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 | Jeffrey W. |
| Last Name | Johnson |
| Title | Justice |
| Inquiry No. | 204 |
| Court Level | Court of Appeal |
| County/Appellate District | Second Appellate District |
| Discipline/Determination | Removal from office |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 06/02/2020 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff Demeanor/decorum Miscellaneous Off-Bench Conduct Sexual harassment/inappropriate workplace gender comments |
| Petition For Review | Denied 01/27/21 |
| Summary | Justice Johnson engaged in the unwanted touching of four women; engaged in conduct that would reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment of seven women at his court; misused the prestige of his position and demeaned his judicial office by attempting to develop personal relationships with three other women, and further demeaned his office by his offensive conduct toward a fourth woman, as well as by multiple incidents of undignified conduct (including conduct at the courthouse for the Court of Appeal) while intoxicated; and displayed poor demeanor to coworkers and made a disparaging remark about judicial colleagues. Justice Johnson’s misconduct was aggravated by his lack of candor throughout the commission proceedings. The commission found that Justice Johnson “testified untruthfully in many instances.” As a result of his misconduct and his lack of candor during the course of the proceedings, the commission concluded that Justice Johnson “cannot meet the fundamental expectations of his position as a judge.” |
| Documents | [ THIRD AMENDED NOTICE ] [ ANSWER ] [ ANSWER FIRST AMENDED NOTICE ] [ ANSWER SECOND AMENDED NOTICE ] [ ANSWER THIRD AMENDED NOTICE ] [ DECISION ] |