California CJP: Judge Robert Draper Willful Misconduct Removal Ordered

• The California Commission on Judicial Performance ordered the removal of LA County Superior Court Judge Robert Draper for extensive misconduct.
• Judge Draper was found to have committed nine instances of willful misconduct, eight of prejudicial misconduct, and one improper action.
• Key willful misconduct included an ex parte communication and presiding over a disqualification hearing after his own recusal.
• Prejudicial misconduct involved inappropriate racial comments to a Black attorney and sexual remarks to female attorneys.
• The commission cited Judge Draper's lack of remorse and candor as aggravating factors in its decision.

Once a judge has recused from a case, that recusal is irrevocable, and the judge possesses no authority to take further action in the matter.

The California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) has ordered the removal of Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert Draper from his judicial post, citing numerous instances of misconduct, including inappropriate racial and sexual comments. In its 87-page decision, the commission found that Judge Draper, 84, engaged in nine instances of willful misconduct, eight instances of prejudicial misconduct, and one instance of improper action, following a six-day evidentiary hearing this year.

The CJP emphasized that Judge Draper persistently violated established standards for judicial behavior, engaging in extensive and severe misconduct. The commission noted that his actions indicated either a concerning lack of familiarity with ethical precepts or an unwillingness to adhere to them. Furthermore, his refusal to accept responsibility, coupled with a lack of insight or remorse for the impact of his actions on others, and a lack of candor during the proceedings, significantly aggravated the findings against him.

Among the specific findings, the CJP highlighted a February 2023 post-trial hearing in a sexual harassment case where a Black attorney made her initial appearance. Judge Draper launched into an unprovoked and rambling discourse on Black football players and the history of race relations in the South. While his comments on skin tone, miscegenation, Black football quarterbacks, and Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act efforts were deemed irrelevant and gratuitous, they were classified as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, rather than willful misconduct.

Similarly, comments made by Judge Draper to two female attorneys in his chambers, referencing a crude remark about secretaries at his former law firm, also constituted prejudicial misconduct. However, the commission identified two particularly egregious instances of willful misconduct: first, an ex parte communication with another lawyer in the case where Judge Draper falsely claimed the CJP had requested a review of his handling of the sexual harassment trial. Second, after recusing himself from the case in March 2023, he improperly presided over a subsequent disqualification hearing and threatened to refer the attorneys who sought his disqualification to the state bar. The CJP explicitly stated that once a judge has recused from a case, that recusal is irrevocable, and the judge possesses no authority to take further action in the matter.

The CJP's decision underscores the strict standards of judicial conduct, particularly concerning impartiality and the limits of judicial recusal authority. Judge Draper's ex parte communication, where he misrepresented CJP involvement, represents a serious breach of the ethical requirement for judges to avoid unauthorized communications about pending cases. This type of communication undermines the integrity of the judicial process and can create an appearance of impropriety.

The most severe finding of willful misconduct stemmed from Judge Draper's actions following his recusal. The California Commission on Judicial Performance firmly asserted that his decision to preside over a disqualification hearing after having already recused himself demonstrated bad faith, as he was aware he no longer held power to make rulings in the matter. This violation highlights critical California judicial ethics violations and the importance of adhering to established procedures for judicial disqualification, ensuring that judicial officers do not overstep their authority once they have withdrawn from a case.

Beyond the courtroom, Judge Draper's misconduct extended to other unprofessional behaviors. The commission cited instances where he interacted in a demeaning manner with a female presiding judge and female court personnel. Further demonstrating a disregard for ethical boundaries, he sent a group email to colleagues, retired judges, and CJP staff that included confidential juvenile dependency records containing photographs of naked minors.

Additionally, another email he circulated contained a photograph of himself taken from behind, without clothing. These actions collectively paint a picture of a judge who consistently failed to uphold the dignity and decorum expected of his office, reinforcing the CJP's conclusion that his misconduct was extensive and severe, warranting his removal.

This case underscores the strict standards of judicial conduct regarding impartiality, ex parte communications, and proper recusal procedures. Lawyers should be aware of these boundaries and the potential for severe consequences for judges who violate them, which can impact case integrity and client representation.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News