Statement on Inquiry Angers Judges : Courts: State agency suggests probe has cleared most jurists of wrongdoing. Judges claim confidentiality was breached.

The state agency that monitors judges’ conduct suggested Monday that most San Diego Superior Court judges have been cleared of wrongdoing in a gift-giving probe but said some are still under investigation, issuing an unusual press release that outraged local judges.

Essentially confirming months-old press reports, Victoria B. Henley, director and chief counsel of the state Commission on Judicial Performance, said in the statement that the panel’s investigation--of 13 Superior Court judges who reportedly had received gifts of $50 or more from attorneys--had ended for all but “some” judges.

Henley did not indicate how many amounts to “some” judges, though sources have maintained for months that three judges remain under investigation.

A source said Monday the number had dwindled to two, but that could not be confirmed. The commission inquiry focuses on whether gifts from attorneys biased judges’ courtroom actions. Judges generally have denied any bias.

The commission’s statement said little new. The Times had reported four months ago that the investigation had closed for all but three judges. Perplexed at the timing of the statement, local judges said Monday that the release seemed to violate the commission’s own rules on secrecy and appeared designed solely to re-ignite press coverage of the investigation.

“It’s the most vicious, irresponsible, stupid act anyone in that position could undertake,” said Arthur W. Jones, presiding judge of the 71-judge San Diego Superior Court, referring to Henley.

The statement said “a number of judges” were cleared outright. Sources said the number is seven.

It added that “appropriate corrective action” was taken in the cases of “a number of other judges”--three, sources said--who had “improperly received” gifts but had shown no “impropriety” on the bench. The “action” taken in those three cases included “advisory letters and private admonishments,” and the judges were cleared of wrongdoing, the statement said.

By formally disclosing the release of the letters or the admonishments, Jones said, Henley had made public matters that are supposed to stay private. The commission normally acts in strict secrecy, and Jones said the breach was so severe that Henley should resign.

“I’m writing her a letter suggesting her resignation (today) would be timely,” Jones said. “This is beyond belief. To be that irresponsible smacks of some vicious intent, rather than some stupid mistake. I’ve never been madder, and I don’t get mad. But this has done it.”

Henley, reached Monday at the commission offices in San Francisco, said she has no plans to resign.

She said the statement violated no secrecy rules. A section of the California Constitution authorizes the commission to release “explanatory statements” at “any investigatory stage” when the subject is “generally known” by the public.

Several judges, asking not to be named, said Monday that they suspected that the Monday release of the statement was prompted solely by an article about the investigation that was published at the beginning of October in a monthly lawyers’ magazine, California Lawyer. The San Diego press largely has been silent on the issue since a spate of stories in June.

The magazine article said the inquiry was unfair. One unnamed judge was quoted as saying it was a “ ‘star-chamber proceeding’ in which judges, lawyers and lay people were grilled and then ordered to keep their mouths shut when asked by the media for comment.”

Henley said she could not comment on the magazine article and declined any further discussion of the investigation.

According to sources, Judges James R. Milliken, Vincent P. DiFiglia and Herbert B. Hoffman were the group of three who received confidential letters this spring that said they had been cleared of wrongdoing.

The commission inquired about golf tournament fees the three had received in recent years from prominent San Diego attorney Vincent Bartolotta Jr. Each of the three judges reported the fees on his financial disclosure form.

“As far as I’m concerned, the gloves are off,” DiFiglia said Monday. “They have violated the confidentiality rules, and if anybody wants to hear our side of the story, they can.

“The manner in which the investigation was conducted was absolutely unprecedented in its scope and its focus,” DiFiglia said. “People were interviewed about furniture--about every rumor that could possibly be investigated.

“There never was any investigation or any intimation that anybody had used their judicial office in order to favor one side or another, and of course that was the thrust of all the innuendo,” DiFiglia said. “ . . . And the overall impression that I think the public is left with is that there was hanky-panky, which was never formally alleged or proved.”

Hoffman could not be reached for comment. Milliken, the court’s assistant presiding judge, called the release of the commission’s statement “outrageous.”

“I take umbrage at the fact that the commission sees fit to publish private matters,” Milliken said. “I have no objection to their conducting an investigation. But their publishing (the statement) is outrageous.”

According to sources, the three judges still under investigation are Michael I. Greer, James A. Malkus and G. Dennis Adams. Greer declined comment Monday. Malkus and Adams could not be reached for comment.

The investigation into the conduct of those three judges centers on whether they gave favorable treatment to prominent local attorney Patrick Frega Jr., who provided them gifts over the years, sources said.

The names of the seven judges the commission cleared outright were not immediately available.