Eagleson, Panelli Join Judges Who Quit Clubs : New Rule Targets All-Male Groups

A state Supreme Court justice and a nominee to the court are among judges throughout California who have resigned from all-male clubs after the adoption of new ethical guidelines declaring membership in such organizations “inappropriate” for jurists.

“In my own mind, I didn’t feel this group was guilty of invidious discrimination,” said Justice Edward A. Panelli, who recently quit the Saratoga Men’s Club, a discussion group in his hometown in Santa Clara County. “But I didn’t want to have to defend that belief, so I just dropped out.”

State Appellate Justice David N. Eagleson of Los Angeles, awaiting confirmation of his nomination to the state high court, said he had resigned from a private golf club that does not grant women full regular membership. “I think those of us who are alert to this issue are now in compliance with the guidelines,” he said.

Although Panelli, Eagleson and others among the state’s 1,430-member judiciary have resigned from such organizations, six other judges have chosen instead to quit the California Judges Assn. to protest the controversial change in the Code of Judicial Conduct the association enacted last September.

‘Isolated Enough’

“The whole thing was ridiculous--it made a mountain out of a molehill,” said Sacramento Superior Court Judge Allen P. Fields, who elected to remain a member of local all-male service clubs and to resign from the judges’ association. “Judges are isolated enough from the community as it is. The change in the code just made it more difficult to know what’s going on in the community.”

The new ethical guidelines were adopted out of concern that a judge’s membership in an exclusive club could encourage the impression that he might not be fair to groups that his organization would not admit.

Although legal authorities believe that a significant number of judges around the state have since resigned from such clubs, the full effect of the new standards still has not been determined. It also remains to be seen whether any judge will be disciplined for belonging to an exclusive club.

Some judges have only reluctantly pulled out of local clubs, doubting that such groups are guilty of discrimination but believing that the new guidelines left them little choice.

“I’ve always tried to comply with the ethical code and will continue to do so--even when I disagree,” said state Appellate Justice Hollis Best of Fresno, who recently resigned from the Rotary Club and two other local groups with no female members.

‘Should Be Examples’

“My concern was with the public perception of such organizations,” said Best, who was recently under formal consideration by Gov. George Deukmejian as a potential nominee to the state Supreme Court. “Judges should be examples.”

Tulare Municipal Judge Walter L. Gorelick, who favors opening membership to women but opposed the judges’ association action as unwarranted, decided to resign from local all-male service clubs. He noted that such groups provide innumerable services, ranging from sponsoring scholarships to backing immunization programs for children.

“These groups may be wrong on their membership policies, but they aren’t terrible organizations,” Gorelick said. “There are men’s groups and women’s groups, and that’s just the way they divided up. Most of their members are forward-looking people.”

Both the American Bar Assn. and the U.S. Judicial Conference, which represents federal judges, have adopted guidelines discouraging participation in exclusive clubs. On a broader front, New York’s highest court recently upheld a New York City ordinance that prohibits discrimination by large private clubs. Similar legislation has been introduced in Los Angeles.

Questions about club memberships were raised during the confirmation hearing of state Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas last month. Lucas said that he belonged to no group that excluded members on the basis of sex, race or religion and that he had resigned from an all-male service club 20 years ago.

In response to inquiries this week, Justice Stanley Mosk also said he belongs to no such organizations. Mosk acknowledged that he held an honorary membership in an all-male club in Sacramento but said he only had the privilege of eating lunch there, a privilege also extended to women who are guests of regular members. A club spokesman said Wednesday that Mosk is no longer an honorary member.

The fourth member of the high court, Justice Allen E. Broussard, did not respond to an inquiry.

More Questions Due

The question may be raised again on March 18, when the state Judicial Appointments Commission considers the confirmation of Deukmejian’s three new nominees to the court: Eagleson and Appellate Justices John A. Arguelles and Marcus M. Kaufman.

Eagleson and Kaufman said this week that, as far as they know, they belong to no group with exclusionary membership policies. Arguelles was not immediately available for comment.

The judges’ association, with strong support from women jurists, adopted by a vote of 292 to 218 an amendment to the Code of Judicial Conduct saying it is “inappropriate” for judges to belong to any organization that practices “invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.”

“Invidious discrimination” is generally defined as a policy that implies that the excluded individuals are inferior. The amendment does not bar membership in religious or ethnic organizations.

The code of conduct provides ethical guidelines that may be taken into account in disciplinary actions against judges by the state Supreme Court and the state Judicial Performance Commission. It is applicable to all judges, whether they belong to the judges’ association or not. The association includes the substantial majority of the state’s jurists.

Backers of the amendment argued that membership in all-male or other exclusive organizations fosters the belief that a judge may consider members of excluded groups as inferior and not be fair to them in court.

No Disclosure Rule

Opponents contended that the new provision violates the constitutional right of free association and unfairly penalizes all-male service organizations, particularly in smaller communities where they are widely accepted and serve a range of local needs.

The effect of the amendment is not clear. Judges are not required to reveal their club memberships and many decline to do so. The judges’ association says it has no way to determine how many judges have quit all-male or other exclusive clubs. There is no list of organizations regarded as discriminatory.

Constance E. Dove, executive director of the the judges’ association, said she believes that there have been “more than a dozen” resignations, based on press accounts, letters to her office and other unofficial reports. She and other authorities suspect that some judges may have chosen to resign quietly to avoid embarrassing their clubs or colleagues.

After passage of the new guidelines, the association received some protests from local service club chapters and some letters of praise from women lawyers. One retired jurist, apparently with tongue in cheek, wrote, “If a judge who belongs to a private golf club is unable to be fair, he should be kicked out of the golf club.”

A spokeswoman for Rotary International, Mim Neal, said that although there have been some resignations from the group’s 6,600 U.S. chapters, there has been “no mass movement” from the organization among jurists nationally.

Discipline Predicted

And although some backers of the amendment predicted that judges could be disciplined for belonging to exclusive clubs, it has yet to be determined whether mere membership in such organizations will be a basis for disciplinary action.

The state Judicial Performance Commission, which investigates complaints against judges, has taken no public action against a judge on such grounds. The commission’s director and chief counsel, Jack E. Frankel, declined to say whether the commission has received any complaints about memberships but added, “Any purported violation of the code would be looked at carefully.”

The judges who helped push the amendment through the association said they are pleased with the results and believe that the measure is part of a growing national movement.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ina Levin Gyemant said she recently was invited to join a local chapter of the Lions Club, a traditionally all-male group.

“I think the move toward open memberships is starting to achieve its aim,” she said. “The women judges didn’t want men judges to quit these organizations. They wanted these organizations to open up their memberships to women.”