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 | Robert A. |
| Last Name | Schnider |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Los Angeles |
| Discipline/Determination | Public admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 08/31/2009 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Former Judge Schnider was the Family Law Supervising Judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007. His duties included the supervision of then-Commissioner Ann Dobbs, a commissioner in the Family Law Department. As her supervisor, Judge Schnider was aware that Commissioner Dobbs was not deciding all of her cases in a timely manner, but failed to take sufficient action to ensure that she did so in violation of canon 3C(3) of the Code of Judicial Ethics , which requires judges with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other judges and commissioners to take reasonable measures to ensure the prompt disposition of matters before them. Between 2005 and 2007, the court’s monthly Cases Under Submission Reports identified 34 of Commissioner Dobbs’s cases as being in the 30 to 60 day category. In violation of Rules of Court rule 10.603 (c)(3), Judge Schnider failed to contact Commissioner Dobbs to discuss ways to ensure that the cases were timely decided. As to the 33 cases that the Cases Under Submission Reports listed as being in the 60 to 90 day category between 2005 and 2007, Judge Schnider accepted repeated assurances from the commissioner without verification that the cases had been decided or that the submission dates were erroneous or had been vacated. While Judge Schnider reduced the commissioner’s workload, the commissioner’s cases were still not completed on time. Judge Schnider gave the commissioner time off to complete cases but took no action to determine whether she decided any cases during that time. In 2007, Judge Schnider became aware that several of Commissioner Dobbs’s cases had not been decided within 90 days but were not listed on the court’s Cases Under Submission Reports. Judge Schnider took no action to determine why the cases were not being reported. Judge Schnider also failed to promptly respond to at least three complaints from family law litigants about Commissioner Dobbs’s delays as required by Rules of Court rule 10. The commission concluded that Judge Schnider was seriously derelict in discharging his duty to supervise Commissioner Dobbs and demonstrated a disregard for the concerns of litigants who complained about their delayed cases. Judge Schnider’s failure to properly discharge his supervisorial responsibility resulted in significant financial and emotional harm to family law litigants and seriously undermined the integrity of the judiciary. |
| Documents | [ DECISION ] |