An attorney for the Commission on Judicial Performance on Thursday pressed the 11-member disciplinary panel to remove Jeffrey Johnson from the Second District Court of Appeal, arguing that the associate justice has not shown genuine remorse and remains a threat to women in the courthouse and the public.

During a videoconference proceeding, Emma Bradford, an examiner for the commission's prosecutorial arm, accused Johnson of exploiting his authority as a judge to sexually harass court employees, lawyers and colleagues on the bench over a decade. She repeated the testimony of some of the dozens of witnesses who appeared at a 17-day investigatory proceeding last year to detail allegations of Johnson appearing drunk in public, making crude, sexual remarks or groping women.

"There's a very real likelihood that he will again engage in misconduct because Justice Johnson has not and will not admit he has a problem," Bradford said.

Johnson, appearing remotely before commissioners who were tuned in from offices around the state and in the California Supreme Court chambers, has denied many of the accusations. Johnson has maintained that witnesses were swayed by the inadvertent, widespread leak of an email that described allegations made against him by his former security officer.

Thursday's hearing marked the final public airing of the charges against Johnson before the commission decides, what, if any, discipline to impose. Commissioners have a range of options from closing the case to ending Johnson's 10-year career as a state judge.

His voice quivering at times, Johnson told commissioners he has completed 150 hours of therapy and education since first learning of the allegations against him. He said he takes responsibility for making some women uncomfortable with his "friendly, outgoing nature" and "my efforts to be the same as everybody else and relate to everyone in that way."

Johnson denied physically groping fellow Justice Victoria Chaney and rejected allegations that he linked promises of career help with inappropriate touching of other women.

Johnson, who has blamed reports of him slurring speech and stumbling in public on diabetes, said he has stopped drinking to banish any perception that he has an alcohol problem.

Johnson and his attorney, Paul Meyer, said the judge's actions may be deserving of censure, but not removal from office. "I am devastated and humbled by this process," Johnson said.

A three-judge panel of special masters issued a 316-page report in January concluding that the commission's prosecution had proven most of the misconduct allegations against Johnson. The justice's ethical lapses were "compounded," the masters wrote, by his "failure to take responsibility for many of his actions."

Johnson and Meyer seized, however, on the masters' findings that examiners did not prove allegations that Johnson used sexually suggestive language with or inappropriately touched members of Johnson's security detail, California Highway Patrol Officers Tatiana Sauquillo and Shawna Davison. They also denied Chaney's allegations that Johnson inappropriately touched her breast and buttocks.

Meyer said putting those allegations aside, as well as accusations concerning events beyond six or eight years ago, the remaining misconduct charges center on "less serious social comments" made by Johnson. The attorney also noted that Johnson has been charged with prejudicial as opposed to "willful" misconduct. That, along with Johnson's lack of a disciplinary record warrants no more than a censure, Meyer argued.

Bradford said the commission is well within its authority to remove a judge for prejudicial conduct. As for some of the allegations being "less serious," Bradford said, "they were not insignificant to women at the other end."

"These women deserve a safe and respectful workplace at the Second District and they cannot have that if you allow [Johnson] to return to the bench," she said.