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 | Alan H. |
| Last Name | Friedenthal |
| Title | Commissioner |
| Inquiry No. | |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Los Angeles |
| Discipline/Determination | Public Admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 04/03/2012 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Demeanor/decorum Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties Ex parte communications |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | The commissioner’s misconduct included making discourteous, undignified, gratuitous and denigrating remarks to litigants, attorneys and related parties, and attempting to engage in humor at the expense of litigants. The commissioner also repeatedly brought up in court complaints about him that litigants had filed with the court. He also commented on internet postings by litigants about his handling of cases. The commission determined that this conduct reflected embroilment and conveyed the appearance of bias and, in some instances, constituted improper ex parte communication. The commissioner also was disciplined for independently investigating facts and for failing to disclose on the record information that was reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification. |
| Documents |