Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Griego Publicly Admonished for Judicial Misconduct and Courtroom Demeanor
The California Commission on Judicial Performance has issued a public admonishment of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Griego, marking the second time the veteran jurist has faced formal disciplinary action from the state’s judicial oversight body. The decision, reached by a nine-member majority of the commission, stems from a series of incidents in 2024 involving what the commission characterized as disparaging remarks, unprofessional courtroom conduct, and a failure to adhere to administrative responsibilities. This disciplinary action highlights the rigorous standards of conduct expected of judicial officers in the nation’s largest trial court system and underscores the commission’s commitment to maintaining public confidence in the impartiality and dignity of the bench.
Summary of the Commission’s Findings
The California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) focused its investigation on four specific proceedings that took place in 2024. According to the commission’s report, Judge Griego’s behavior during these sessions fell significantly short of the standards mandated by the California Code of Judicial Ethics. The findings detailed a pattern of behavior that was described as impatient, undignified, and discourteous.
Among the specific instances cited by the commission were repeated interruptions of litigants who were attempting to answer the judge’s own questions. In one notable interaction involving a self-represented (pro se) litigant, Judge Griego reportedly made disparaging and "gratuitous" remarks regarding a separate legal matter not currently before him. The commission noted that Griego told the litigant that their other case was "worthless," a comment deemed unnecessary and harmful to the perception of judicial neutrality.
Furthermore, the commission found that Judge Griego’s courtroom management was marred by abrupt departures. On at least one occasion, the judge reportedly left the bench in the middle of active proceedings without explanation, leaving the parties and court staff in a state of confusion. In another instance, the commission highlighted a lack of professional decorum when Griego instructed a courtroom employee to "talk to the woman," referring to a female litigant in a manner that the commission found dismissive and disrespectful.
Administrative Failures and Procedural Misconduct
Beyond the judge’s demeanor in the courtroom, the CJP also found that Judge Griego committed misconduct in his administrative duties. This finding was primarily based on his failure to respond to a preliminary investigation letter sent by the commission in May 2024. Under the rules governing judicial discipline, judges are required to cooperate with the commission’s inquiries. A failure to provide a timely response is often viewed as an additional layer of misconduct, as it hinders the state’s ability to oversee the judiciary effectively.
The Metropolitan News-Enterprise, which provided extensive coverage of the proceedings, reported that the commission viewed this lack of responsiveness as a serious breach of the judge’s professional obligations. The commission’s decision to issue a public admonishment—a more severe sanction than a private advisory letter—was influenced by this combination of courtroom behavioral issues and administrative negligence.
The Defense: Medication and Mitigating Circumstances
In his response to the commission’s investigation, Judge Thomas J. Griego did not entirely dispute the accounts of his behavior but offered a defense based on medical circumstances. Griego argued that his demeanor in court was influenced by prescribed medication he was taking at the time. He suggested that the side effects of this medication contributed to his irritability, impatience, and the overall tone of his interactions with litigants.
While the commission acknowledges medical issues as potential mitigating factors in some disciplinary cases, the California Code of Judicial Ethics maintains that the burden of maintaining a professional temperament rests with the judge. Canon 3B(4) of the Code specifically states: "A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity." The commission’s decision to proceed with a public admonishment suggests that the medical defense was insufficient to excuse the repeated nature of the violations and the impact they had on the parties involved.
A History of Disciplinary Action
This is not the first time Judge Griego has come under the scrutiny of the Commission on Judicial Performance. Griego, who has served on the Los Angeles Superior Court since 2014, previously received an advisory letter in 2017. That earlier discipline was rooted in a different set of ethical breaches.
In the 2017 incident, Judge Griego was found to have conducted an independent investigation of the scene of a traffic accident that was relevant to a case before him. This action violated the prohibition against "ex parte" investigations—actions where a judge gathers information outside the presence of the parties or their counsel. Furthermore, Griego failed to disclose his receipt of this ex parte information and did not disqualify himself from the case despite the potential for bias.
The transition from a private advisory letter in 2017 to a public admonishment in 2024 represents an escalation in disciplinary severity. Under the California system, the CJP utilizes a graduated scale of discipline:
- Advisory Letter: A private notice to a judge that their conduct was improper but does not warrant formal charges.
- Private Admonishment: A private formal warning.
- Public Admonishment: A formal public statement detailing the judge’s misconduct.
- Public Censure: A more severe public condemnation, often including a recommendation for removal.
- Removal from Office: The ultimate sanction, stripping the judge of their position.
The move to a public admonishment signifies that the commission views Griego’s recent conduct as part of a concerning pattern that warrants public transparency and accountability.
The Impact on Self-Represented Litigants
Legal experts and judicial watchdogs have noted that Judge Griego’s treatment of self-represented litigants is particularly concerning. In the Los Angeles Superior Court—the largest trial court in the United States—thousands of individuals navigate the legal system every year without the assistance of an attorney. These "pro se" litigants are often at a disadvantage, and the presiding judge plays a critical role in ensuring they receive a fair hearing.
When a judge interrupts, disparages, or dismisses a self-represented litigant’s concerns, it can have a chilling effect on the individual’s right to access justice. The commission’s mention of Griego calling a litigant’s separate case "worthless" is viewed as a breach of the duty to remain impartial. Such remarks can lead a litigant to believe that the court has already decided against them, regardless of the evidence presented.
The Role of the Commission on Judicial Performance
The California Commission on Judicial Performance is an independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity. The commission is composed of 11 members: three judges, two attorneys, and six public members. This diverse makeup is intended to ensure that the judiciary is held accountable not only by its peers but also by the public it serves.
In the case of Judge Griego, the vote for public admonishment was nearly unanimous, with nine members supporting the measure. This consensus reflects the commission’s view that the integrity of the courtroom must be preserved through visible and decisive action when a judge fails to meet the ethical requirements of the bench.
The commission’s findings in the Griego case serve as a reminder of the "judicial temperament" required of all officers of the court. This temperament is defined by a combination of patience, open-mindedness, and a commitment to the procedural rights of all parties. The commission noted that when a judge fails to display these qualities, it erodes the moral authority of the court’s rulings.
Broader Implications for the Los Angeles Judiciary
The public admonishment of a judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court often has ripple effects throughout the local legal community. With over 400 judges and hundreds of commissioners, the LASC is a massive institution. The actions of a single judge can influence public perception of the entire bench.
The Metropolitan News-Enterprise coverage indicates that this case has sparked discussions regarding judicial burnout and the health of the judiciary. While the commission held Griego accountable, the mention of medication highlights the high-stress environment of the Los Angeles court system, where judges often handle heavy caseloads and complex emotional disputes daily. However, the prevailing sentiment among legal ethicists is that personal or medical struggles must be addressed through leave or administrative adjustments rather than manifesting as misconduct in open court.
Chronology of Events
To understand the trajectory of this disciplinary action, a timeline of the events is essential:
- 2014: Thomas J. Griego is elected or appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court.
- 2017: Judge Griego receives a private advisory letter for conducting an independent traffic scene investigation and failing to disclose ex parte information.
- May 2024: The Commission on Judicial Performance sends a preliminary investigation letter to Judge Griego regarding his conduct in four recent proceedings. Griego fails to respond to this initial inquiry.
- Late 2024: The commission continues its investigation into four specific proceedings where Griego reportedly interrupted litigants, made disparaging remarks, and left the bench abruptly.
- May 15, 2026: The Commission on Judicial Performance officially releases the public admonishment of Judge Griego, citing his 2024 conduct and his failure to respond to administrative inquiries.
Conclusion and Future Outlook
The public admonishment of Judge Thomas J. Griego serves as a formal reprimand that will remain a permanent part of his professional record. While he remains on the bench, the scrutiny surrounding his courtroom behavior is likely to increase. The commission’s decision underscores a clear message to the judiciary: the "black robe" does not grant immunity from the basic requirements of courtesy and professional responsiveness.
As the Los Angeles Superior Court continues to address the challenges of a backlogged legal system and the needs of a diverse population, the conduct of its judges remains a cornerstone of its legitimacy. The Griego case highlights the ongoing tension between the human vulnerabilities of those on the bench and the absolute necessity for a dignified and impartial legal process. For now, the commission has signaled that repeated lapses in judicial temperament, coupled with a disregard for administrative oversight, will be met with public accountability.
Related posts:
