N

A. Judicial Duties in General

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

s

All of the judicial duties prescribed by law* shall take precedence over all other
activities of every judge. In the performance of these duties, the following
standards apply.
B. Adjudicative Responsibilities

(1) A judge shall hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge except those
in which he or she is disqualified.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(1)
Canon 3B(1) is based upon the affirmative obligation contained in Code of
Civil Procedure section 170.
(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law* regardless of partisan interests, public
clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in the
law.*

a

Ju

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(2)
Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal
knowledge,* skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to
perform a judge’s responsibilities of judicial office. Canon 1 provides that an
incorrect legal ruling is not itself a violation of this code.
(3) A judge shall require* order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.

rn
i

al

C

et
w

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL
OFFICE IMPARTIALLY,* COMPETENTLY, AND
DILIGENTLY

or
k

CANON 3

if
o

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official
capacity, and shall require* similar conduct of lawyers and of all staff and
court personnel under the judge’s direction and control.
(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge
shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, engage in speech, gestures, or
other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (a) bias or prejudice,
including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, gender,
14

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

s

N

et
w

(6) A judge shall require* lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain
from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex,
gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation,
marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation against parties,
witnesses, counsel, or others. This canon does not preclude legitimate
advocacy when race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability,
age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, political
affiliation, or other similar factors are issues in the proceeding.

(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a
proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to
law.* Unless otherwise authorized by law,* a judge shall not independently
investigate facts in a proceeding and shall consider only the evidence presented
or facts that may be properly judicially noticed. This prohibition extends to
information available in all media, including electronic. A judge shall not
initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, that is, any
communications to or from the judge outside the presence of the parties
concerning a pending* or impending* proceeding, and shall make reasonable
efforts to avoid such communications, except as follows:

rn
i

a

Ju

(a) Except as stated below, a judge may consult with other judges. A judge
shall not engage in discussions about a case with a judge who has
previously been disqualified from hearing that matter; likewise, a judge
who knows* he or she is or would be disqualified from hearing a case shall
not discuss that matter with the judge assigned to the case. A judge also
shall not engage in discussions with a judge who may participate in
appellate review of the matter, nor shall a judge who may participate in
appellate review of a matter engage in discussions with the judge presiding
over the case.

al

C

or
k

religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital
status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment.

if
o

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

A judge may consult with court personnel or others authorized by law,* as
long as the communication relates to that person’s duty to aid the judge in
carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities.
In any discussion with judges or court personnel, a judge shall make
reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of
the record or an evaluation of that factual information. In such
consultations, the judge shall not abrogate the responsibility personally to
decide the matter.

15

di
ci
C al
JB B
N ra
N nc
.c h
om N
ew

s

N

et
w

(1) A judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative
responsibilities impartially,* on the basis of merit, without bias or prejudice,
free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in
the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall not, in the performance of
administrative duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would
reasonably be perceived as (a) bias or prejudice, including but not limited to
bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic
status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3C(1)
In considering what constitutes a conflict of interest under this canon, a
judge should be informed by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, subdivision
(a)(6).
(2) A judge shall maintain professional competence in judicial administration,
and shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration
of court business.

(3) A judge shall require* staff and court personnel under the judge’s direction
and control to observe appropriate standards of conduct and to refrain from
manifesting bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national
origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status,
socioeconomic status, or political affiliation in the performance of their official
duties.

rn
i

a

Ju

(4) A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other
judges shall take reasonable measures to ensure the prompt disposition of
matters before them and the proper performance of their other judicial
responsibilities.

al

C

or
k

C. Administrative Responsibilities

if
o

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

(5) A judge shall not make unnecessary court appointments. A judge shall
exercise the power of appointment impartially,* on the basis of merit, without
bias or prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall avoid
nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall not approve compensation of
appointees above the reasonable value of services rendered.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3C(5)
Appointees of a judge include assigned counsel and officials such as
referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, and guardians. Consent by
20

May 2011

Search website

 

 

Speaking up about judicial misconduct

 

Top Headlines
Opinion

By Janice M. Brickley

From the President

Highly publicized corruption scandals involving government officials

Janice M. Brickley

provide fertile ground for Monday morning pundits. They can also be a

Letters to the Editor

catalyst for education and positive change. Such is the case with the “kids

MCLE Self-Study

for cash” judicial corruption scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. In

Attorney Discipline

an article published in the March Bar Journal, I discussed the

You Need to Know

Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board’s failure to follow through with a

Trials Digest
Public Comment

complaint concerning the judges involved in the scandal and what the California
Commission on Judicial Performance has done to ensure that its rules and procedures
are not susceptible to the failures that occurred in Pennsylvania. This article examines

Ethics Byte

the role of an attorney in exposing judicial corruption and abuse in the context of the

Contact Us

“kids for cash” scandal.

Marketplace
Archived Issues

Two former judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, were charged with
federal crimes based on their participation in a scheme to close down a county juvenile
detention facility and contract for the placement of juveniles with for-profit facilities in
exchange for a secret “finder’s fee” of $997,600. Juveniles were sent to the private
detention facilities by Ciavarella at the same time both judges were accepting payoffs
from the owner of the facilities. Conahan pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering
and in February, Ciavarella was convicted by jury of 12 felony counts, including
racketeering, conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy. Both men are awaiting
sentence. 
The Report of the Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, issued last
May, examines the circumstances that led to the “kids for cash” scandal, including the
role of attorneys who appeared regularly before Judge Ciavarella in juvenile court.
While these attorneys were not privy to Ciavarella’s financial “arrangement” with the
owners of the detention facilities, they did know that Ciavarella had a “zero-tolerance”
policy that resulted in juveniles being sent to detention facilities in unprecedented
numbers. Under Ciavarella’s zero-tolerance policy, juveniles were automatically sent to
out-of-home placement for certain offenses, such as fighting in school, without an
individual evaluation of the circumstances of the offense or the offender – contrary to a
judge’s obligation to decide sentences on a case-by-case basis.
Attorneys who regularly appeared in Ciavarella’s courtroom also knew that he routinely
adjudicated and sentenced juveniles who were unrepresented by counsel without
obtaining the required waiver of the right to counsel. In 2003, the statewide percentage
of juveniles who waived the right to counsel was 7.9 percent; in Ciaverella’s courtroom
the “attorney waiver” rate was 50.2 percent. Similar gaps appear in the statistics
throughout Ciavarella’s five-year reign in juvenile court. 
A criminal prosecutor is not only an advocate but, as a representative of the sovereign,
has a duty to seek justice, which includes the responsibility of seeing that the defendant
is accorded procedural justice. (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79

 
Share

L.Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629]; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50
Cal.4th 35, 48.) Nowhere is this responsibility more important than in juvenile court.
Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Responsibility, prosecutors have an
ethical obligation to ensure that the accused has been advised of the right to counsel
and has been given the opportunity to obtain counsel. (See also American Bar
Association Model Code of Professional Conduct 3.8 (b) [a prosecutor shall “make
reasonable efforts to assure the accused has been advised of the right to, and the
procedure for, obtaining counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain
counsel . . .”].) Before accepting a waiver of the right to counsel from juvenile
defendants, Pennsylvania’s Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure require a judge to
conduct on-the-record discussions or “colloquies” to ensure that the juveniles
understand the right they are giving up. (See also Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S.
806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S.Ct. 2525]; Iowa v. Tovar (2004) 541 U.S. 77 [158 L.Ed.2d
209, 124 S.Ct. 1379].) Yet, prosecutors regularly witnessed Ciavarella deciding cases of
unrepresented juveniles without first engaging in the required colloquies but said
nothing. The Report of the Interbranch Commission concluded that “the prosecutors
clearly abdicated their roles as ministers of justice and simply became passive observers
to the tragic injustices that were perpetrated against juvenile offenders.”
Jonathan Ursiak’s first assignment when he joined the public defender’s office in 2007
was to represent juveniles in Ciavarella’s court. On a regular basis, he observed
juveniles admitting to crimes and being sentenced without an attorney and without the
required advisements of rights by the judge and waivers from the juveniles. This was
not the only practice in Ciavarella’s courtroom that troubled Ursiak – proceedings were
abbreviated, psychological evaluation reports were not provided to him before the
hearing, juveniles were being sent to placement at an alarmingly high rate, the judge’s
zero-tolerance policy impeded the juvenile’s right to be heard, and, in general, the
public defender was not given an adequate opportunity to advocate for his clients.
When Ursiak reported his concerns to his supervisor, he was told the public defender’s
office did not need more clients. Undeterred, Ursiak provided assistance to the Juvenile
Law Center of Philadelphia, which was investigating the suspected abuses in Luzerne
County’s juvenile court. 
Ursiak’s courage and persistence in reporting Ciavarella’s improper practices should be
applauded. However, the silence of other attorneys who knew of the abuses in
Ciavarella’s courtroom is disturbing. Had others reported the misconduct when it first
occurred, the abuses and corruption might have been abated years earlier – saving
countless youthful offenders from a harsh and draconian fate suffered at Ciavarella’s
hand. 
According to the Interbranch Commission’s report, no attorney practicing in Ciavarella’s
courtroom ever filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, the
agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct. Young
prosecutors recognized the inherent unfairness of Ciavarella’s practices, but did not
know what to do or to whom to turn for guidance. Many defense attorneys who
appeared before Ciavarella were equally derelict. Public defenders and private attorneys
routinely witnessed Ciavarella violate the rights of juveniles, including their own clients,
yet most took no action. The Interbranch Commission found that these attorneys
“clearly abdicated their responsibility to zealously defend their clients and to protect
their due process rights.” “At a bare minimum,” the commission concluded, “they
should have contacted their supervisors in the Public Defenders Office and the local bar
associations or notified the appropriate judicial or attorney disciplinary organizations.”
Many factors can deter an attorney from reporting judicial misconduct – indifference,
fear of retaliation, inexperience, ignorance. During its investigation, the Interbranch
Commission found that some attorneys did not know how or where to report judicial

misconduct. The commission encouraged Pennsylvania’s Judicial Conduct Board to
partner with the Pennsylvania Bar Association to create and implement programs to
educate attorneys and the public on the existence of the judicial disciplinary board and
on how to report judicial misconduct. The commission also recommended that the
Judicial Conduct Board revise and update its Website to provide clear, simple
directions for filing complaints. In California, the Commission on Judicial Performance
works with the State Bar to provide information concerning the process for reporting
judicial misconduct. The commission’s website offers user-friendly instructions on how
to file a complaint of judicial misconduct, as well as information on what constitutes
judicial misconduct.  
As tragically illustrated in the “kids for cash” scandal, those in the legal community
share a mutual responsibility to take action when faced with abuses of judicial
authority. Indifference and inaction hurts not only the individual targets of the
misconduct but the reputation and integrity of the bar and the judiciary.
• Janice M. Brickley is Legal Advisor to Commissioners at the California Commission
on Judicial Performance.

Copyright © 2015 The State Bar of California

Contact Us  |  
Archived Issues  |  
Notices  |  
Privacy Policy

Site Design by Duuplex

4

More

Next Blog»

Create Blog
Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

Privacy Policy

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

26 April 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Sacramento Family Court Administrators Chris Volkers, Julie Setzer and
Clerk Christina Arcuri Violate State Law, Court Rules In Fee Waiver Errors

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(63)

Defective Fee Waiver Orders Show Family Court
Clerks Violate State Laws, Block Court Access of
Indigent Litigants

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(35)

Supervision, Oversight & Accountability Absent

JUDGE PRO TEM
(49)

MATTHEW J. GARY
(33)
FLEC
(28)
SCBA
(22)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)
CHILD CUSTODY
(21)
PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(20)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
CJP
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(11)

This fee waiver order filed by Department 121 courtroom clerk Christina Arcuri and stamped with the signature of Judge Matthew J. Gary
is useless. Incomplete, defective orders like this are refused by courthouse public counter filing clerks and the Sacramento County
Sheriff's Department Civil Division. Click here to view the full-size order. Click here to view the specific defects in the order. Click here to
view a complete, valid fee waiver order issued to the same person by a clerk at the Carol Miller Justice Center courthouse in Sacramento.

A Sacramento Family Court News audit of family court cases reveals that court clerks are issuing incomplete,
defective fee waiver orders which contain substantive errors rendering the orders useless. Under California law,
indigent and low income litigants are entitled to a waiver of court filing fees. Certain family court filings - including

SATIRE
(11)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER

(11)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)

domestic violence and contempt actions - require proof of personal service and the fee waiver also entitles poor
litigants to have papers served by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Civil Division. The fee waiver
procedure is specified by California Rules of Court rules 3.50 - 3.58 and the process is standardized throughout
the state. But a comparison of orders issued in other courts with those issued by Sacramento Family Court clerks
shows the family court orders consistently are not in compliance with state law. Family court clerks issue
incomplete orders that often result in a Catch-22 situation: When a litigant later attempts to use the defective fee
waiver order to file documents the order is refused by public counter filing clerks for being incomplete. The orders
also are rejected as defective when a litigant attempts to have documents served by the Sheriff's Civil Division. In
addition, in all of the cases reviewed by SFCN, the orders also omitted mandatory Judicial Council form FW-010
- an entire page of the order required by state court rule 3.52(4). 

LAURIE M. EARL
(10)

To continue reading, click Read More >> below...

CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)

NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)
SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)

FERRIS CASE
(8)

Carol Miller Courthouse Issues Accurate, Valid Fee
Waiver Orders

JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)

Page 1 of 5

3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)

Page 1 of 5

CIVIL RIGHTS
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CONTEMPT
(5)
THADD BLIZZARD
(5)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)

WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware
This fee waiver order issued to the same person by Deputy Clerk D. Turner at the Carol Miller Justice
Center in Sacramento complies with state law governing fee waiver procedure. Click here to view the order in a
new browser window. The family court fee waiver order issued by Christina Arcuri - courtroom clerk for Judge
Matthew J. Gary - is not only incomplete and missing the mandatory Judicial Council FW-010 form, it also is
filled out by Arcuri using the wrong Judicial Council form. As the accurate, Carol Miller Justice Center fee
waiver order reflects, the correct form is FW-003. Arcuri used the form for issuance of a fee waiver after a court
hearing, FW-008. The litigant listed in the defective order - who is disabled and on public assistance - was entitled
to an automatic, non-discretionary waiver and did not have a fee waiver hearing. Other fee waiver orders audited
by Sacramento Family Court News contained similar errors making the orders unusable. None of the orders
resembled the state law compliant fee waiver order issued at the Carol Miller Courthouse. 

Oversight and Accountability
Family court watchdogs and whistleblowers have long asserted, and documented, that family court judges and
employees appear to be immune from oversight and accountability for misconduct. "Misbehavior in office, or
other willful neglect or violation of duty" by a clerk is punishable as contempt under Code of Civil Procedure
§1209(a)(3). Under Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge's administrative responsibilities include
ensuring staff and court personnel under the judge's direction and control observe "appropriate standards of
conduct." As of 2011, the failure by Judicial Branch employees to comply with any state court rule is a violation of
the Whistleblower Protection Act, and constitutes government misconduct in the same category as corruption,
malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraud, coercion and similar types of misconduct. Employee
conduct that is economically wasteful, involves gross misconduct, incompetency or inefficiency is also covered by

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE
Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog
Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family
Law Blog
Kafkaesq
Above the Law
The Divorce Artist

LEGAL NEWS &
INFORMATION

the act. The act is enforced by the California State Auditor. Court employees who violate court rules and other
laws also violate Tenet Five of the California Court Employee Code of Ethics. Yet from the local court to the
state auditor, all of these rules, laws and policies have been ignored and gone unenforced.

Court Administration Mismanagement
Court watchdogs also point out that the fee waiver order problem is another example of systemic family court
mismanagement by Director of Operations Julie Setzer, Manager Colleen McDonagh and Supervising
Courtroom Clerk Denise Richards, and reflects a failure of oversight by Sacramento County Superior Court
Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl and Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers. Sacramento Superior Court
internal policies and administrative procedures specify a discipline process for court employees who violate
court rules, cause discredit to the court, or engage in discriminatory, dishonest, discourteous or unbecoming
behavior. Click here to read the court's employee discipline policy.

"It is understood that the Court has a critical role to play in the County's justice system. It is
vital that the public maintain its trust in the Court system. As a result, trial court employees
will be held to a higher standard of conduct than employees of other organizations," reads the
Superior Court policy introduction. 

The fee waiver order problem also exposes taxpayers to potential liability for civil rights violations against indigent
litigants, and violates several state laws, including the Whistleblower Protection Act, which classifies court rule
violations by court employees as an improper governmental activity.

In upcoming posts, SFCN will report on additional problems with fee waiver orders and procedure in family court,
including an attempt by Judge Matthew J. Gary to block appellate review of his own orders by unlawfully using the
fee waiver review process against an indigent family court litigant.
Related articles:

California Lawyer Magazine
Courthouse News Service
Metropolitan News
Enterprise
California Official Case Law
Google Scholar-Includes
Unpublished Case Law
California Statutes

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
BRANCH
California Courts
Homepage
California Courts YouTube
Page
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial
Performance
Sacramento County Family
Court
3rd District Court of Appeal

Sacramento Family Court chiefs Julie Setzer and Colleen McDonagh responsible for serial court rule
violations. Click here. 
Family court appeals unit illegally rejecting appeals by unrepresented, financially disadvantaged litigants.
Click here. 
Family Law Facilitator Lollie Roberts gives false info to indigent pro per litigants. Click here. 

State Bar of California
State Bar Court
Sacramento County Bar
Association

Family court clerks let judge pro tem attorneys file sham entry of judgment paperwork. Click here. 
Court Executive Officer Chris Volkers silent on fixing appeals unit problems. Click here. 
Other court employee misconduct articles: Click here.

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:

Local & National Family CourtFamily Law Sites & Blogs (may
be gender-specific)
ABA Family Law Blawg
Directory
California Coalition for
Families and Children
California Protective
Parents Association
Center for Judicial
Excellence
Courageous Kids Network
Divorce & Family Law News

 

Posted by
PR Brown
at
12:34 PM

Divorce Corp
+4   Recommend this on Google

Labels:
CHRISTINA ARCURI,
CHRISTINA VOLKERS,
COLLEEN MCDONAGH,
COLOR OF LAW SERIES,
DOCUMENTS,
EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT,
FEE WAIVERS,
FERRIS CASE,
JULIE SETZER,
LAURIE M. EARL,
MATTHEW J. GARY,
NEWS EXCLUSIVE,
WATCHDOGS

Location:
William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse - Sacramento County Superior Court, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95814, USA

Divorced Girl Smiling
Family Law Case Law from
FindLaw

6

More

Next Blog»

Create Blog
Sign In

Sacramento Family Court News
Investigative Reporting, News, Analysis, Opinion & Satire
HOME

JUDGE PRO TEMS

3rd DISTRICT COURT of APPEAL

RoadDog SATIRE

ABOUT FAMILY COURT NEWS

CONTACT FAMILY COURT NEWS

Terms & Conditions

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

Privacy Policy

DOCUMENT LIBRARY

29 April 2013

SHORTCUTS TO POPULAR
SUBJECTS AND POSTS

Judge Matthew Gary Leaked Court Reporter Transcript Records Flagrant
State Law Violations at Unlawful Fee Waiver Hearing

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

(58)

Judge Matthew Gary Orders Illegal Fee Waiver
Hearing to Obstruct Appeal of Own Orders, Help
Judge Pro Tem Lawyer

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

(31)

Monday Document Dump

JUDGE PRO TEM
(44)

MATTHEW J. GARY
(28)
FLEC
(26)
ARTS & CULTURE
(21)

Unilaterally overriding state law, constructing his own ad hoc interpretation of legislative intent, and legislating from
the bench, Judge Matthew Gary denies a fee waiver request by an indigent, unrepresented litigant in this startling
court reporter transcript. The fee waiver request was for trial court appellate costs for an appeal of several orders
issued by the judge. The pro per had an existing fee waiver which by law automatically applied to the trial
court appeal costs, making the hearing ordered by the judge patently unlawful. To view the order Gary issued
after the hearing, click here. The opposing party is represented by divorce attorney Paula Salinger, partner at the
prominent Sacramento family law firm Woodruff, O'Hair, Posner & Salinger Inc., sworn Sacramento County
Superior Court temporary judge, and current officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law
Executive Committee or FLEC. Days after the hearing, Gary issued a second order reversing himself and
granting the fee waiver request, but at the same time embedding in the order a sham finding designed to help
Salinger and her client at a pending trial in the case.

To continue reading, and to view the court reporter transcript click Read more >> below...
  
The second order mischaracterized the facts and testimony recorded in the hearing transcript, and included false
statements intended to create a misleading record to enable Salinger to use the order at a pending trial to avoid
a potential spousal support obligation of her client. 
"[T]he court does not find [respondent's] assertion of poverty credible and that, even if he
were, the state of 'poverty' is self induced & is a deliberate effort on his part to manipulate this
ongoing dissolution case," the judge wrote in his revised order. Click here to view the order. 
Under judicial ethics rules, Gary's written statement indicates that he was not acting as an impartial judge,
according to the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency responsible for oversight and
accountability of California judges. Gary also is caught on the transcript probing the pro per about the pending
trial and spousal support issue, subjects with no logical connection to the fee waiver hearing. Click here to view
this portion of the transcript. As the transcript records, the judge manipulated the hearing through intentional
misstatements and omissions of material fact to achieve his desired result - fabricating false findings to help the
judge pro tem attorney at trial - also a judicial ethics violation, according to the CJP. In essence, Gary used the
illegal fee waiver hearing for an unrelated and improper purpose: to influence and reduce or eliminate the potential
spousal support liability of Salinger's client at a subsequent trial before a different judge. The formal finding is
calculated to enable the attorney to argue that her client should not have to pay support because - according to a
finding by the judge assigned to pre-trial proceedings in the case - the unrepresented spouse's lack of income is
"self-induced." 

As the transcript records, Gary abandoned the role of judge and assumed the role of advocate for the opposing

PETER J. McBRIEN
(20)
SCBA
(20)
CHILD CUSTODY
(19)
WATCHDOGS
(19)
CHARLOTTE KEELEY
(18)
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

(18)
PRO PERS
(18)
ROBERT SAUNDERS
(17)
DOCUMENTS
(16)
CJP
(15)
DIVORCE CORP
(13)
JAMES M. MIZE
(12)
COLOR OF LAW SERIES

(11)
SATIRE
(11)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(10)
JAIME R. ROMAN
(10)
LAURIE M. EARL
(10)
NO CONTACT ORDERS
(10)

attorney. Acting as an advocate for a party or attorney is expressly prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics and
multiple judge disciplinary decisions by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Click here to view CJP
decisions. Revealing additional bias and prejudgment, the judge speculatively accused the unrepresented litigant
of "voluntarily" becoming unemployed a year before his wife filed for divorce so that he would be eligible for
spousal support. Click here and here to view these excerpts from the court reporter transcript. A fervent right-wing
ideologue, Gary reportedly detests what he calls the "entitlement mentality" of family court pro pers who obtain fee
waiver orders or are on public assistance, according to a court employee. A trial court judge who obstructs an
appeal, or retaliates against an attorney or litigant for taking an appeal is subject to discipline by the CJP for
violating the Code of Judicial Ethics. Click here to view a compilation of CJP disciplinary decisions. Judges also
have been disciplined for manipulating a hearing to achieve a desired result, click here, and for creating a
misleading record, click here. Despite documented, serial violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, Gary has
never been publicly disciplined by the CJP. The judge's unlawful conduct in connection with the fee waiver hearing
was witnessed by several court employees, including clerk Christina Arcuri, and bailiff J. Strong. As government
employees, each had a legal and ethical duty to report the misconduct. Neither, apparently, did. 

For additional articles about the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below the
document.  

SHARON A. LUERAS
(10)
WHISTLEBLOWERS
(10)
WOODRUFF O'HAIR
POSNER and SALINGER

(10)
CARLSSON CASE
(9)
RAPTON-KARRES
(9)
CHRISTINA VOLKERS
(8)
JESSICA HERNANDEZ
(8)
FERRIS CASE
(7)
JULIE SETZER
(7)
YOUTUBE
(7)
3rd DISTRICT COA
(6)
CHRISTINA ARCURI
(5)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(4)
CONTEMPT
(4)
FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR

(4)
LUAN CASE
(4)
THADD BLIZZARD
(4)
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
(3)
MIKE NEWDOW
(2)

WE SUPPORT
Electronic Frontier
Foundation
First Amendment Coalition
Californians Aware

LAW BLOGS WE LIKE
Share

of

Embed

18

Family Law Professor Blog
Law Librarian Blog

Posted by
PR Brown
at
9:28 AM

+6   Recommend this on Google

Labels:
ANALYSIS,
APPEALS,
CHRISTINA ARCURI,
COLOR OF LAW SERIES,
DOCUMENTS,
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT,
FEE WAIVERS,

J. STRONG,
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT,
MATTHEW J. GARY,
PAULA SALINGER,
SOCIOECONOMIC BIAS

Location:
Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse - 3341 Power Inn Road, Sacramento, CA 95826, USA - Sacramento Family
Court

Law Professor Blogs
Thurman Arnold Family
Law Blog
The Divorce Artist

5 comments

Add a comment

Above the Law

LEGAL NEWS &
INFORMATION
California Lawyer Magazine