Judge Should Be Removed, Panel Says : Courts: A San Diego County jurist is accused of misconduct for taking gifts from man after awarding him $5 million in a trial.

In a rare move, the state Commission on Judicial Performance recommended Tuesday that San Diego County Superior Court Judge G. Dennis Adams be removed from office for “willful misconduct,” including accepting gifts from a car dealer and the man’s attorney three years after awarding the dealer $5 million in a non-jury civil trial.

The commission also said Adams, 53, failed to disclose that he had accepted gifts from other litigants, gave an attorney legal advice on cases being heard by other San Diego judges, failed to recuse himself from cases involving law firms that had given him gifts and acted in bad faith when he gave inaccurate or misleading answers to questions from the commission.

Many of Adams’ actions constituted “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute,” the commission said in a 22-page report to the California Supreme Court.

Several of the incidents cited in the commission’s report involved San Diego car dealer James Williams and his attorney, Patrick Frega.

The commission found that Williams sold the judge a Mercedes-Benz and a Jeep for less than the public would have paid, repaired the Jeep at a discount and put new wheel rims and detail work on the Mercedes for free.

Additionally, the commission said Adams violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by attending a victory dinner party to celebrate Williams’ receiving the $5-million judgment, along with $2.5 million in interest from Security Pacific Bank. The party was hosted by Frega, who made other gifts to the judge, the commission said.

In addition, while the judge was writing a novel with Frega, members of Frega’s law firm, including his partner, were appearing in cases in Adams’ courtroom, according to the commission report.

In a prepared statement, Adams said he would challenge the commission’s recommendation to the state Supreme Court, which has the authority to remove the judge or take less stringent action against him.

“While I truly regret some of my past actions, my conduct does not warrant removal from judicial office,” Adams said.

Adams--first appointed to the Municipal Court bench in El Cajon in 1975 and a Superior Court judge since 1979--was suspended Tuesday morning. He is the first judge the commission has recommended for removal since 1990.

The commission’s action follows months of criticism that it is meting out too little discipline and acting in secret too frequently. A measure to reform the commission has been placed on the November ballot after overwhelmingly passing in both houses of the Legislature.

The measure would require that all proceedings against a judge be open after formal accusations are filed. All the hearings involving Adams--conducted by a special masters panel of three judges--were held in secret, although word of the inquiry leaked to the news media. The report of the special masters did not become public until Tuesday, when it was released along with transcripts of 17 days of hearings held in November.

Adams asserted that the commission’s action should be viewed in light of the political controversy.

“I believe the commission’s recommendation is not based so much on my circumstances as it is on circumstances confronting the commission,” he said. “It appears that I am being sacrificed by the commission so it can justify its existence to a very critical Legislature.”

Adams and his attorney, Charles R. Grebing, expressed disappointment with the commission’s conclusion that he had engaged in “willful misconduct.” They noted that the special masters concluded that Adams’ actions constituted negligence rather than intentional misconduct. In addition, the masters concluded that in some instances Adams was guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

“We see him as an unusually competent and innovative judge who used poor judgment in certain instances, rather than as a scoundrel who has disgraced the bench,” the special masters concluded.

But the eight-member commission came to a different conclusion, stressing that “full consideration of the totality of (Adams’) conduct and the explanations he provided in his written responses and in his testimony has led the commission to the conclusion that (Adams) engaged in more than mere negligence.”

The commission launched its probe of Adams and five other San Diego judges in 1991. Four of the other judges received light discipline and the fifth resigned last year, citing health reasons.