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 | Paul E. |
| Last Name | Zellerbach |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Riverside |
| Discipline/Determination | Public Admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 11/03/2011 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class Demeanor/decorum Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Improper political activities Off-bench abuse of office/misuse of court information |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | During a hearing on March 18, 2009, the judge made disparaging comments about the district attorney’s office and referred to the executive division of the district attorney’s office under Mr. Pacheco’s management as a “PR firm,” which gave the appearance of bias. The commission further found that Judge Zellerbach failed to disclose on the record at that hearing that he was actively considering running for district attorney against Mr. Pacheco. Judge Zellerbach was also admonished by the commission for his continuing to preside over criminal cases being handled by the district attorney’s office until at least February 11, 2010, without disclosing on the record that he had decided to run and was seeking endorsements and other support for his campaign. The judge was also admonished for improper political activity for a presentation by the judge to the local DA’s association in which he encouraged them to wait to decide whom to endorse until they saw who, other than the current DA, might run. The commission also admonished the judge for allowing his judicial title to be used in a series of fundraising events, after he returned to judicial office. |
| Documents |