Recusal story should have included full judicial complaint process comment

It is with extreme rarity that I, as presiding judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, would respond with displeasure to criticize an article in which I am quoted. However, due to the lack of fairness and completeness in the Dec. 20 article "Judge steps aside after holding lawyer in contempt," I write today to correct the record.

Under the stated guise of assuring fairness and balance for the article, the Daily Journal reporter called the court just prior to its 3 p.m. deadline on two separate days (Friday, Dec. 15 and Monday, Dec. 18) to seek the court's comment and reaction for this story. After calling at 3:02 p.m. on Monday with an "inquiry regarding complaint process" on judges, I prepared a succinct, complete quote to respond to the reporter's email request. The Daily Journal held the story on Friday and again on Tuesday, Dec. 19, and the quote was delivered to the reporter by deadline yesterday (Tuesday, Dec. 19).

Much to my stunned amazement, after responding thoughtfully and completely to the reporter's request, the article contained only the first two sentences of my three-sentence response. Despite the reporter's stated goal of assuring fairness and balance in the story, a misguided editorial decision was made by the reporter or copy editors to delete the entire last sentence of my succinctly written quote. For the record and for publication in its entirety, here is my entire 75-word response to the reporter's request for a comment on the process:

"When the court receives a complaint about the conduct of a judge, the presiding judge conducts a thorough investigation of the allegations. After an investigation is completed, the presiding judge takes appropriate action pursuant to the Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(1). The complainant, or anyone who is aware of misconduct, always has the right to go directly to the Commission on Judicial Performance before, during or after the presiding judge does his or her investigation."

Due to the constraints of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, it is extremely rare and difficult for judges to respond to reporters' questions. When we are asked to comment for a story and ultimately decide we are permitted to do so without violating those canons, it is a reasonable expectation that reputable publications will recognize the significance of the contribution to public discourse by publishing the written statement in its entirety. My succinct response described in full the process for investigation of judicial complaints, but I was not afforded the opportunity to describe the entire process, thereby depriving your readers of that pertinent knowledge.

In the future, if you seek comment with the stated goals of fairness and balance to all parties, it would be wise to fulfill that basic tenet of journalistic integrity by demonstrating good faith and delivering on those standards.