Judge Cleared of All but 1 Misconduct Charge : Ethics: State panel scolds jurist for banning court scheduler but exonerates her on other counts, including performing wedding for killer Lyle Menendez.

The state Commission on Judicial Performance publicly scolded Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Nancy Brown for banning a court administrator from her courtroom, but cleared her of other charges of impropriety--including performing a wedding ceremony for convicted parent killer Lyle Menendez.

The panel found that Brown engaged in “willful misconduct” and interfered with the operation of the downtown criminal courts with her four-year ban of John Iverson, a court coordinator who handled scheduling matters for Brown’s supervising judges.

The ban arose out of Brown’s unhappiness over a 1994 transfer. She told the commission it was her form of “silent protest” over Iverson’s treatment of another, more senior judge who also was transferred.

In an eight-page decision, the commission said Brown’s ban exceeded her authority and had a “corrupt purpose--punishing Iverson--which is not part of the faithful discharge of her judicial duties.”

Such conduct, the panel found, “was unjudicial” and violated a section of the Canon of Judicial Ethics that states that judges “shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.”

The commission cleared the veteran jurist of less serious charges that included cigarette smoking in chambers, displaying an artificial marijuana plant in her courtroom, and ordering the sheriff to drive Mendendez and his brother, Erik, from jail to her courtroom for Lyle’s June 1997 wedding to a court-watcher.

The brothers were scheduled to be sentenced the next day to life prison terms for the shotgun murders of their wealthy parents. When the supervising judge called off the wedding, Brown held a news conference and then went ahead with the ceremony, performing the nuptials via conference call.

Brown had no comment on the decision, but her lawyer, Ephraim Margolin, said it was not unexpected.

In the past, the commission has been criticized for failing to distinguish between real misconduct and trivial allegations. The controversy came to a head when a judge faced discipline for his comments in a dissenting court opinion. The commission recently cleared that judge.

Margolin said he hopes the Brown case is indicative of a continuing trend.

“It looks now like they are willing to take a hard look and separate serious issues from trivia,” he said. “This is good news for judges generally, that not every single thing is going to become a charge.”

Margolin noted that none of her supervisors ever told Brown that her Iverson ban created problems. Nor was she ever confronted about the plant or the smoking, he added.

Brown, 63, was appointed to the Municipal Court in 1976 and promoted to Superior Court in 1984. She told the commission that the marijuana plant was a gag gift she used for educational purposes. As for the smoking in chambers, the commission said it took her years of service into consideration and decided not to pursue the matter because it was unclear whether Brown was given proper notice that smoking cigarettes in chambers was not permitted. She told the panel she since has quit smoking.