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 | Robin L. |
| Last Name | Wolfe |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Tulare |
| Discipline/Determination | Public Admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 12/16/2025 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Abuse of contempt/sanctions 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 | |
| Summary | Judge Wolfe engaged in numerous acts of serious misconduct. Without authority, Judge Wolfe ordered a court employee to personally appear before her and threatened the employee with monetary sanctions. She also summoned another court employee to her courtroom to admonish her and directed her to apologize to a litigant. Judge Wolfe implemented blanket policies regarding cell phone possession that were contrary to local court rules. She improperly confiscated a litigant’s cell phone and retained possession of it until the end of the court day. Judge Wolfe also excluded domestic violence support persons from counsel table and refused a reasonable ADA accommodation request from a litigant. Judge Wolfe’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that it had a detrimental effect on both professional relationships with family court services staff and court administration, and on litigants. |
| Documents | [ DECISION ] |