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 | Marion E. |
| Last Name | Gubler |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 54 |
| Court Level | Municipal Court |
| County/Appellate District | Los Angeles |
| Discipline/Determination | Censure |
| Decision By | Supreme Court |
| Date of Decision | 10/01/1984 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Abuse of contempt/sanctions Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Gifts/loans/favors/ticket-fixing On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Judge Gubler routinely ordered repeated appearances by defendants for the sole purpose of collection of fee orders. The judge caused fee orders to appear to be conditions of probation and ordered fees payable out of posted bail, even though part or all of a fine thereby remained unsatisfied. He also made fees payable ahead of fines for the purposes of prolonging the availability of sanctions for nonpayment of the fine and creating the impression that such sanctions could also be used for nonpayment of fees. In one case, the judge doubled the public defender fees of one defendant because of irritation at the public defender’s objections to the judge’s entering the fee order on the probation order, and in other cases, the judge knowingly assessed unreasonable attorney fees. He also gave unsolicited advice to a court who was presiding over a case from which the judge had been disqualified. The judge also authorized the release of guns for sale by the defendants from whom the guns had been confiscated. |
| Documents |