Judge Thomas to Fight Charges Against Her

Los Angeles Municipal Judge Maxine F. Thomas will appear at a closed hearing to answer allegations by the state Commission on Judicial Performance about her work habits and her conduct last year when she was ousted as presiding judge, The Times has learned.

Thomas, 40, sought the hearing, which has not yet been scheduled, rather than accept a private admonishment from the commission, which notified her in July that it planned to formally criticize her for “improper action” that was “prejudicial to the administration of justice in Los Angeles County,” according to sources familiar with the case.

In preparation for the hearing, an investigating attorney for the San Francisco-based commission has been questioning more than a dozen prosecutors, deputy public defenders and police officers, primarily about complaints that Thomas keeps erratic court hours, inconveniencing witnesses and lawyers.

The investigator, Peter Gubbins, would not respond to questions about the case, citing the commission’s strict confidentiality requirements.

Thomas, who will be up for reelection to the Municipal Court next year, did not respond to requests for an interview. But her attorney, Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. said: “She plans to fight (the charges). She believes in her innocence and plans to go forward with the hearing.”

Over the summer, the judge visited the commission’s office and was subsequently told that the agency planned to issue a three-part admonishment, criticizing her work schedule, her relationship with her colleagues and her response to the controversies that led to her June, 1986, ouster as presiding judge.

Thomas was recalled as presiding judge by a 57-13 vote of her fellow judges after they attacked her for allegedly using her position to enhance her chances to be elected to the Superior Court and for neglecting her responsibilities in favor of campaigning. She subsequently lost her bid for higher office.

She was also criticized for spending $2,900 on an unprecedented installation ceremony that came to be known in court circles as her “coronation.”

Judgment Questioned

In a letter dated July 13, the commission notified Thomas that it made no finding on the installation ceremony but “questioned the soundness of your judgment” in holding it.

The commission did find, however, that Thomas’ bench hours did not “coincide with normal hours” and that this schedule, coupled with her frequent “scheduled and unscheduled absences,” interfered with her duties.

The commission also found that Thomas had “reacted personally and injudiciously to difficulties in her professional relationships with colleagues and court personnel.”

Finally, the commission said her “reliance on media releases and interviews” had “detracted from the dignity of her office” and “prolonged and exacerbated the controversy.”

‘A Two-Way Street’

Cochran said he will try to show at the hearing that his client “did maintain regular hours” and had accrued considerable time off because she did not take vacations for several years.

As to the charge that she does not get along with her fellow judges, Cochran said, “Relationships are a two-way street.”

Under commission procedures, a judge has the right to contest a private admonishment by having a hearing before three “special masters”--either sitting or retired jurists. The masters then report their findings to the commission.

Such a hearing can lead to a recommendation that a judge be censured or removed from the bench--but only if “new and substantial” facts emerge during the testimony, the commission’s Gubbins said. If not, the commission will be confined to the question of whether it should proceed with the private admonishment.

Attorneys Questioned

Gubbins, meanwhile, has been questioning attorneys who have appeared in Thomas’ court since early this year, when she began handling a heavy load of preliminary hearings.

After complaints were made about her work schedule, Thomas was transferred to a court with a lighter hearing load, according to Donald N. Eastman, a head deputy district attorney who supervises trial lawyers assigned to her court.

Several prosecutors and defense attorneys said in interviews that Thomas rarely takes the bench before 10 a.m., seldom begins her afternoon session until 2:30 p.m., and takes long breaks throughout the day. Although the judge often stays on the bench until past 6 p.m., some of the attorneys said that does not make up for her lengthy recesses.

“It’s outrageous, the way victims and witnesses have to sit around in that court,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Beth van Arnam.