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 | Derek W. |
| Last Name | Hunt |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | N/A |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Orange |
| Discipline/Determination | Public Admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 08/31/2023 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Bias/appearance of bias toward a particular class Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class Demeanor/decorum Ex parte communications |
| Petition For Review | N/A |
| Summary | Judge Hunt engaged in misconduct in three separate civil actions. In the first matter, Judge Hunt made remarks that were discourteous, gave the appearance of bias and prejudgment, and violated his duties to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants and lawyers. Judge Hunt also made remarks that gave the appearance that he was embroiled in the matter and had prejudged the case. In the second matter, after the Court of Appeal had vacated an order that Judge Hunt had issued, Judge Hunt engaged in an improper ex parte communication by sending an email to a Court of Appeal justice about the case. The email created the impression that Judge Hunt was embroiled in the case. In the third matter, Judge Hunt abused his authority and discretion by intentionally disregarding the law and disregarding a litigant’s due process rights to a trial on the merits. Judge Hunt also made remarks that gave the appearance of bias against the litigant and of prejudgment of the merits of the underlying action. Judge Hunt’s recent prior discipline was a significantly aggravating factor. In July 2022, the commission issued a public admonishment to Judge Hunt, in part, for misconduct similar to the misconduct at issue herein. Judge Hunt’s misconduct was also aggravated by an advisory letter that he received in 2009. |
| Documents |