Ex-Judge Bradley Asks Panel to Let Him Return to Bench

Former Ventura County Judge Robert C. Bradley has asked a state disciplinary commission to let him return to the bench as a part-time jurist, arguing in court papers this week that he has stayed sober for the past eight months.

But state attorneys are continuing to oppose any return to the bench by Bradley, who was charged last year with nine violations of judicial ethics following a series of high-profile alcohol-related arrests.

Bradley filed his request for a second chance Thursday. At the same time, lawyers for the prosecuting arm of the Commission on Judicial Performance filed a brief recommending the 58-year-old judge be barred from any future assignments.

“There is no evidence before the commission,” the lawyers wrote, “that [Bradley] has overcome his addiction or demonstrated the ability to maintain sobriety.”

But Bradley states in a four-page declaration that he has not taken a drink since last summer and is capable of hearing cases on a temporary basis.

He told the commission he is holding down a full-time, non-law-related job in Ventura, undergoing therapy and participating in an intensive outpatient program for alcoholics.

“The last time that I consumed anything containing alcohol was August 4, 1998,” wrote Bradley, a former prosecutor and judge for 15 years. “I could have consumed alcohol beverages, but I have not done so.”

Bradley’s life derailed last year amid a painful divorce and public struggle with alcoholism. He was suspended after two drunk-driving arrests and an episode in which he showed up to work intoxicated.

He went on to violate the terms of his probation four times, first by getting drunk and taking a cab to the home of his estranged wife in Ojai, and later by riding a bicycle while drunk. He was arrested six times in as many months, and served four months in County Jail last fall.

In February, a three-judge panel concluded Bradley’s “prejudicial” conduct violated the ethics of his profession and brought disrepute to the judiciary.

*

In court papers, Bradley and his lawyer, Thomas C. Brayton, do not dispute those findings and recommend he be censured. But they argue that barring him from future judicial service would be too severe.

“There is no question that the conduct of Judge Bradley was embarrassing to the judiciary,” Brayton wrote.

But he argued that Bradley’s “unblemished reputation on the bench for 15 years prior to the first alcohol-related incident” should outweigh any embarrassment brought upon the judiciary.

State lawyers who charged the judge disagree. In their brief, the attorneys argue, Bradley’s repeated abuse of alcohol and numerous alcohol-related arrests warrant the “highest degree of discipline available.”

Because Bradley did not seek reelection last fall, he cannot face the most severe punishment--removal from office. But the commission can--and should, in its view--prohibit Bradley from sitting on temporary assignments in the future.

“The ultimate standard for judicial conduct must be conduct which constantly reaffirms fitness for the high responsibilities of judicial office,” the attorneys wrote, citing a 1973 case.

“The record demonstrates that [Bradley’s] conduct falls short of that standard. He has been convicted of violations of law, defied a court order, disobeyed an order of the presiding judge, lied to police officers, threatened his wife and another person and violated the terms of his probation.

*

“He has demonstrated a persistent failure or inability to perform his duties,” the attorneys concluded. “He should be censured and barred from sitting as a judge on assignment.”

Both sides have two opportunities to respond to each side’s briefs in the coming weeks. A hearing before the commission is expected to be held in May or June, and Bradley has requested to make a statement at that time.

A final ruling is expected a week to a month after the hearing.