State Study Says Courts Are Rife With Sex Bias : Justice system: Judicial Council committee urges dozens of reforms to improve women’s status.

A special committee of the state Judicial Council, ending a landmark three-year inquiry, reported Friday that it had found widespread sex discrimination in the California courts and proposed dozens of reforms aimed at improving the status of women in the system.

The group urged, among other things, the adoption of new ethical codes requiring judges to act against bias in the courtroom and barring them from belonging to discriminatory clubs, expansion of legal protections for victims of domestic violence, and changes in the law to enlarge child-support awards. While not formally recommending such action, it said that appointment of more women to the judiciary would substantially curb sex discrimination in the judicial process.

The committee cited instances of “openly hostile” behavior and demeaning remarks by judges against female lawyers, litigants, witnesses and other participants in court proceedings.

The panel, while emphasizing that such incidents may occur only rarely, said it had received complaints that unnamed judges had engaged in unwanted sexual advances, erected pin-up pictures in chambers, told dirty jokes and read sexually explicit magazines on the bench. One judge, it said, reportedly described women lawyers as “menopausal dabblers” who entered the profession only after completing the duties of motherhood.

The inquiry, one of the first in the nation, was launched under former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and continued by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, the current chairman of the 22-member Judicial Council, the policy-making arm of the state judiciary. At present, 29 states have undertaken similar investigations.

The investigating panel, known as the Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts, was chaired by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David M. Rothman and state Sen. Diane E. Watson of Los Angeles. The 34-member committee--made up of judges, lawyers, legislators and court administrators--held public hearings throughout the state, conducted surveys of judges and attorneys and visited jails where women are in custody.

Rothman stressed that sex bias did not originate in the courts, but rather was a reflection of “society as a whole.” But he noted that committee members “did not realize the extent” of the problem throughout the state. Watson declared: “The system is wrought with gender bias and didn’t even realize it.”

Lucas, presiding over a council meeting here Friday, welcomed the 680-page report and its 65 recommendations as a “comprehensive review” of the issue.

While conceding that “there will be some who will emphasize the negatives in the report,” Lucas said he saw the wide-ranging investigation as evidence of the “vitality and accountability” of the state judiciary. “Has any other profession been so willing to take on this important inquiry?” he asked.

The exhaustively detailed report examined complaints of bias throughout the system and offered a multitude of proposals to curb discrimination. It concluded that sex bias “influences the decision-making and courtroom environment” of the California justice system. The judiciary, it said, “must respond with clear, decisive and immediate action” to ensure fairness in decisions and practices.

“Across the board, we see one common thread--and that is the lack of credibility that women receive, whether they are lawyers or other participants in the process,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Judith C. Chirlin, vice-chair of the committee, told reporters. “When women are considered less credible, that’s inevitably going to affect the substance of a case.”

The recommendations, if adopted, would require action by an array of governmental and legal entities, including the Legislature, the State Bar, the California Judges Assn., the state’s law schools and the Judicial Council itself. The report will undergo further study by a council subcommittee led by state appellate Justice Ronald M. George of Los Angeles, with final action on its findings and recommendations expected this fall.

Among other things, the report:

* Concluded that there would be “substantial amelioration” of sex bias in the courts if more women were appointed to the bench. At present, 196 of the 1,481 judicial positions in California--or 13%--are occupied by women. In a survey of the current judiciary, 64% of the women judges agreed that sex bias was “widespread;” by contrast, 23% of the male judges saw such discrimination.

* Asked that judicial ethical canons be revised to provide specifically that judges should not belong to clubs that practice “invidious discrimination” and to impose the obligation on judges to refrain--and prevent others--from exhibiting prejudice in court proceedings.

* Urged that time limits be expanded on emergency protective orders issued to prevent the recurrence of domestic violence--the victims of which are 95% female. New rules should provide that temporary restraining orders are available at all court hours and that law enforcement officers can issue such orders at all other times.

* Found that child support awards are too low and inadequately enforced. New legislation should be enacted to assure that children, after their parents are divorced, share in the increased earnings of the wealthier parent. The duration of child support should be extended to age 21.

The report also concluded that “stereotypes and prejudices” too often influence the outcome in child-custody disputes. There is a tendency to “doubt the credibility” of female parents and characterize them as “hysterical or vindictive” when they make a claim of child abuse by their spouse.

* Reported that instances “abound” of biased conduct by attorneys. Female lawyers report “they have been sexually propositioned by male attorneys, (been) the object of their offensive jokes or sexual innuendoes, and the subject of their discussions of sexual attributes.” One woman lawyer claimed that an unnamed prosecutor called her and said that if she agreed to go out with him, he would dismiss charges against her client. Another female lawyer said she had been called an obscene name by her opposing attorney, but that when she complained, the judge said the comment was only “advocacy.”

* Recommended that court authorities give higher priority to establishing waiting rooms for children of court participants. The lack of child care “limits a woman’s access to court,” the committee said, and represents a form of “institutionalized gender bias.”