Judicial Misconduct: Why It’s Essential to Protect Integrity in the Courts

The strength of our judiciary rests on one thing: public trust. Judges must be seen as fair, impartial, and committed to justice. When judicial misconduct surfaces, it doesn’t just affect individual cases; it erodes the entire foundation of our legal system. Judges hold some of society’s highest standards, so accountability is paramount, but this must be balanced with judicial independence.

Unlike other branches of government, the judiciary relies solely on public confidence, not power or legislation. When judges speak, the public listens—not because of authority, but because of trust in their expertise and ethics. Without this trust, the judiciary loses its legitimacy and effectiveness.

Judicial misconduct comes in many forms: conflicts of interest, improper behavior, biased communication, or delays in performing duties. And it doesn’t stop at the courthouse door—judges are held to high standards in their personal lives as well. They’re expected to avoid even the appearance of impropriety as outlined in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Personal behaviors that might seem minor to the average person call a judge’s credibility into question, such as violating laws, abusing their position for personal benefit, or forming inappropriate relationships within the legal community. The message is clear: “The robe magnifies the conduct.”

But where’s the line between a judge’s legal decision and actual misconduct? Typically, if someone disagrees with a judge’s ruling or believes an error was made, the issue is addressed by a higher court through the appeals process—not by ethics or conduct commissions. However, when judges cross into actions like denying due process, blatantly disregarding legal standards, or infringing on fundamental rights, these behaviors qualify as misconduct.

In California, the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) is responsible for enforcing ethical standards as outlined in the California Code of Judicial Ethics. The CJP investigates complaints of misconduct and can discipline judges who violate these standards. This oversight is meant to maintain public trust and accountability. But is the CJP fulfilling its promise, or is it merely paying lip service?

In California, the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) is tasked with holding judges accountable to ethical standards. The CJP investigates complaints of judicial misconduct and can impose disciplinary actions against judges who violate these standards. In theory, this oversight should provide essential checks and balances to maintain public trust in our judiciary. But is the CJP fulfilling its duty, or is it merely paying lip service? Click Here to view the public disciplinary actions taken against judges by the CJP.

San Mateo County reveals troubling realities within its judicial system. Judges Chinhayi C. Cadet, Rachel Holt, Don R. Franchi, Elizabeth K. Lee, and Cristina Mazzei have all come under intense scrutiny for actions allegedly in direct violation of the principles they are sworn to uphold. These judges have gained reputations for disturbing decisions and a perceived disregard for justice—transforming their courtrooms into what some have referred to as a "Kangaroo Court" or "The Wild Wild West," with these officials being labeled the "Kids 4 Cash Cabal." I have heard mixed feedback on Judges Sarah P. Burdick and Rosendo Padilla, Jr; while new to the bench, their future conduct will soon tell. Judge Chinhayi C. Cadet was appointed to the San Mateo County Superior Court by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 9, 2021, and has already piled significant public criticism, with a website dedicated to her pattern of behavior describing her as a "reckless, unqualified, and incompetent family law judge who harbors substantial prejudice. Have you shared your experiences on The Robing Room yet?

Countless people have voiced frustration, saying the CJP has ignored valid complaints that carry serious legal weight. Why is this happening? If you’ve taken the time to file a complaint with the CJP, we want to hear your story. Did the CJP truly hold the judge accountable, or did they leave you feeling dismissed and gaslighted? Share your experience, and let’s shed light on what’s really happening. If you’re considering filing a complaint and need sample documents, let us know.

Protecting the public from judicial misconduct isn’t just important—it’s essential. There must be a system in place to review and address these issues without stifling judges’ ability to make decisions that might be unpopular but legally sound. The reality is that when misconduct is found, sanctions can range from warnings and mentoring to suspension or, in severe cases, removal from office. Public discipline doesn’t just address the issue at hand; it serves as a reminder to the rest of the judiciary.

Ultimately, judges should embrace measures that promote accountability. While most judges across America serve honorably, it’s crucial to correct ethical missteps and address significant breaches of trust we are seeing from Judges in Family Court. As Theodore Roosevelt said, “No man is above the law… Obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not asked as a favor.” Judges, who are the very symbols of justice, must be subject to fair and meaningful consequences when necessary. Upholding the rule of law depends on it.

San Mateo Judges that have been reprimanded

Public Admonishment of Judge Joseph E. Bergeron

Decision & Order Imposing Public Admonishment re Judge Susan L. Greenberg

In the Matter Concerning Judge Lisa A. Novak, Decision and Order Imposing Public Admonishment

PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT OF JUDGE JOSEPH SCOTT

Other Cases Relating to the Commission

McComb v. Superior Court of San Francisco, et al. (1977)

Mosk v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1979)

Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1994)

The Recorder v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1998)

Commission on Judicial Performance v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2007)

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this blog is intended solely for educational purposes and sharing information. The content provided here should not be taken as legal advice.