Judicial watchdog signals tougher stance as retirements no longer shield judges

California's judicial watchdog agency had a busy 2025, according to its annual report released Friday. The latest data also carried an ominous message for judges facing discipline: A well-timed retirement will no longer get them off the hook.

The Commission on Judicial Performance publicly disciplined 13 judges last year, including three censures and 10 who were admonished. This compares with 17 total instances of public discipline in the three years between 2022 and 2024. The commission receives well over 1,000 complaints annually and typically issues private discipline to more than two dozen judicial officers.

The report also noted that, "in 2025, the commission did not close any matters without discipline when a judge resigned or retired with an investigation pending."

This represents a sharp break from past years. Between 2022 and 2024, the commission dropped eight cases when a judge retired, including five in 2024 alone.

Last year, it imposed discipline on five judges and two commissioners who were no longer on the bench -- something it did only once from 2022 to 2024.

In December, the commission publicly admonished former 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice William J. Murray Jr. and barred him from future judicial service. This decision was notable in that it came nearly four years after Murray retired. The commission cited years of decision delay in a scandal that also claimed the career of Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye.

"It has become increasingly more difficult, and made very apparent by the Commission, to 'trade' a judge's retirement for a reduction of discipline or other resolution," Randall A. Miller said in an email. "This is not to say that a judge's retirement is not part of the dialogue; it is. It is just that it has far less value than in the past."

Miller, of Miller Waxler LLP in Los Angeles, represented both Murray, Del Norte Superior Court Judge Robert F. Cochran and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James A. Kaddo. The other two retired judges who faced public discipline were San Diego County Superior Court Judge Howard H. Shore and Solano County Superior Court Judge Robert S. Bowers. Like Cochran, they all stepped down in 2024 or 2025, usually just before the commission announced its decisions.

Miller said judges are facing a new "reality" as the commission has shown a new willingness to go after judges who will never hear another case. But he said the trend dates back over a decade.

"It used to be unusual [that] a retired judge would be prosecuted by the commission, but starting with Judge Sohigian a few years ago, it is now very much part of the Commission's repertoire," Miller said. "Of course, the commission retains that authority under the California Constitution and the CJP rules."

The commission admonished Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian in 2014, weeks after he left the bench. The commission cited his years of rude and sarcastic comments, as well as the fact that he was admonished for similar behavior seven years earlier.

The 2024 report did not reflect any public discipline against former judges. However, the commission pursued two high-profile cases against judges whose careers were effectively ending. It ordered the removal of Lassen County Superior Court Judge Tony R. Mallery, despite the fact Mallery was not running for reelection that year and had been ordered by his presiding judge to stay away from the two-judge courthouse two years earlier.

The commission also censured and barred Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Gregory J. Kreis even though he had lost his judicial primary weeks earlier. Both Mallery and Kreis faced an extensive list of misconduct claims, including alleged violent threats by Mallery and one incident in which an allegedly intoxicated Kreis pushed an attorney off a boat.

James A. Murphy represented both Mallery and Kreis. The founding shareholder of Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney P.C. in San Francisco said he believes the commission has grown more aggressive, especially in cases involving retired or inactive judges.

"Another thing, the investigations seem to be broader," Murphy said in an email. "More allegations of 'alleged' misconduct are seemingly added to the investigations."