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 | Tony R. |
| Last Name | Mallery |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 208 |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Lassen |
| Discipline/Determination | Removal from office |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 05/02/2024 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff Bias/appearance of bias toward a particular class Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Failure to cooperate/lack of candor with regulatory authorities Sexual harassment/inappropriate workplace gender comments |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Judge Mallery was removed from office for 23 acts of willful misconduct and 36 acts of prejudicial misconduct. Judge Mallery engaged in a course of misconduct over a significant period of time. Judge Mallery’s misconduct reflected a troubling inability to conform his behavior to appropriate judicial standards and a lack of understanding of what being a judge requires. Among other misconduct, Judge Mallery interfered with the investigation of his misconduct by retaliating against witnesses and discouraging witnesses from cooperating with the investigation of his misconduct. Judge Mallery’s misconduct was aggravated by his intentional misrepresentations and fabrication while testifying during the proceedings, in his verified answer, and in his responses to investigation letters. Such conduct demonstrated that Judge Mallery lacked the essential qualification of honesty required of a judge. |
| Documents | [ NOTICE ] [ ANSWER ] [ FIRST AMENDED NOTICE ] [ ANSWER TO AMENDED NOTICE] [ DECISION AND ORDER] |