The commission’s Annual Report is published in the first quarter of the calendar year. The report provides comprehensive information on the commission’s authority and procedures and contains statistical data on commission cases and summaries of disciplinary action. Annual reports from 2000 to 2020 are available on this website.
Summary of Discipline Statistics 1990-2009
In 2002, the Commission on Judicial Performance released a 10-year summary of discipline statistics for the period 1990 to 1999, which was unprecedented nationally.
In June 2012, the commission issued a new report covering twenty years of judicial discipline that is likewise without precedent. Both reports were undertaken by the commission in order to afford the judiciary and the public greater information about the commission’s work, much of which is confidential under the California Constitution and the rules governing the commission.
The new report entitled “Summary of Discipline Statistics 1990 – 2009” provides statistical information on the incidence of discipline for California trial court judges as related to factors such as the judge’s age, the judge’s gender, the number of years of judicial service, the size of the judge’s court, the judge’s disciplinary history, whether the judge was initially appointed or elected to office, and the type of misconduct for which the judge was disciplined. The report covers all cases in which public or private discipline was imposed on judges during the period from 1990 through 2009.
If you would like a copy of the commission’s Annual Report or Summary of Discipline Statistics, please contact the commission office.
The commission has prepared compilations of private and public discipline for different types of judicial misconduct over the years for educational purposes. Each compendium contains case summaries of judicial misconduct involving the following groups, misconduct type or other factor: Prosecutors; Public Defenders and Other Criminal Defense Counsel; Self-Represented Litigants; Court Employees; Court Interpreters; Presiding Judges and Supervising Judges’ Duties; Political or Campaign Activity; Bias: Ethnicity, Nationality, Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation; Technology.
The commission’s response to a report by Court Reform LLC corrects the report’s statistics and analysis.