L.A. Superior Court. Photo Credit: Wiki Commons

A veteran judge with a history of empowering his courtroom clerk to oversee case management conferences was admonished Wednesday by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ernest Hiroshige, who first took the Municipal Court bench in 1980, posted a notice in his courtroom advising attorneys that he would review their submitted papers and allow his clerk to “meet & confer with counsel/parties” to schedule future dates on their matters.

“Improper delegation of judicial responsibilities to the court clerk constitutes misconduct,” the commission wrote. “Judge Hiroshige'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.”

Hiroshige was privately admonished in 2010 for the same practice, the commission noted. The judge is not in court this week, a courtroom clerk said, and he could not be reached for comment.

In his response to the commission's investigation, Hiroshige said his practice should not be compared to that of another judge previously punished for related acts because he did not allow his clerk to accept pleas and waivers of constitutional rights. The commission noted, however, that judicial canons require bench officers to both “hear and decide” all matters assigned to them.

“The subjects to be considered at case management conferences are not limited to ministerial issues such as the setting of a jury trial date, but include a host of issues … including what discovery issues are anticipated, whether discovery is complete, the nature of injuries, the amount of damages, and any additional relief sought,” the commission wrote.

“Discussion between the court and parties or counsel at a case management conference can be effective in resolving issues that may not have been apparent from the written submissions, and, in that sense, 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,” commissioners concluded.

 

The CJP's public admonishment is posted below:

 

Read more:

Judicial Discipline Records Face First-Ever Audit After Deal Ends Dustup

Ex-Court Commissioner Censured for Inflammatory Facebook Posts

LA Judge Rebuked for Media Interview, 'Flippant' Court Remark

Trinity County Judge Will Resign Amid Disciplinary Investigation