Panel Dawdles, Some Judges Stray

Superior Court Judge Patrick B. Murphy has logged some 400 sick days in the past four years, yet for an ailing man he’s been pretty busy. While his colleagues at the West Covina courthouse took over his cases, the 45-year-old judge, by his own admission, attended a Caribbean medical school, taught at a local law school and enrolled in a chiropractic college. All the while, Murphy has continued to collect his $118,000 salary. And for much of that time the state’s judicial watchdog agency has been investigating . . . and investigating and investigating.

Murphy’s conduct apparently prompted local court officials to complain to the state Commission on Judicial Performance, which is charged with disciplining errant judges. The first complaint was lodged in June 1999, after Murphy had already missed months of work due to an undisclosed illness. Superior Court officials complained again last February, but the commission has kept confidential the nature of the complaints and the dates they were lodged. Its initial investigation led the panel to file formal discipline charges against Murphy last March. A hearing on those charges before the commission, scheduled for September, has been continued to January.

The 11-member panel, a mix of lawyers, judges and public members, probes charges of judicial misconduct among California’s 1,580 judges and 400 court commissioners and referees. In cases where the commission concludes that judicial officers have acted unethically or illegally, discipline can range from an admonishment to removal from the bench.

Created in 1960, California’s Commission on Judicial Performance was the first such agency in the nation and has contributed to California’s enviable reputation for upstanding judges, but its excessive secrecy and leisurely pace could erode that image. No statutory deadlines guide commission probes and, not infrequently, two or three years can pass before the panel issues a final determination on a complaint. That’s longer than it takes courts across the state to try or settle most of the cases before them. Meanwhile, taxpayers are left holding the bag for months if not years, paying a judge whose illness precludes him from hearing cases but not, apparently, from studying medicine.

Commission members say the time and confidentiality are necessary to protect the due process rights of judges summoned before them. Yet the Legislature has given the commission hefty budget increases in recent years for the express purpose of hiring more staff to speed case disposition, with no apparent effect. Some changes are in order.

As a constitutionally created independent agency, the commission is not answerable to the California Judicial Council, the policymaking arm of the courts, or to the chief justice. But the panel can revise its own confidentiality rules with an eye toward prudent disclosure of information about complaints. It should also adopt reasonable timetables. Should it fail to do so, the Legislature should consider putting before the voters a constitutional amendment imposing these changes. Voters would no doubt see reform as better than continuing to pay the salaries of judges who arguably shouldn’t be on the bench.