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 | James A. |
| Last Name | Kaddo |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Los Angeles |
| Discipline/Determination | Public Admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 07/15/2025 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff Bias/appearance of bias toward a particular class Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class Demeanor/decorum Miscellaneous off-bench conduct |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | The commission publicly admonished former Judge Kaddo for misconduct in which he engaged over a six-year period. Judge Kaddo engaged in a pattern of discourteous, undignified, and impatient behavior directed at potential jurors, attorneys, and parties. In some instances, the judge also conveyed the appearance of embroilment and bias on the basis of gender, sex, race, national origin, or ethnicity. Judge Kaddo’s misconduct included addressing women who appeared before him as “young lady,” “lady,” “this lady,” “these ladies,” and “ma’am,” when he did not use similar terms to address men. Judge Kaddo also implied that women were too emotional by discussing their “feelings” and telling them to “control” themselves. Judge Kaddo also made intemperate and discourteous comments to potential jurors. Judge Kaddo further became embroiled with parties and attorneys, inappropriately argued with counsel, raised his voice on multiple occasions, and made discourteous comments (including telling a litigant to “shut up”). Judge Kaddo’s misconduct was aggravated by a prior private admonishment from 2023 and another private admonishment from 2004. |
| Documents | [ DECISION ] |