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 | Barbara L. |
| Last Name | Roberts |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | N/A |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Butte |
| Discipline/Determination | Public Admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 02/18/2021 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class Demeanor/decorum On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties |
| Petition For Review | N/A |
| Summary | The commission publicly admonished Judge Roberts for misconduct on the bench and in the courthouse. Judge Roberts engaged in a pattern of poor demeanor in multiple dependency cases over which she presided in 2019 and 2020. This misconduct included treating parents, attorneys, and a social worker in a harsh and discourteous manner. Judge Roberts also abused her authority and became embroiled in a case. The commission also found that, on one day in January 2020, Judge Roberts yelled at court staff and engaged in a display of impatient and frustrated behavior in the clerk’s office, in an adjoining internal court hallway, and in her chambers. The next day, again while in chambers, the judge treated another judge discourteously by raising her voice during a conversation with that judge. Judge Roberts stated that she had employed a “tough love” approach to litigants in dependency cases. The commission, however, found that belittling and demeaning litigants is not appropriate in any court, and that such conduct violates the canons. |
| Documents |