In re Inquiry Concerning Freedman

Good Law
2007 Cal. Comm. Jud. Perform. LEXIS 3·49 Cal. 4th CJP Supp. 223
State of California Commission on Judicial PerformanceJune 26, 2007No. 179California10,443 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hornchairperson, J.

*CJP Supp. 227 Opinion

Under California law, judges are expected to decide matters submitted to them within 90 days of submission, and are prohibited from receiving their salaries during times when they have undecided matters under submission for more than 90 days. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 19; Mardikian v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1985) 40 Cal.3d 473, 477, fn. 4 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 709 P.2d 852 ] (Mardikian).) To implement the latter provision, the Government Code requires judges to regularly execute affidavits declaring they are in compliance with the law and entitled to salary. (Gov. Code, § 68210.) In this disciplinary proceeding, Judge Robert B. Freedman of the Alameda County Superior Court is charged by an amended notice of formal proceedings (Notice) in three counts with (1) failing to decide causes submitted to him for decision within 90 days, (2) executing and submitting numerous salary affidavits falsely stating that he had no causes under submission to him for decision for more than 90 days when he did have such matters under submission, and (3) failing to act on over 200 fee waiver applications by litigants within the time allowed by law.

A panel of three…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.