Recently, the California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for delegating his responsibility to conduct case management conferences to his court clerk. Public Admonishment of Hiroshige (California Commission on Judicial Performance October 24, 2018).
Case management conferences are scheduled to address items such as what discovery issues are anticipated, whether discovery is complete, the nature of the injuries, the amount of damages, and any additional relief sought, as well as ministerial issues, such as the setting of a jury trial date. Counsel for represented parties and each self-represented party must appear by telephone or personally and must be prepared to discuss and commit to the party’s position on the issues unless a judge issues a case management order based on the parties’ written submissions after determining that a conference is not necessary and notifying the parties.
In contrast, the judge’s practice was to review the parties’ written submissions and provide his notes to the court clerk for use during the conference at which the parties were still required to appear. In 2010, the Commission privately admonished the judge for this practice.
The judge continued the practice despite the private admonishment. In response to the Commission, the judge explained that, after the private admonishment, he posted a notice in his courtroom advising counsel and parties that he had reviewed all submitted case management conference statements and indicated to the clerk the range of dates that should be scheduled in each case, that “[t]he clerk will meet & confer with counsel/parties and attempt to schedule dates in court that are agreeable to all parties,” and that, if there is any disagreement, “please request to discuss the issue with the court.”
The Commission found that, as noted in the private admonishment, the judge’s practice violates the requirement that a judge “hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge except those in which he or she is disqualified.” The Commission stated that the judge’s “[i]mproper delegation of judicial responsibilities to the court clerk constitutes misconduct” and “dereliction of duty.”
The Commission explained that the judge’s “practice of having his clerk meet with parties and counsel and convey his decisions in court gives the appearance that the clerk, rather than the judge, is running the court.” Further, it stated, discussions between the judge and parties or counsel can effectively resolve issues that may not have been apparent from the written submissions, and, therefore, “an appearance before a judge at a case management conference can be more efficient and effective in terms of the disposition and management of a case than issuing an order without an appearance before a judge.”
The fall 2016 issue of the Judicial Conduct Reporter has an article analyzing previous discipline cases involving improper delegation of adjudicative responsibilities.