December 10, 2006

By Ann Roth (View author info)
Copyright Ann Roth

The following news stories were recently published in the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register:

**************************
O.C. judge admonished for prejudicial remarks
Superior Court Judge James M. Brooks, who was scolded for demeaning a couple in a civil case and a Syrian woman in a separate litigation, has been reprimanded before

By Christine Hanley, Times Staff Writer
November 30, 2006

Orange County Superior Court Judge James M. Brooks, no stranger to scoldings by the state judicial commission, was publicly admonished Wednesday for demeaning and intimidating a husband and wife involved in a civil case, and making prejudicial comments to a Syrian woman involved in a separate property dispute......

***************************

Thursday, November 30, 2006

State admonishes judge for courtroom remarks

James Brooks made sarcastic and intimidating remarks in one case and made ethnically insensitive remarks in another

By LARRY WELBORN and RACHANEE SRISAVASDI
The Orange County Register

A veteran Orange County judge received a public admonishment Wednesday by the state judicial commission, which said that his handling of two cases did not promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
Superior Court Judge James Brooks was cited for statements he made to a civil defendant that mocked the man's claim of a heart condition and for remarks that could be perceived as biased against a Middle Eastern couple....

****************************

What is so astonishing about the admonishment of Judge James Brooks of the Orange County Superior Court is that the admonishment happened. It seems you rarely hear such news these days. Why is that?

Are the people sufficiently aware that a Judicial Complaint process exists? How many Judicial complaints are actually submitted? How many are reviewed and actually come to fruition with some favorable result for the complainants?

Complaints against Judges can be filed with the Judicial Council. If one has a concern, they should not hesitate to do so.

It is understandable that people are afraid to file complaints against Judges they appear before. When your livelihood, your reputation, and everything that you have ever worked for in your life is on the line - filing a complaint against an entity with the power to squash you with one fell swoop of a gavel takes guts. Even if they do file a complaint once their case is over, the review process can take a very long time, pretty much rendering the complaint moot and of no real benefit to that complainant.

What about the lawyers that appear before these Judges? Do they have any legal or ethical obligation to turn in a Judge in violation of the standards? Or, do they fear that if they do, their cases and their reputation will be forever 'tainted' - becoming known as the 'ratfink' of the brotherhood? Remember, Judges are lawyers are Judges.

This does cause one to pause and wonder, how many admonishments does it take to lose a job? One, two, three, ten? And, once admonished, should judges still be in the position of "judging" others? And since Judge Brooks was admonished for making "prejudicial remarks" - what does that say about any of the legal decisions he rendered in these complainants' cases? Were those decisions tainted by some prejudice?

In the end, it's a numbers game. The more complaints that are filed, the better the chances are that a Judge will be held accountable. Kudos to these complainants for daring to make use of the systems put in place to protect the greater good. Now, let's see what the 'system' does with them.