaknesses" in oversight that "allowed misconduct to persist." It also helped lead to a committee overseeing the commission, which issued a 2023 report on potential reforms.

Most cases continued to be closed after an initial review by staff, including 1,600 in 2024 alone. The number of investigations, advisory letters, public or private admonishments and public censures have remained similar over the past decade. However, five judges "retired or resigned with proceedings pending" in 2024, the highest number since 2016.

"It's good to see them doing their job," said retired Healdsburg appellate attorney Jon B. Eisenberg when asked about the report. Eisenberg filed complaints with the commission over case delays in the 3rd District Court of Appeal. These helped push three justices off the court, including Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye, who agreed to retire in 2022.

The annual state budget also contains clues that could suggest a more active commission. The commission's budget in the current 2024-25 fiscal year is $7,249,000. This is up from $4.3 million a decade ago.

The state spent $2 million on "Judicial Performance Defense Insurance" during the current budget year. This covers the defense of judges facing disciplinary proceedings. The cost was less than $1 million in the 2017-18 fiscal year. However, the rate of increase has leveled off in the past two years, and the cost of many types of insurance has risen in recent years.

Commission proceedings made for some lurid headlines in the legal press during 2024--especially involving cases against Humboldt Superior Court Judge Gregory J. Kreis and Lassen Superior Court Judge Tony R. Mallery. Both are now off the bench.

Next month, special masters will convene a misconduct hearing in the case of Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Michael J. Carrozzo. He is accused of several counts of misconduct, including claims he pretended in emails to be an attorney representing his secretary--who is now his wife.

Commission investigations have often preceded worse revelations about a judge years later. The commission admonished Orange County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey M. Ferguson in 2017 for improper Facebook posts and political interference. Earlier this month, a jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of convicting Ferguson of second-degree murder for shooting his wife during a drunken argument last year.

Days later, Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said it was reviewing cases overseen by Ferguson because the judge admitted drinking on the job. Dresser said commission investigations are confidential, and he could not comment on any potential actions involving Ferguson.