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 | David M. |
| Last Name | Kennick |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 72 |
| Court Level | Municipal Court |
| County/Appellate District | Los Angeles |
| Discipline/Determination | Removal from office |
| Decision By | Supreme Court |
| Date of Decision | 03/08/1990 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class Demeanor/decorum Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Failure to cooperate/lack of candor with regulatory authorities Failure to ensure rights Gifts/loans/favors/ticket-fixing Miscellaneous off-bench conduct Non-performance of judicial functions/attendance/sleeping Off-bench abuse of office/misuse of court information |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Judge Kennick was removed from office for persistent failure to perform judicial duties: he had not worked for a substantial period of time in the years leading up to the commission’s proceedings, he had stopped working without explanation, and he was not working at the time of his testimony in the proceedings. The judge was also censured for his refusal to cooperate with police officers after being arrested for drunk driving, his abusive behavior toward a deputy district attorney, for treating witnesses in a demeaning and discourteous manner, for favoring two attorneys, one of whom he owned property with, in his appointments of counsel, and for improperly suggesting to a waitress in a restaurant that she should not worry about her drunk driving arrest. |
| Documents |