State High Court Drops, Then Revives Case Against Judge

In an unusual series of actions, the California Supreme Court on Tuesday abruptly dismissed--and then quickly reinstated--an attempt by a state commission to remove Los Angeles Municipal Judge David M. Kennick from office on charges of misconduct.

Early in the day, the justices ordered the case dropped, after notification by Kennick’s attorneys that he had retired “irrevocably” from the bench on July 31, making the question of removal “moot.”

The dismissal order, signed by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, came only a day after Kennick’s attorneys filed a petition with the court urging that the case be dropped.

The order, however, came as a surprise to the state Judicial Performance Commission--the agency that had sought Kennick’s removal. And the commission informed the court that it had been unaware of Kennick’s move and wanted an opportunity to respond.

Shortly thereafter, the justices issued a second order, setting aside the previous order and thus allowing the commission a legal say in the matter.

Jack E. Frankel, director and chief counsel to the commission, said in an interview that the commission would file papers opposing dismissal of the case. Dismissing the case at this point would leave the charges unresolved even though Kennick has left the bench, Frankel noted.

Michael R. Totaro of Los Angeles, an attorney for Kennick, denounced the court, saying its actions dismissing and then reviving the case were improper.

Action Assailed

“They did it all on the basis of a phone call from the commission, acting solely on the vindictiveness of the Judicial Performance Commission,” Totaro said.

Last January, the commission asked the court to remove Kennick from office for a number of instances of allegedly improper conduct--including his suggestion to a California Highway Patrol officer that the officer could “lose the paper work” on the judge’s arrest for drunk driving.

The commission said that after the arrest the judge had been “rude and abusive” to officers and refused to take field sobriety tests or submit to a chemical test. He later pleaded no contest and was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol.

The agency also alleged that in court Kennick had demeaned women and Asians; ridiculed alcoholics by speaking to them in slurred speech and provided friendly attorneys with an inordinately large number of appointments to represent indigents in legal proceedings.

Kennick, 51, had been a judge for 15 years, serving for one year as supervising judge in the San Pedro branch of the Municipal Court. He had been on medical leave since early 1987.

After the filing of the commission’s recommendations with the court, Kennick was barred from acting in an official capacity but had continued to receive an annual salary of $77,409, pending action by the high court.

According to a spokesman for the commission, Kennick, or any other judge in a similar position, if removed from the bench would be entitled to retain pension or other benefits already accrued.

However, a judge who is removed is not allowed to hold judicial office again and is subject to restrictions on his right to practice law. A judge who retires ordinarily is not faced with such limitations, the spokesman said.