14 women accused Court of Appeal justice of misconduct

The Commission on Judicial Performance launched formal proceedings against 2nd District Court of Appeal Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson on Monday, citing sexual misconduct allegations by 14 women, including that he groped a fellow justice and pressed his security detail for sex.

The allegations span 19 years, starting from when he was a U.S. magistrate judge in the Central District. The women include two justices, a new judge, attorneys and court staff.

"Justice Jeffrey Johnson denies the allegations, and will present sworn declarations of counsel, court personnel and confirmed interviews of supervising justices and judicial colleagues in his defense," Paul S. Meyer, Johnson's attorney, said in a statement.

Meyer said Johnson "unequivocally" passed polygraph testing on the most serious allegations and plans to bring forward communications of the complainants that "contradict and discredit the claims."

"Justice Johnson looks forward to a careful and fair review of facts and materials by those designated to decide this matter," Meyer said.

Johnson, who is charged with nine counts of misconduct and is facing possible removal from the bench, would be the second high-ranking California state jurist to face accusations of sexual impropriety in the #MeToo era. Justice Conrad Rushing of the 6th District in San Jose quietly retired when allegations against him surfaced. Unlike Rushing, who slipped away from the court before the allegations were publicly disclosed, Johnson appears poised to fight the charges.

Kathleen M. Ewins of Long & Levit LLP, who is representing the Court of Appeal in this matter, declined to comment.

The Commission on Judicial Performance alleges Johnson repeatedly groped 2nd District Court of Appeal Justice Victoria Chaney from 2010 to 2018. In 2010, Johnson and Chaney met in the courthouse hallway, during which Chaney said she had just finished a particularly difficult hearing, according to the commission. He allegedly squeezed one of her breasts, after telling her it was "to make you feel better," the charges state.

Johnson is also accused of repeatedly propositioning a California Highway Patrol officer who was assigned as his driver and asking another officer to come into his house with an allegedly "sexually suggestive" tone, according to the commission.

Johnson is also accused of making inappropriate comments to female court staff and attorneys as well as lawyers at social and networking events about their appearance. On one occasion, the commission alleges Johnson told 2nd District Court of Appeal Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes, in the presence of Chaney, that she has "'the greatest ass in the 2nd District,' or words to that effect."

In response to a request for comment from Chaney, her attorney, Eric George of Browne George Ross LLP, said in a text that she "will continue to provide testimony to the commission as requested, but out of respect for the integrity of the pending proceedings does not otherwise intend to comment publicly."

Johnson is also charged with one count of engaging in a pattern of poor demeanor toward colleagues and court employees, including raising his voice at his judicial assistant and research attorney, and one count of demeaning the judicial office by giving the appearance of being under the influence of alcohol. Several public incidents of intoxication were alleged as was an occasion in late 2016 at approximately 11:30 p.m., when the commission said Johnson was observed at the courthouse after drinking alcohol and was slurring his speech.

Johnson, a former federal prosecutor, was once seen as a star in California legal circles. In 1995, he received the Attorney General's Award, the U.S. Department of Justice's second-highest honor, recognizing his wiretap investigation and prosecution of a nationwide crack cocaine and money laundering network. He sat on the federal bench as a magistrate judge for 10 years before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed him to the California Court of Appeal in 2009. His name was often mentioned for a seat on the California Supreme Court, and he was recognized with the Judicial Council's Distinguished Service Award in July 2017 for his work chairing the state judiciary's Cost Reduction Subcommittee.

In August, following the resignation of Rushing and Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals amid allegations of sexual harassment, more than 90 employees from the 2nd District Court of Appeal, including six of the women mentioned in the commission's notice, signed a petition asking the Judicial Council to form a working group to review and revise sexual harassment policies. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye granted the request in October.

Lara Bazelon, a University of San Francisco School of Law professor who writes about the judiciary's disciplinary process, said allegations of misconduct by Johnson circulated for years. Bazelon was a Los Angeles deputy federal public defender from 2001 to 2008 when Johnson was a U.S. magistrate judge.

Bazelon said the #MeToo movement has enabled more women to feel empowered to come forward, which could explain why the allegations against Johnson are publicly surfacing now, some nearly two decades after the alleged incidents occurred.

The Commission on Judicial Performance has been criticized for a lack of transparency as the nature and existence of investigations and complaints are kept confidential unless public discipline is imposed or formal proceedings are instituted. As a result, Bazelon said, the judicial watchdog has at times been perceived as not taking complaints seriously.

"This is a really important test case," Bazelon said. "If they can't get this one right, they won't be able to get anything right. Just the volume and the seriousness of these allegations and the length of time that it's been going on, the sheer number of charges. ... I really hope that this is handled correctly, and I'm hopeful that it will be."

Johnson's answer to the charges is due by Jan. 24. At a public hearing, parties can introduce evidence and examine and cross-examine witnesses. The hearing date will be set in two to three weeks, according to commission director-chief counsel Gregory Dresser. He declined to comment further.

If the commission determines the charges are proven by "clear and convincing evidence," it will determine appropriate discipline, which could include removal.