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 | Richard A. |
| Last Name | Vlavianos |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | N/A |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | San Joaquin |
| Discipline/Determination | Censure |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 02/08/2023 |
| Method of Resolution | Stipulation |
| Types of Misconduct | Demeanor/decorum Failure to ensure rights Improper business, financial or fiduciary activities Misuse of court resources |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Judge Vlavianos engaged in several acts of misconduct in connection with the promotion of a nonprofit that he formed. After forming the nonprofit, he served as its Board Chair and Chief Executive Officer. Judge Vlavianos improperly used the prestige of office to promote the nonprofit. He also used a report commissioned by the court to benefit the nonprofit. He created the appearance that he was working in association with private industry affiliates who stood to benefit from the success of the nonprofit. He compounded this misconduct by misleading court employees to induce their participation in an event to benefit the nonprofit and by engaging in prevarication in discussing the nonprofit with his court’s presiding judge and assistant presiding judge. Judge Vlavianos engaged in several other acts of misconduct. He failed to fully apprise criminal defendants of their rights, creating the effect of coercing the defendants into participating in treatment court. Judge Vlavianos made remarks to defendants that created the appearance of bias, failed to safeguard the constitutional right to counsel for an unrepresented criminal defendant, improperly threatened a deputy public defender with contempt, and exhibited poor demeanor toward a deputy district attorney. In addition, he engaged in improper ex parte communications about, and embroiled himself with, two parole re-entry court defendants, and engaged in another improper ex parte communication with court staff about a criminal defendant. |
| Documents | [ DECISION ] |