Ret. Judge Steven Bailey of the Superior Court of California. (Courtesy photo.)

Lawyers for Steven Bailey, the Republican attorney general candidate facing ethics charges tied to his tenure as a judge, told a panel of special masters on Tuesday that the disciplinary proceedings against him are “politically motivated” and inspired by a bitter formal colleague.

James Murphy of Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney told the three-judge panel investigating misconduct charges against Bailey that the Commission on Judicial Performance has been “over-zealous” in its pursuit of his client, the former El Dorado County Superior Court judge who retired in 2017. Murphy said the charges stem from a dispute between Bailey and the court's presiding judge of 18 years, Suzanne Kingsbury, and his decision to run for attorney general.

“When [Bailey] raised the issue of the propriety of having one person serving so long in such an important position, it resonated” with Kingsbury, Murphy said. The complaint to the Commission on Judicial Performance was filed not long after Bailey announced his campaign for attorney general, he said.

Commission trial counsel Mark Lizarraga urged the panel to focus on the 11 disciplinary counts against Bailey, arguing that “it's not a complicated case because Judge Bailey has essentially admitted to” the facts laid out in the 22-page notice of formal proceedings.

Bailey complains of “an amorphous, vast left-wing conspiracy out to get him,” Lizaragga said. “I'm going to ask you to resoundingly reject that rhetoric.”

The special masters convened proceedings Tuesday at the Third District Court of Appeal courtroom in Sacramento. The case is expected to take more than a week.

Bailey, who finished second to current office-holder Attorney General Xavier Becerra in the June primary, is accused of several ethical missteps during his eight years in office, including placing defendants in a private-sector alcohol monitoring program without disclosing that the company employs his son. The complaint against Bailey also alleges that he made inappropriate remarks about “gays” who “really know how to dress,” and that he appointed a friend as a special master without informing the parties in the case of their relationship. He is also accused of using his judicial title while raising money for an attorney general campaign in violation of ethical canons.

The California Supreme Court appointed Justice Kenneth Yegan of the Second District Court of Appeal, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Louis Hanoian and Imperial County Superior Court Judge William Lehman to serve as special masters in the case. The three jurists will issue a report on their findings to the Commission on Judicial Performance, which will ultimately decide on any punishment for Bailey.

A final decision on discipline is not expected before the November general election. The commission's reach does not extend to the attorney general's office, and its punishment options are limited for a judge who has already retired from the bench. The commission could, with the California Supreme Court's approval, bar Bailey from holding a judicial office again.

On Tuesday,  El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Vicki Ashworth and administrative analyst Suzanne Thurman testified that Bailey “shocked” them when, in 2015, he told an open-office gathering that included three other judges and the analyst that he knew his dress shirt and tie combination looked good “because a gay man put it together and gay men are snappy dressers.” Murphy countered by questioning whether Kingsbury had assigned Thurman to “conduct surveillance” on Bailey by asking her to review Bailey's Facebook page. Thurman said Kingsbury directed her to look at Bailey's as part of her job tracking judges' absences from court.

The special masters also heard from retired Alameda County Superior Court Judge Julie Conger, who Bailey asked for ethics advice while considering a campaign for attorney general. Conger said she advised Bailey to remove his judicial title from campaign-related emails to avoid running afoul of any judicial canons. She said she became “very upset” after receiving a Bailey campaign flyer in June 2017 that referred to his position as judge.

Conger said she shot off an email to Bailey, advising him to take a leave of absence from the court and to “immediately resign” his position as director of the Alliance of California Judges. Conger said she never received a response.

Bailey retired from the El Dorado County bench on Aug. 31, 2017. Murphy, his attorney, argued Tuesday that Bailey's activities before that date were part of an “exploratory” campaign. Judicial canons barring judges from using their title while campaigning for a non-judicial office should not extend to the period before they file candidacy papers, he argued.

“The commission is attempting to stifle political speech,” Murphy said.

Bailey appeared in the courtroom during part of the hearing, sitting stoically behind his counsel's table.

Witness testimony was scheduled to resume Wednesday morning.

 

Read more:

California Judiciary Reveals $645K Tab for Judge Misconduct Claims

Ex-Judge Links Ethics Allegations to His State AG Campaign

Ex-Judge, Now State AG Candidate, Faces Rare Disciplinary Case