High Court Ousts Judge in Ethics Crackdown : Judiciary: San Diego jurist took gifts from lawyers and litigants, damaging the public image of the profession, justices rule.

Signaling a new, get-tough ethics policy, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a San Diego Superior Court judge should be ousted from the bench for accepting gifts from litigants and lawyers who appeared before him.

Judge D. Dennis Adams, an appointee of former Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr., had pleaded with the court to spare him because of his 20 years of often-distinguished work on the bench.

But the court said the extreme and rare sanction was justified because Adams damaged the public image of the judiciary by “improperly using his judicial office to advance his personal interests.”

The Adams case provided an inside look into the potential for cozy relationships between judges and lawyers representing clients in their courtrooms.

“It is sending a message that judges need to stop and think about how their actions look to the public,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Laura Halgren, who argued that Adams should be removed. “It is a reminder that judges need to be careful of the people who come before them.”

The court found that Adams failed to disqualify himself from cases argued by lawyers who had given him gifts, including a sweater, dinners and free legal service.

Justice Stanley Mosk, the only Democrat on the Supreme Court, dissented in the Adams decision, arguing that the punishment was too extreme. Mosk noted that judges in the past have been removed only for far more egregious conduct, including a pattern of arbitrary and irrational conduct or a violation of a defendant’s rights.

“He has been a good judge for his 20 years on the bench,” Mosk said.

Adams, 54, is the 13th judge to be booted off the bench by the state high court, and the first since 1990. A state judicial watchdog panel, which was under fire for being too lenient with judges, recommended Adams’ ouster in September.

Since then, voters passed a ballot measure aimed at strengthening judicial discipline. The measure revamped the watchdog panel to include a majority of non-judges.

Adams, in a statement read by his lawyer, thanked his supporters and singled out his wife, San Diego Superior Court Judge Barbara Gamer, “for her support and love.”

“It has been an honor serving the people of California for the last 20 years,” Adams said. “Naturally, I am very disappointed.”

In upholding the Commission on Judicial Performance’s recommendation to remove Adams, the court said he had “engaged in successive extrajudicial transactions extended over a significant period of time, creating an appearance of serious impropriety and thereby tending to diminish the public esteem of the judiciary. “

From 1989 to 1991, Adams received special treatment when he bought two used cars and arranged for repairs at a firm that won a $5-million verdict from him in a non-jury civil trial in 1986.

Prominent San Diego plaintiffs lawyer Patrick Frega, who represented the auto dealer in the case, had arranged without the judge’s knowledge to pick up several thousand dollars of the judge’s tab with the dealer.

Frega, who said he knew the judge was having personal financial difficulties at the time, also paid a bill for detailing one of the judge’s cars and arranged for the judge’s daughter to receive a free rental car while her vehicle was being repaired.

The judge initiated the business transactions with the auto firm at a time when the $5-million award was on appeal and Frega’s motion for attorney fees was pending. The verdict was upheld, and Frega dropped his motion for fees.

Charles Grebing, a San Diego lawyer who represented Adams, said the judge had decided not to hear any case involving Frega once they became friends and that Adams did not know of Frega’s motion for fees. Adams also did not know that Frega had subsidized his auto bills, and the judge reported all other gifts on public disclosure forms, the lawyer said.

The court’s ruling was surprising because most of the justices seemed inclined to favor a lesser sanction during arguments several weeks ago. “It gave us a lot of hope,” Grebing admitted.

He said the decision may cause “more of a separation between the bench and the Bar.”

“I think it’s bad,” he said. “I don’t think judges ever were meant to be in a vacuum, and I don’t think that a lot of judges took the job with that” in mind.

Halgren said the high court has never ruled on this type of judicial behavior before. “It is a great decision because they strongly convey the message that gifts and dealings with litigants and attorneys is improper and needs to be dealt with strongly.”