Hot Potato

Los Angeles Municipal Court Judge David M. Kennick was hardly a credit to the bench. The California Commission on Judicial Performance, in recommending his removal from the bench early this year, accused him of demeaning Asians and women in court, ridiculing alcoholics who appeared before him by slurring his speech, and appointing cronies to represent indigents in his courtroom. His low point came, however, when he was arrested for drunk driving and tried to persuade a California Highway Patrol sergeant to “lose the paper work” on his case. In the commission’s words, Kennick “abused his authority as a judge in an attempt to obtain preferential treatment.”

Although Kennick clearly does not belong on the bench, the California Supreme Court--which has the final authority over judicial discipline--has treated his case like a hot potato from the outset. Kennick resigned from the bench last summer in an effort to short-circuit the disciplinary process, and asked the high court to dismiss the commission’s charges against him. In the course of a single day, the justices granted the request, then reversed themselves when commission officials objected and pointed out that Kennick’s resignation did not affect the court’s jurisdiction over the matter. Now the court once again seems intent on finding some way to avoid ruling on the Kennick case. In a recent letter to Kennick’s attorney, the justices have offered to dismiss the charges against him if he stipulates that he will never run for judicial office again and agrees to be suspended from the practice of law.

The court’s extraordinary offer serves some limited public interest: It would protect the people of California from a man who not only disgraced the bench but also clearly should not be allowed to practice law; his indefinite suspension from the practice of law is a stiffer sanction than the court has applied when it has forcibly removed judges.

So what will be lost if Kennick and his attorney accept this offer? Too much, we believe. Letting Kennick slip away into premature retirement--he is 51--means forgoing formal adjudication of the many charges against him. The high court would never decide whether all of the commission’s accusations of misconduct were proved; the deal that the court is offering wouldn’t go onto the books as the equivalent of a conviction. And the signal that would be sent to other errant judges is unfortunate; they would be on notice that the way to evade final resolution of disciplinary charges against them is to leave office voluntarily. Already the Commission on Judicial Performance is widely regarded as weak and ineffectual; for the Supreme Court to duck a case like Kennick’s could only further undermine the commission’s moral authority and the disciplinary process. If Kennick is truly guilty of misconduct, let’s have it on the record.