Public Decisions Database
This database contains decisions on all public judicial disciplinary cases since the inception of the commission in 1960. Cases not involving public charges or public discipline remain confidential under the California Constitution and the commission’s rules.
Pursuant to amendments to the Constitution, which took effect in March 1995, the commission is authorized to impose all disciplinary sanctions, subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court. Prior to that, the Supreme Court had the authority to censure or remove judges from office upon recommendation by the commission.
Case Profile
New Search| First Name | Steven C. |
| Last Name | Bailey |
| Title | Former Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 202 |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | El Dorado |
| Discipline/Determination | Censure and Bar |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 02/27/2019 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Bias/appearance of bias toward a particular class Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Improper political activities |
| Petition For Review | Denied 07/31/19 |
| Summary | The commission censured and barred former Judge Bailey for (1) allowing a business to use his testimonial on its website without assuring that it did not use his judicial title; (2) ordering five defendants to use an alcohol monitoring service without disclosing that (i) his son worked for the company and (ii) a friend owned the company, and ordering a defendant to pay “restitution” to the company, contrary to the law and based on a letter from his son; (3) appointing a friend as a special master without disclosing his friendship with that attorney; (4) receiving gifts from CASA, the attorney he had appointed as a special master, and a law school; (5) failing to accurately report travel-related reimbursements for attending judicial education programs; (6) making stereotypical comments in the courthouse about gay men; (7) while continuing to serve as a judge, running for California Attorney General and using his judicial title in connection with his campaign; (8) failing to file a candidate intention statement until after his campaign had received campaign contributions, in violation of the Political Reform Act; and (9) permitting a campaign coordinator to use his judicial title on the Facebook page for his campaign for Attorney General and in posts on her law firm’s Facebook page that promoted his candidacy. |
| Documents | [ NOTICE ] [ ANSWER ] [ AMENDED NOTICE ] [ AMENDED ANSWER ] [ DECISION ] |