Panel concludes San Diego judge violated judicial ethics rules

A San Diego County Superior Court judge violated ethics rules when he made remarks to lawyers and litigants about their appearance and ethnicity in his first years on the bench, a special panel of judges concluded in a report released Friday.

In the 90-page report, a three-judge panel appointed by the state Commission on Judicial Performance said Judge Gary Kreep committed willful misconduct, prejudicial misconduct and improper actions.

But the panel disagreed with commission lawyers who had brought ethics charges against the one-time conservative legal activist that his comments to some women amounted to sexual harassment.

They also credited him with changing his behavior after complaints from some lawyers in the San Diego city attorney’s office and warnings from top administrators on the Superior Court bench.

Yet the panel also rejected Kreep’s contention in his formal written response to the charges that the complaints against him were the product of a harassment and intimidation campaign because of his right-leaning political history.

Kreep was elected to the bench in 2012 in an upset win. He had built a lengthy legal career in part by taking on conservative legal causes, including filing “birther” lawsuits challenging President Obama’s legitimacy by contending he was not a U.S. citizen.

Although Kreep’s lawyer did not press the harassment argument in the eight-day hearing on the charges in February, the panel wrote there was little support for it in any event.

“To the extent he was referring to the complaints of inappropriate behavior, our report validates most (but not all) of the complaints,” the report said.

And the judges said that Kreep was “tone deaf” to how some of his comments could offend people and did not move quickly enough to correct them.

Although he worked diligently on his assigned cases, participated in judicial education opportunities, and volunteered for community outreach, he nevertheless delegated, delayed or ignored some of his most pressing ethical responsibilities, the report said. “He had a sincere desire to connect with people and to help them in the courtroom, but his approach was improper for a judicial officer.”

The report now goes to the 11-member Commission on Judicial Performance, which will decide whether to adopt the findings and conclusions of the three-judge panel. The commission then will decide what discipline may be warranted.

That can range from a private letter of advice or admonishment to public censure or, in rare cases, removal from the bench.

Kreep declined to comment on the report. His lawyer, James Murphy, did not immediately respond Friday to a request for comment.

The accusations the commission brought against Kreep included that he made misrepresentations on his campaign website in 2012, violated campaign finance and disclosure rules, and campaigned against Obama’s 2012 reelection while running for judge by signing three fundraising letters as the head of the U.S. Justice Foundation, a legal group he founded.

Judicial ethics rules — or canons — prohibit judges and judicial candidates from endorsing or opposing candidates for office.

Kreep had already settled a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission over those charges, but that did not make him ineligible for judicial discipline.

greg.moran@sduniontribune.com