Counsel for judge accused of sexist and racist remarks goes on offense during misconduct hearing

SACRAMENTO -- The attorney representing Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John T. Laettner, who is facing a complaint of making sexist and racist remarks in court, tried to put his accusers on trial during closing arguments Friday of a judicial misconduct hearing.

Laettner's counsel portrayed "a dedicated public servant" facing an attack cooked up to get a tough judge off the bench. James T. Murphy of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney in San Francisco repeatedly attacked the "credibility" of his client's accusers.

"It's clear we're here because the public defender's office in Contra Costa County was out to get Judge Laettner," Murphy said.

Commission on Judicial Performance Trial Counsel Mark A. Lizarraga called these allegations "preposterous" and "character assassination." He noted that one of Laettner's main accusers is the woman who worked as his court reporter for 11 years.

"They are essentially telling people, 'When you come forward, this is what you get,'" Lizarraga said.

The commission filed a nine-count complaint against Laettner in September claiming willful misconduct and prejudicial behavior. Four of these alleged sexual harassment or inappropriate comments, such as telling a public defender, "Having you here is like having a teenage daughter."

Laettner's former court reporter and others alleged he often commented on women's looks, calling them "pretty" or "hot," saying their appearance was "ruined" by too many tattoos or noting the long legs of one attorney and joking she "was a member of the district attorney's volleyball team."

Other charges had to do with allegedly racist comments and improper procedure that harmed litigants. Lizarraga spent much of his time discussing a case with a Latino defendant who was a minor. Laettner allegedly dwelled on a perceived racial or "ethnic" component of why he may have violated terms set by the court or been allowed to have sex with his girlfriend in his parents' house.

Murphy appeared to have his strongest moments in trying to pull apart the claims of procedural wrongdoing.

At one point, he dissected Lizarraga's claim that Laettner had entered a hearing with his mind already made up, instead walking through specifics to show he was merely asking questions as any judge would. He also cited the several private attorneys and deputy district attorneys who testified they never saw him behaving improperly.

As the hearing went on, Lizarraga increasingly focused on Laettner's alleged comments about women.

"It's clear that women who entered Judge Laettner's courtroom are subjected to differential behavior based on gender," he said.

The three-hour closing arguments followed a 10-day trial that occurred in San Francisco in February and March.

At one point Friday, Lizarraga compared Laettner to another Murphy client, now-former San Diego County Superior Court Judge Gary C. Kreep. Kreep survived his trial with a public censure in 2017 but was defeated by voters in November.

"This isn't a case about Gary Kreep," Murphy shot back.

The special masters appointed to hear the case were led by M. Kathleen Butz, a 3rd District Court of Appeal justice, serving along with Orange County Superior Court Judge Douglas Hatchimonji and Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Russell L. Hom.

They stayed quiet for most of the morning, though did briefly question Murphy if there were factors that "mitigated" Laettner's alleged behavior.

Murphy said yes, reiterating earlier statements that Laettner may have sometimes gone too far in trying to create a "collegial" atmosphere in his courtroom.

"He took it to heart and never made that kind of comment again," Murphy said at one point of an instance in which someone complained after Laettner complimented a woman in his courtroom.