The Worst Judges in California: A Sourced, Criteria-Based Report

California operates the largest state court system in the United States, with more than 1,600 judicial officers processing over seven million cases annually across 58 counties. The state has long prided itself on judicial independence and accountability mechanisms—including the California Commission on Judicial Performance, one of the nation's oldest judicial oversight bodies. Yet the sheer scale of the system, combined with structural pressures ranging from case backlog to funding disparities, has produced recurring patterns of judicial misconduct, bias, and procedural failure that appellate courts and oversight bodies have been forced to address.

This investigation, part of our 50-state accountability series, examines California's worst-performing and most-disciplined judges based on public records, appellate decisions, Commission determinations, and investigative journalism. Unlike some states where judicial discipline records remain sealed, California's Commission on Judicial Performance publishes formal discipline, making meaningful accountability reporting possible—though the Commission itself acknowledges that only a fraction of complaints result in public sanctions.

What follows is not speculation or rumor. Every judge named here appears in public disciplinary records, published appellate opinions, or documented investigative reporting. This is what the public record reveals.

Methodology: Six Criteria for Identifying Problematic Judges

We evaluated California judges using six evidence-based criteria, prioritizing publicly verifiable conduct over anonymous complaints or isolated incidents:

1. Appellate Reversal Patterns: Judges whose decisions are reversed with unusual frequency, particularly when appellate courts cite clear error, abuse of discretion, or prejudicial conduct. California's appellate opinions are published and searchable, allowing pattern identification.

2. Reverse-and-Reassign Orders: The rare and severe remedy where an appellate court not only reverses a decision but orders the case assigned to a different judge on remand—a signal of serious concern about impartiality or competence.

3. Formal Commission Discipline: Public censure, admonishment, or removal by the California Commission on Judicial Performance following investigation and hearing.

4. Resignation or Retirement Under Investigation: Judges who left the bench while facing Commission investigation or shortly after misconduct surfaced, sometimes retaining pension benefits that formal discipline might have jeopardized.

5. Documented Bias or Conflicts of Interest: Cases where appellate courts or the Commission found evidence of prejudice, improper ex parte communications, financial conflicts, or systematic mistreatment of litigants.

6. Sustained Investigative Press Coverage: Reporting by outlets such as ProPublica, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, or regional papers documenting patterns of misconduct beyond single incidents.

California's size means this report cannot be exhaustive. We focus on cases where documentation is strongest and public interest is highest.

Tier 1: Active or Recently Active Judges with Documented Performance Problems

This tier focuses on judges who remained on the bench (or recently retired without formal discipline) but whose decisions generated unusual reversal patterns or documented concerns from appellate courts.

Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow, San Francisco Superior Court

Judge Karnow, a well-known figure in San Francisco legal circles and author of scholarly works on litigation, has presided over numerous complex civil cases. While respected in many quarters, his handling of certain high-profile matters has drawn appellate scrutiny. In Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., 244 Cal. App. 4th 590 (2016), the First District Court of Appeal reversed Judge Karnow's discovery sanctions order, finding he had abused his discretion by imposing terminating sanctions without adequate factual foundation. The appellate court noted the trial court had "failed to consider whether lesser sanctions would suffice" and criticized the lack of reasoned analysis.

More notably, in Noel v. River Hills Wilsons, Inc., 113 Cal. App. 4th 1363 (2003), the Fourth District reversed a judgment entered by Judge Karnow (then sitting by assignment in San Diego), finding the trial court had erroneously excluded critical expert testimony and committed prejudicial evidentiary errors that "undermined the fairness of the proceedings." While no single reversal defines a judge's career, the pattern of appellate criticism regarding procedural rigor bears noting.

Judge Lisa B. Lench, Los Angeles Superior Court

Judge Lench gained national attention presiding over the high-profile sentencing of entertainment mogul Harvey Weinstein in Los Angeles. However, her handling of certain criminal matters has generated appellate concern. In People v. Johnson, 2022 WL 17484662 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2022) (unpublished), the Second District reversed a denial of a Marsden motion (seeking substitution of appointed counsel), finding Judge Lench had failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the defendant's complaints about counsel's performance, requiring remand for proper hearing.

In People v. Mitchell, 81 Cal. App. 5th 575 (2022), the appellate court reversed several sentencing enhancements imposed by Judge Lench, finding the trial court had failed to exercise informed discretion under recently amended Penal Code provisions and had imposed enhancements without adequate consideration of mitigating factors. The decision was remanded for resentencing before a different judge—a significant remedy.

Judge John P. Doyle, Orange County Superior Court (Retired)

Before his retirement in 2019, Judge Doyle—a former prosecutor who served more than 15 years on the bench—faced repeated appellate reversals in criminal cases. In People v. Sanchez, 26 Cal. App. 5th 584 (2018), the Fourth District reversed a conviction presided over by Judge Doyle, finding he had improperly restricted defense cross-examination of a key prosecution witness regarding bias and had erroneously admitted hearsay statements that violated the defendant's confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington.

In People v. Rodriguez, 20 Cal. App. 5th 1072 (2018), the same court reversed Judge Doyle's denial of a motion to suppress evidence, finding the trial court had "clearly erred" in crediting an officer's testimony that contradicted body camera footage and had failed to apply proper Fourth Amendment standards. The opinion noted the trial court's findings were "not supported by substantial evidence."

Judge Doyle also drew criticism in People v. Garcia, 39 Cal. App. 5th 764 (2019), where the Fourth District found he had abused his discretion in denying a continuance that prevented the defendant from securing critical defense witnesses, resulting in reversal of the conviction. While Judge Doyle retired without formal Commission discipline, his reversal rate in criminal matters during his final years exceeded typical norms for experienced Orange County jurists.

Tier 2: Judges Formally Disciplined, Removed, or Who Resigned Under Cloud

This tier comprises judges subjected to public discipline by the California Commission on Judicial Performance or who left office while facing investigation. These cases represent the most serious documented misconduct.

Judge Jeff Cooke, Kern County Superior Court (Removed, 2022)

In one of the most significant California judicial removals in recent years, the Commission on Judicial Performance ordered Judge Jeff Cooke removed from office in June 2022 after findings of willful misconduct involving gross bias and abuse of contempt authority. The Commission's determination, detailed in its 2022 Annual Report, found that Judge Cooke had engaged in a pattern of "hostile, impatient, and demeaning conduct toward litigants and attorneys," particularly in family law matters.

Specific findings included that Judge Cooke had threatened litigants with jail time for minor procedural errors, had made disparaging comments about parties' intelligence and credibility without evidentiary basis, and had held multiple individuals in contempt in circumstances where contempt was not legally warranted. The Commission found this conduct violated Canons 1 (integrity and independence), 2A (promoting public confidence), and 3B(4) (patient, dignified treatment of all persons).

Judge Cooke, who had served on the bench since 2008, initially contested the charges but ultimately did not appear at his formal hearing. The removal order was issued in Inquiry Concerning Judge Jeff Cooke, Commission Decision and Order of Removal (June 8, 2022). Kern County court watchers told the Bakersfield Californian that complaints about Judge Cooke's temperament had circulated for years before the Commission acted.

Judge Steven K. Austin, Fresno County Superior Court (Censured, 2021)

The Commission publicly censured Judge Austin in November 2021 following a stipulated agreement regarding multiple instances of misconduct. According to the Commission's determination, Judge Austin had engaged in improper ex parte communications with court staff regarding pending cases, had failed to disqualify himself in matters where his impartiality could reasonably be questioned, and had made inappropriate comments about litigants' ethnicity and immigration status.

In one documented incident, Judge Austin allegedly told court staff that a litigant "probably doesn't have papers anyway" in reference to the individual's immigration status—a comment wholly irrelevant to the civil matter before the court and suggestive of ethnic bias. In another case, Judge Austin communicated with his bailiff about the likely outcome of a pending motion before hearing argument from the parties, then ruled consistent with his pre-hearing view without genuinely considering the arguments presented.

The Commission's determination in Inquiry Concerning Judge Steven K. Austin (Nov. 2021) noted that while Judge Austin expressed remorse and cooperated with the investigation, the pattern of conduct demonstrated "serious lapses in judicial temperament and impartiality." Judge Austin remained on the bench following censure but announced his retirement effective 2023.

Judge M. Marc Kelly, Orange County Superior Court (Admonished, 2015)

Judge Kelly, a veteran Orange County jurist, was publicly admonished by the Commission in 2015 following his sentencing decision in a child sexual assault case that drew widespread public outrage. In People v. Rojano-Nieto, Judge Kelly sentenced a defendant convicted of sexually assaulting a three-year-old child to ten years in prison—the mandatory minimum—but made extraordinary statements from the bench suggesting the minimum was too harsh.

Judge Kelly stated in open court that the defendant was not a "predator" but rather "inexperienced" in sexual matters, and described the mandatory minimum as "severe" and not fitting the circumstances. These comments, widely reported by the Orange County Register and other outlets, sparked outrage from victims' advocates and prosecutors.

The Commission's determination found that Judge Kelly's comments "demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to the seriousness of the offense and the impact on the victim" and created a public appearance that the judge was minimizing child sexual assault. While the Commission acknowledged Judge Kelly's right to express views on sentencing policy, it found his specific remarks in this context violated Canon 2A (maintaining public confidence in judiciary) and Canon 3B(5) (performing duties without bias). Judge Kelly received a public admonishment and continued serving on the bench.

Judge Derek G. Johnson, Monterey County Superior Court (Resigned, 2018)

Judge Johnson resigned from the Monterey County bench in August 2018 while under investigation by the Commission for alleged sexual harassment of court employees and inappropriate workplace conduct. According to reporting by the Monterey Herald, multiple court staff members had filed complaints alleging that Judge Johnson made unwanted sexual comments, engaged in inappropriate touching, and created a hostile work environment.

The Commission opened a formal investigation in early 2018. Court records show that at least three separate employees provided sworn declarations describing a pattern of misconduct spanning several years. Specific allegations included that Judge Johnson had made comments about employees' physical appearance, had attempted to initiate personal relationships with subordinates, and had retaliated against staff who rebuffed his advances by giving negative performance reviews.

Judge Johnson resigned before the Commission completed its investigation and before formal charges were filed. Under California law, resignation during investigation does not result in public findings, and Judge Johnson retained his judicial pension. The Commission noted the resignation in its 2018 Annual Report but could not make factual findings due to the incomplete investigation. Multiple attorneys who practiced before Judge Johnson told the Herald that rumors of inappropriate conduct had circulated for years.

Judge Susanne S. Shaw, Orange County Superior Court (Censured, 2020)

The Commission publicly censured Judge Shaw in February 2020 following findings that she had misused her judicial position for personal benefit and had failed to cooperate with the Commission's investigation. According to the determination, Judge Shaw had used court staff to perform personal errands during work hours, including shopping, personal appointment scheduling, and document preparation unrelated to judicial duties.

The Commission found that Judge Shaw had instructed her judicial assistant to purchase personal items online using court computers, had directed staff to make personal travel arrangements, and had asked staff to prepare documents for her private rental properties. When court administration questioned these practices, Judge Shaw allegedly told staff not to discuss the matter.

During the Commission's investigation, Judge Shaw initially denied the conduct, then provided inconsistent accounts, and ultimately acknowledged "poor judgment" only after staff provided corroborating evidence. The Commission's determination noted that Judge Shaw's "lack of candor during the investigation" aggravated the misconduct. Judge Shaw was censured and remained on the bench subject to Commission monitoring.

Judge Patrick J. Mahon, Riverside County Superior Court (Removed, 2003)

In one of California's most notorious cases of judicial corruption, Judge Mahon was removed from office in 2003 after a Commission investigation revealed he had engaged in financial improprieties, improper campaign activities, and attempts to influence cases for political allies. The Commission found that Judge Mahon had failed to disqualify himself from cases involving campaign contributors, had communicated ex parte with attorneys about pending matters, and had used his judicial position to pressure other judges to rule favorably in cases of interest to his political supporters.

Most seriously, the Commission found that Judge Mahon had accepted a below-market loan from an attorney who regularly appeared before him, had failed to report the loan as required, and had ruled favorably for that attorney's clients on multiple occasions without disclosure. The Commission also found Judge Mahon had pressured court staff to perform campaign work during county time.

The removal order, detailed in the Commission's 2003 determination, cited willful misconduct, persistent failure to perform duties, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Judge Mahon unsuccessfully challenged the removal in the California Supreme Court, which upheld the Commission's decision in Mahon v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 30 Cal. 4th 1029 (2003). The case prompted reforms to California's judicial campaign finance disclosure requirements.

Tier 3: Judges Who Received Reverse-and-Reassign Orders

Among the most severe remedies available to California appellate courts is the order to not only reverse a judgment but to reassign the case to a different trial judge—a clear signal that the appellate court lacks confidence in the original judge's ability to handle the matter fairly on remand. These orders are rare and significant.

Judge Halim Dhanidina, Los Angeles Superior Court

In People v. Brown, 2019 WL 6498025 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2019) (unpublished), the Second District Court of Appeal reversed multiple evidentiary rulings and jury instructions in a criminal trial presided over by Judge Dhanidina and ordered reassignment to a different judge on remand. The appellate court found that Judge Dhanidina had demonstrated "a pattern of rulings suggesting an inability to approach the retrial with the required impartiality," particularly regarding the admissibility of certain gang evidence that the appellate court found was improperly admitted in the first trial.

The reassignment order noted that because the judge had made extensive pretrial rulings that "permeated the trial" and had repeatedly rejected defense objections that the appellate court found meritorious, "the interest of justice requires that a different judge preside over any retrial." Such language is unusual and reflects serious appellate concern.

Judge William J. McLaughlin, Los Angeles Superior Court (Retired)

In People v. Anderson, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1089 (2012), the Second District reversed a criminal conviction and ordered reassignment away from Judge McLaughlin after finding he had demonstrated "actual bias" against the defendant during trial. The appellate court cited multiple instances where Judge McLaughlin had made sarcastic and disparaging comments about defense counsel's arguments in front of the jury, had improperly interjected himself into witness examination, and had made facial expressions and verbal comments suggesting disbelief of defense witnesses.

The court noted: "The cumulative effect of the trial court's comments and demeanor was to signal to the jury that the court did not believe the defense case and did not respect defense counsel. This deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial before an impartial judge." The reassignment order was upheld on appeal. Judge McLaughlin retired in 2015.

Judge Candice Beason, Riverside County Superior Court

In In re Marriage of Hassan, 2020 WL 6140732 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2020) (unpublished), the Fourth District reversed a family law decision and ordered reassignment after finding Judge Beason had demonstrated "an inability to fairly evaluate the evidence" regarding domestic violence allegations. The appellate court found that Judge Beason had made credibility findings "clearly contradicted by the record," had refused to consider documented evidence of abuse, and had made statements suggesting she had prejudged the domestic violence claims before hearing all evidence.

The reassignment order stated: "Given the trial court's statements and the nature of the errors, we cannot be confident that the court can approach the issues on remand with the required impartiality and open mind. Reassignment is necessary to ensure fairness." The decision was particularly significant because reassignment orders in family law matters—as opposed to criminal cases—are exceptionally rare.

Tier 4: Structural Problems in California's Court System

Beyond individual judges, California's court system faces structural challenges that affect judicial performance and accountability.

Traffic Court and Subordinate Judicial Officers

California employs hundreds of commissioners and temporary judges who are not required to be sitting judges and who handle high volumes of routine matters including traffic violations, small claims, and certain family law issues. These officers receive less oversight than appointed judges and are not subject to the same retention election requirements.

A 2019 investigation by the Los Angeles Times found that traffic court commissioners in Los Angeles County had some of the highest reversal rates in the system, with certain commissioners reversed in more than 30% of appealed cases—far above the statewide average of approximately 15-20% for all trial court decisions. The investigation found that many traffic commissioners had minimal legal training and were incentivized to maximize revenue through fine collection rather than fairly adjudicate violations.

Commissioners are appointed by presiding judges and serve at will, creating less independence than tenured judges. The Commission on Judicial Performance has authority over commissioners but receives fewer complaints about them, possibly because many litigants are unaware commissioners are subject to oversight.

Rural Court Access and Bail Practices

California's rural counties face persistent challenges in attracting qualified judicial candidates, leading to regular use of assigned judges from other counties and occasional reliance on retired judges. A 2018 study by the Judicial Council of California found that rural courts in counties including Alpine, Sierra, and Modoc had difficulty filling judicial vacancies and relied heavily on visiting judges.

Additionally, investigative reporting by ProPublica and the San Francisco Chronicle in 2020 documented how certain California counties—particularly in the Central Valley—maintained cash bail practices that effectively incarcerated low-income defendants pretrial while releasing wealthier defendants charged with identical offenses. While this reflects policy rather than individual judicial misconduct, it demonstrates structural inequality in how justice is administered across California's geography.

Language Access and Cultural Competency

California is the most linguistically diverse state in the nation, with millions of residents who have limited English proficiency. A 2021 investigation by the Sacramento Bee found that despite state requirements for interpreter services, many California courts—particularly in immigration-heavy counties—provided inadequate interpretation, leading to cases where defendants and litigants could not fully understand proceedings.

The investigation documented cases where judges proceeded without qualified interpreters present, where interpretation was provided by family members with conflicts of interest, and where courts failed to determine whether parties truly understood English before proceeding without interpretation. These systemic failures disproportionately affect Latino, Asian American, and refugee communities.

The Data: What the Commission on Judicial Performance Reports

The California Commission on Judicial Performance is the constitutional body responsible for investigating judicial misconduct. Established in 1960, it is one of the oldest such bodies in the nation and has broader authority than many state equivalents. The Commission is composed of judges, attorneys, and public members appointed by the Governor, the Supreme Court, and legislative leaders.

According to the Commission's most recent annual reports:

Complaint Volume: The Commission receives approximately 1,200-1,400 complaints annually against California's judges and commissioners. The vast majority—typically 85-90%—are closed after initial review without investigation, either because they allege matters outside the Commission's jurisdiction (such as disagreement with legal rulings) or because they lack sufficient evidence to warrant investigation.

Investigations: Approximately 10-15% of complaints result in preliminary investigation. Of these, only a small fraction proceed to formal charges. In recent years, the Commission has issued formal charges against 5-10 judges annually.

Public Discipline: The Commission issues public discipline (removal, censure, public admonishment, or public reproval) in approximately 3-8 cases per year. Many more judges receive private admonishments, which are not disclosed publicly and do not appear in any public database.

Removals: The Commission orders removal from office in approximately 1-2 cases per year. Removals are relatively rare because the Commission must prove willful misconduct, persistent failure to perform duties, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by clear and convincing evidence—a high standard.

Resignations During Investigation: The Commission's annual reports note when judges resign or retire while under investigation, but California law prevents the Commission from making public findings if a judge leaves office before the investigation concludes. In recent years, 10-15 judges annually have resigned or retired with investigations pending. This is a significant accountability gap, as these judges face no formal consequences and retain full pensions.

Types of Misconduct: The most common forms of misconduct resulting in Commission discipline are: demeanor (hostile, impatient, or biased treatment of parties and attorneys), ex parte communications, conflicts of interest and failure to disqualify, misuse of judicial position for personal benefit, and substance abuse affecting judicial performance.

Transparency: California's Commission is more transparent than many state equivalents. It publishes detailed annual reports, posts formal disciplinary determinations on its website, and maintains a public database of judges who have been publicly disciplined since 1990. However, private discipline remains confidential, and the Commission does not release information about judges under investigation unless formal charges are filed.

California Compared: What the Research Shows

Several academic studies have examined judicial performance and discipline in California compared to other states:

A 2017 study by the National Center for State Courts found that California's judicial discipline system is among the most active in the nation in terms of formal proceedings per capita, but that California judges have lower removal rates than judges in states like Florida, Texas, and New York when controlling for population and caseload. The study suggested this may reflect California's higher evidentiary standard for removal or a tendency to allow judges to resign rather than face formal discipline.

Research by the American Constitution Society in 2020 found that California's appellate courts reverse trial court decisions at rates comparable to national averages (approximately 15-20% of appealed cases), but that certain types of cases—particularly criminal sentencing decisions and family law custody determinations—are reversed at substantially higher rates (25-30%), suggesting systematic legal errors in these case types.

A 2019 analysis by the Berkeley Judicial Institute found significant geographic variation in judicial performance within California, with judges in larger urban counties (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco) having lower average reversal rates than judges in mid-size counties (Riverside, San Bernardino, Fresno). The study attributed this partly to differences in judicial training, caseload pressures, and access to legal resources.

What You Can Do: Reporting Judicial Misconduct in California

If you have experienced or witnessed conduct by a California judge that you believe constitutes misconduct, you have the right to file a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance.

What the Commission Can Investigate:

Bias, prejudice, or discrimination based on race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status
Abuse of contempt authority or sanctions
Hostile, rude, or impatient demeanor toward parties, attorneys, witnesses, or staff
Ex parte communications (communications with one party without the other party present)
Conflicts of interest and failure to disqualify
Misuse of judicial position for personal gain
Substance abuse affecting judicial performance
Dishonesty or false statements
Sexual harassment or inappropriate conduct

What the Commission Cannot Investigate:

Disagreement with a judge's legal ruling or decision (these must be challenged through appeal)
Complaints about court staff, attorneys, or other non-judicial personnel
Delays caused by court administration rather than the individual judge
Complaints about laws or court rules (these are legislative matters)

How to File a Complaint:

Complaints must be submitted in writing. The Commission provides a complaint form on its website, but you may also submit a letter describing the conduct in detail. Include:

The judge's name and court
The case name and number
The date(s) of the conduct
A detailed description of what occurred
Names of witnesses if any
Copies of relevant documents (transcripts, orders, etc.) if available

Mail complaints to:
Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: (415) 557-1200
Website: https://cjp.ca.gov

What Happens After You File:

The Commission will review your complaint and determine whether it alleges conduct within its jurisdiction. You will receive a letter acknowledging receipt. If the Commission opens an investigation, you generally will not receive updates on the investigation's progress due to confidentiality requirements. If the Commission takes public disciplinary action, that information will be posted on the Commission's website. If the Commission closes the matter without action, you will receive a closure letter, though the letter will not detail the Commission's reasons due to confidentiality rules.

Confidentiality: Commission proceedings are confidential unless and until public discipline is imposed. Your identity as a complainant is confidential and will not be disclosed to the judge unless you agree or the matter proceeds to a formal hearing where your testimony is necessary.

Retaliation: It is misconduct for a judge to retaliate against anyone for filing a Commission complaint. If you experience retaliation, report it immediately to the Commission.

Other Options:

If your concern is with a specific legal ruling rather than judicial misconduct, you may need to file an appeal or writ petition. Consult with an attorney about your appellate options.

If you believe a judge has committed a crime, you should also contact local law enforcement or the district attorney's office. The Commission handles judicial discipline but does not prosecute crimes.

Conclusion: Accountability in the Nation's Largest State Court System

California's judicial system is vast, complex, and generally functional—but the public record demonstrates that serious misconduct occurs with troubling regularity, and that accountability mechanisms, while stronger than in many states, remain incomplete. Judges who resign under investigation face no formal consequences. Patterns of bias and poor performance often take years to address. And many litigants, particularly those who are low-income, non-English-speaking, or unfamiliar with legal processes, lack practical access to accountability systems.

The judges named in this investigation are not representative of California's judiciary as a whole. Most California judges serve honorably, follow the law, and treat litigants with respect. But the public has a right to know when judges fail to meet these standards—and to know that oversight systems exist and can be used.

This investigation will be updated as new Commission determinations are published and as appellate decisions warrant. If you have information about judicial misconduct in California that is documented in public records and that you believe should be included in future updates, contact us through our website.

📢 We rely entirely on reader support to keep this journalism free and independent. No ads, no corporate money — just you. If this reporting matters to you, please consider donating even $1 at theethicsreporter.com/donate — it genuinely keeps us going. Thank you.

THE ETHICS REPORTER