Retired Justice Murray wants to set the record straight on his retirement

In December, the Daily Journal published an article stating that the Commission on Judicial Performance decision in my case left questions unanswered related to allegations made by Jon B. Eisenberg. "CJP issues public censure of ex-justice, leaves key questions unanswered," Daily Journal, Dec. 11, 2025. It was suggested in the article that I committed some sort of pension fraud by retiring when I became eligible at age 65 instead of retiring early on disability retirement after having suffered two assertedly "debilitating" strokes. Nobody other than Eisenberg has made this claim. Here are the facts:

One evening in August 2017, while working in chambers after business hours as I customarily did, I suffered stroke symptoms. The symptoms went away, and I drove myself to a hospital emergency room where I was misdiagnosed as having suffered a transient ischemic attack (TIA aka mini-stroke) and was told to return the following morning for an MRI. Thereafter, I drove home. At home that night, I finished an extensive email to the justices on one of my cases, sending it off around midnight. I returned for the MRI in the morning and then went to work in chambers. Later that morning the ER doctor informed me that the MRI revealed I had actually suffered an ischemic stroke the evening before. He told me to return to the ER. I drove myself to the ER where I suffered the second stroke while waiting to see the ER doctor. I was admitted into the hospital and discharged two days later. I returned to work in chambers three weeks later.

During the three weeks while I was convalescing and rehabbing at home, I also worked on my cases and cases circulated to me from other chambers. And I actively participated telephonically in two oral arguments. All of these activities are documented.

In the years after the strokes, I continued to personally research the record and law to revise opinions in my backlog of older cases for which research attorneys had written inadequate drafts (work documented by Track Changes). Additionally, I worked on new cases assigned to me, continued to contribute to cases from other chambers and actively participated in oral arguments.

Within three months of the strokes, I participated in three educational programs, including a three-hour live solo presentation at a judicial conference and a small-group discussion with attorneys in my chambers as part of the Third District's 2017 conference. In the following years, I served as an instructor or panelist in a total of 26 additional continuing education sessions for judges and lawyers--18 as a solo instructor and 13 after I retired. I actively participated on several judicial branch committees, including doing significant work on AB 3070, the Batson/Wheeler reform measure, and AB 2542, the Racial Justice Act. Moreover, I was a public person outside of these activities. Nobody who interacted with me would have seen me as debilitated. Most did not even know about my strokes.

The Commission had my medical records. It interviewed my former colleagues, and it knew about the above circumstances. After its investigation, the Commission filed allegations last year that did not include Eisenberg's fraud claims. Had there been any evidence to substantiate those claims, the Commission would have alleged the supposed fraud, but it did not. And CJP's findings filed in December ignored those claims as well.

The Daily Journal focused on an email I wrote to Third District personnel when I retired, as if it was some sort of admission of fraud. In that email I wrote: "After more than 26 years on the bench and nearly 36 years of public service in California, I am retiring tomorrow. In 2017, while in the hospital after suffering two strokes, I resolved that I would retire as soon as I could under the Judicial Retirement System II - on my 65th birthday, January 27, 2022."  

There is nothing wrong with having a planned date for retirement. Many judges in my retirement system, which requires that judges be at least 65 years old and serve at least 20 years, plan to retire as soon as they are eligible. For years, I had been telling people I would likely retire at age 65, because I had been appointed to superior court in 1995 at age 38 and would work more than 26 years before turning 65. The strokes confirmed that plan for me. I referenced the strokes and the retirement system in my email as a way of explaining why I was retiring relatively early compared to past Third District justices. Because I did not want to alarm anyone, I did not also mention I had been told more strokes--possibly more serious--may be in my future and that I wanted to retire to enjoy life with my family before that might happen instead of continuing to work beyond age 65.

The claim that I committed some sort of pension fraud is just plain wrong. It is not my DNA. Indeed, had I been that type of person, instead of working at home while I convalesced after the strokes and going back to work in chambers after just three weeks, I could have taken an extended leave up to 89 days. And I could have used the strokes to avoid all of the extra judicial branch and legal education work I was asked to do.  

While I was not the same after the strokes, I would not have qualified for disability retirement. Indeed, had I applied for disability retirement as Eisenberg claims I should have done, I could have been accused of attempting to perpetrate a fraud because I was still able to operate at a high level as evidenced by the aforementioned activities and was not seriously and permanently debilitated. Hopefully, this puts his claim to rest.

For an explanation of the circumstances that led to the decisional delays I admitted and an outline of my contributions to the administration of justice in California, including a listing of the classes I taught and committees on which I served before and after the strokes, visit WilliamMurrayJr.com.