High Court Offers Former Judge a Deal

In an unusual move, the state Supreme Court has offered to dismiss disciplinary charges against a former Los Angeles judge if he agrees not to practice law or seek judicial office again.

The justices made the proposal in a letter to attorneys for Municipal Judge David M. Kennick, who retired last summer after the state Judicial Performance Commission asked the court to remove him from the bench for alleged misconduct.

In August, Kennick asked the court to dismiss the charges, contending that his retirement achieved the same result as removal and that there was no need for further action. The justices ordered the case dropped but quickly reinstated it when the commission strongly objected.

The commission said the judicial disciplinary process would be thwarted if accused judges were allowed to evade final resolution of the charges against them simply by voluntarily leaving office. Failure by the court to fully exercise its disciplinary authority would undermine both its power and that of the commission, it said.

The commission noted that unlike judges who retire, judges who are removed may not hold office again and are subject to restrictions on their right to practice law. In the 27-year history of the commission, only seven judges have been ordered removed from the bench.

The letter, made public Friday, said the court had concluded that under the law it could not unconditionally dismiss the charges against Kennick or any other accused judge who steps down in similar circumstances.

“The proceeding must continue therefore unless the judge affected not only stipulates to his ineligibility for judicial office in the future, but also agrees to entry of an order suspending him from practice of law,” the letter, signed by Court Clerk Robert F. Wandruff, said.

If Kennick agrees to those conditions, the court will dismiss the commission’s charges, the letter said. The court gave Kennick until the end of the month to decide whether to accept the proposal or face further proceedings.

Jack E. Frankel, director and chief counsel for the commission, expressed some concern with the precedent that will be established if the court’s proposal is accepted by Kennick.

“We’ve never had this issue come before the court and its solution is novel,” Frankel said. “We would have preferred the court keep the case and decide it. . . . But while this isn’t the best kind of precedent for the court to set, it is still gratifying that they put conditions on the dismissal.”

Michael R. Totaro of Los Angeles, an attorney for Kennick, declined comment on the proposal pending further study of the letter and consultation with Kennick.

But Totaro did express concern over the court’s proposed requirement that Kennick not practice law. He noted that while judges who are removed are subject to restrictions by the court, none thus far have been barred from practicing law.

Kennick, 51, served on the bench for 15 years before taking medical leave from his post in 1987 and retiring last July.

Last January, the commission recommended his removal by the high court for a series of allegedly improper actions. Among other things, the commission said Kennick had “made a request” to a California Highway Patrol sergeant that the officer “maybe could lose the paper work” on Kennick’s arrest for drunk driving, a charge on which he was later convicted.

According to the commission, Kennick also told the officer who drove him home the night of his arrest “to remember that the Highway Patrol had to come before him when he was on the bench.”

The commission alleged that Kennick also had demeaned women and Asians in court, ridiculed alcoholics by addressing them in slurred speech and had given attorney-friends a disproportionate number of appointments to represent indigents in court.