violating ethical canons when he
refused in a dissent he wrote last year to follow a Supreme Court precedent. His action
violated two separate canons of the Code of Judicial Ethics requiring judges to
respect and comply with the law and be faithful to the law, the
The allegations mark the first time a judge has faced discipline for
a legal opinion.
The charges stem from Klines refusal last December to vote for a motion to grant
a stipulated reversal, a controversial Supreme Court precedent which permits litigants to
settle a case after a jury has already decided in favor of one of them.
Matter of conscience
Kline, a critic of stipulated reversals who has testified in Sacramento in favor of
reversing the Supreme Court decision, wrote in his dissent in Morrow v. Hood
Communications Inc. that as a matter of conscience he could not apply the
precedent because it is destructive to judicial institutions.
That precedent was established in 1992, when the Supreme Court approved an unusual
settlement in Neary v. Regents of the University of California, which permitted UC to pay
a Chico rancher $3 million if he agreed to wipe off the books a $7 million jury award he
The U.S. Supreme Court banned those types of settlements in federal courts in 1994, and
the California Judges Association supported legislation to overturn the Neary decision the
same year. Gov. Wilson vetoed the bill.
In a nine-page letter to the commission in March, Kline, 59, wrote, I believe the
doctrine for which Neary stands--which permits a party with the necessary economic means
to purchase the reversal of an adverse judgment not shown to be erroneous--undermines the
integrity of the judicial branch of government, because it converts the judgment of a
court of law into a commodity that can be bought and sold . . . . I feel morally and
intellectually obligated to resist the doctrine and to urge our Supreme Court to repudiate
it, as has the Supreme Court of the United States.
At the same time, however, Kline noted, as he did in the Morrow dissent, that while he
will refuse to apply the Neary rule when asked to by litigants, I will of course
comply with an order of the California Supreme Court to grant a particular request for
stipulated reversal, which he characterized as a ministerial act.
Kline also said that if he committed an error (which he does not concede), errors of
law cannot be a basis for judicial discipline.
Thats where the mistake is, agreed Kelso. It seems a
substantial overreaction to take one paragraph in a well-done dissent and to say that by
writing that, youve committed misconduct.
Kelso believes the fact that Kline acknowledged a doctrine but said he would not
acquiesce to it is what caught the commissions attention. Some legal experts say
that amounts to a refusal to uphold the law.
Fresno Superior Court Judge Dwayne Keyes, president of the California Judges
Association, said the issue becomes complicated at the appellate level. For a trial
court judge to say I wont follow the law, I think that judge is in
trouble, Keyes said. But it takes on a different look when its a
minority opinion in an appellate decision.
Kelso characterized the notion that judges should always follow the law as a
simplistic syllogism. A bigger question, he said, is, what is the law?
The Neary doctrine, he pointed out, is a judicially created rule which has been
subjected to substantial criticism and rejected by most scholars. The law changes,
particularly when youre talking about a court-made rule, he said.
Judges in several courts throughout the state, including San Francisco, Alameda, Los
Angeles and San Diego, have registered their objections to the disciplinary charges.
In an unusual move, ABA President Jerome Shestack wrote to CJP director Victoria Henley
asking that the investigation be dropped.
It is difficult to understand how a reasoned, measured, rational dissent can
become the subject of a disciplinary inquiry, Shestack wrote.
He also expressed concern about the chilling effect of the inquiry.
It is possible that judges across the state will hesitate to express dissent on
controversial matters because of the threat of similar inquiry, he wrote. This
unnatural limit on judicial thinking does a disservice to the public and to the tradition
of judicial independence.
Lawmakers in Sacramento reacted by reopening a hearing on Sen. Quentin Kopps
so-called bill of rights for judges, which had drawn the commissions opposition. The
Assembly Judiciary Committee had passed a scaled-back version of the bill, but decided to
reconsider after the action against Kline was announced.
Kopp, no fan of Klines, wants to protect judges from investigation or discipline
for a judicial decision, whether oral or written, rendered in good faith. A hearing was
scheduled for July 28.
Henley could not be reached for comment.
Political charges levied
Because of a perception that it did not adequately discipline errant judges, CJP was
reconstituted by Proposition 190 to include six public members, three judges and two
attorneys. Each is appointed by either the governor, the legislature or the Supreme Court.
Because the majority of panel members are Republicans and Kline is a well-known liberal
judge who once served as former Gov. Jerry Browns judicial appointments secretary,
some observers wondered how political the commissions action was. In addition, its
vote on the Kline matter was confidential, leaving those questions unanswered.
I have no reason to believe theres politics behind any of this, said
Kelso, who favors more open proceedings.
No response allowed
The secrecy of its deliberations has essentially disabled the commission, he added,
because it cannot respond to the criticism.
Kline had 20 days after the charges were filed to respond. The commission may request
the Supreme Court to appoint three special masters to hear the matter and make a
recommendation to the commission.
Kline could be censured, suspended or removed from the bench.