Imagine you are a female criminal defense lawyer just trying to do your job in court to defend poor people accused of crimes, and the judge you are appearing before takes you aside, and makes comments to you such as calling you “a hard one” and “Your parents didn’t spank you enough.” What if at other times while he was hearing cases in which you were representing people accused of crimes, he would call you to the bench to ask if you were mad at him? What if he did this between 10 and 15 times?
Would you just take it in silently and absorb it as an occupational hazard of being female? This was the experience of attorney Deputy Public Defender Della-Piana, who was a witness in a judicial ethics investigation against Contra Costa County Superior Court judge, John Laettner when his conduct came under scrutiny by judicial ethics investigators in California. DPD Della-Piana said she could predict what was coming, when he usually ruled against her. She stated:
“But usually when he ruled against me, I would sort of know that that was coming next. And he would want to debrief, almost as if we were having like a relationship fight or something . . . Like a relationship talk. And he wanted reassurance that I wasn’t mad at him. Or he would often comment on my facial expressions, the facial expressions I would make during the hearing. ‘Say, you know, I noticed that you were really happy when I said this.’ Or ‘you didn’t like when I said this. I could tell from your face,’ and comment how well he knew and could read my facial expressions and how that affected him essentially.”
A witness to all of thie goings-on between the judge and professionals in his courtroom was Jennifer Michel, Judge Laettner’s court reporter from March 2006 to June 2017. She endured his comments calling her “pretty” and “hot” and all she saw, before she finally quit.
Michel testified that “she quit working in Judge Laettner’s department in 2017 because she “could not take the years of unwelcome and inappropriate comments toward [herself] and others,” his “favoritism towards tall, skinny blondes, young females [and] petite Asian women,” and his bias against “heavyset, pudgy, dark-haired public defenders and ones that would argue their case too strenuously in front of him.” [Judge] Laettner’s inappropriate comments based on the physical appearance of female attorneys or litigants created an environment that resulted in Michel changing her court reporting assignment,” according to the 76-page decision and order of the State of California’s Commission on Judicial Performance that on November 6, 2019, removed Judge John T. Laettner from the bench.
Here are some other excerpts from the findings, involving the judge’s treatment of Deputy Public Defender Nicole Herron:
“Between 2014 and 2017, Judge Laettner repeatedly told DPD NicoleHerron that she looked like an actress named Caroline Catz, who appeared on the television show, “Doc Martin.” DPD Herron testified that Judge Laettner referred to Catz and the show about 12 to 20 times during DPD Herron’s weekly appearances in his department, often saying, “I saw you on TV last night.”
DPD Herron testified that, when Judge Laettner mentioned the show, he seemed “overly excited,” and that his comments felt “creepy” to her. The comments made her uncomfortable because they were about her physical appearance and were made in open court, where other people could hear them, including clients who later commented to her about the judge’s statements.
The Order also continued:
“Judge Laettner admits that, in 2013, while presiding over a domestic violence case, in response to a defendant explaining what he learned from participating in a domestic violence treatment program, the judge said, “On a lighter note, I can take judicial notice that women can drive you crazy.” DPD Wills-Pierce, who was representing the male defendant, believed the statement was demeaning and undermined her ability to represent clients in the judge’s courtroom. When she explained this to Judge Laettner, he responded that his wife “would be really upset if she heard about this” and, “You know, a judge could get in trouble for something like this.” DPD Wills-Pierce memorialized this meeting at the time in an email to her supervisor.”
“Although Judge Laettner testified that he immediately recognized that the comment was a mistake and apologized for it, it was not until DPD Wills-Pierce confronted him several days after the comment that he expressed contrition. He acknowledged to his supervising judge, Judge Barry Goode, that he made the remark and said it was a “bone-headed statement.” Judge Laettner also testified that he and Judge Goode “had a chuckle” about it. The masters found it notable that this conversation occurred as a result of Judge Goode contacting Judge Laettner ostensibly as a result of a complaint.
Neither party objects to these factual findings.”
The Judicial Commission stated in its Order that the decision to remove Judge Laettner from the bench was done in part because of his “inability to fully accept responsibility for his behavior.” They wrote:
[It] was evident at his appearance before the commission on October 2, 2019. While he acknowledged generally the impropriety of his comments in Counts Two, Four and Five, he continued to deny responsibility for the significant acts of misconduct in Counts One and Three, and to blame others. Judge Laettner argued that the special masters were incorrect in each of the multiple instances they found his explanations or statements to be not credible, and he denied that he might have been mistaken as to any instance, even after hearing testimony from other individuals that was inconsistent with what he said was his recollection. When asked why he thought the special masters found some of his testimony to be not credible, he responded that they “weren’t given the whole story.” He claimed that he had “100 other witnesses lined up and ready to go,” with “testimony that corroborated [him],” but that the masters did not allow their testimony. This assertion seems disingenuous in light of what actually occurred during this proceeding.
The Commission on Judicial Performance concluded that “In light of all of the foregoing factors—but particularly the requirement that judges must, at a minimum, be honest and have integrity—we conclude that removal from the bench is warranted.”
As stated in Law.com, the Commission’s vote to remove Laettner from office was not unanimous. Three of the 11 commissioners—Justice William Dato of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lisa Lench and public members Richard Simpson—would have chosen to publicly censure Laettner. (Censure means publicly reprimand him.)
The judge still has an opportunity to petition the California Supreme Court for review.
You can read the entire Decision and Order at the link below:
https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2019/11/Laettner_DO_Removal_11-06-19.pdf
You can read the Law.com story at: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/11/06/contra-costa-judge-ordered-removed-from-office-for-significant-misconduct/