Special masters report on Justice Johnson leaves areas to continue fight, says attorney

Jeffrey W. Johnson was a high school debate star in South Carolina the last time a sitting California justice was removed from office. In the wake of a 316-page special masters' report issued by the Commission on Judicial Performance on Friday, speculation has grown that Johnson might be the first California justice ordered off the bench in more than 40 years.

The report issued Friday painted a picture of a complex man. The justice on the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Division One, is described as a mentor, deeply involved in community service and giving of his time and attention to those less fortunate. Yet it also portrays someone who sexually harassed women for years, often while under the influence of alcohol, then called his accusers liars and blamed allegations on claims of racism. The report found the burden of proof had not been met for some of the most damning claims against him though it found a basis for many others.

Johnson's attorney, Paul S. Meyer, saw positives in the report.

"We appreciate the hard work of the special masters and their report indicating that the serious claims of the CHP officer were not found to be true," the Costa Mesa criminal defense attorney said in an email. "We also appreciate the consideration given to Justice Johnson's excellent career and community service."

Meyer added that he saw openings to continue to fight the charges against his client. This will be detailed in a new brief to be filed by a deadline that will be set by the CJP.

"While we disagree with a number of the other findings, the special masters' findings about the credibility problems of a number of the accusing witnesses is an important factor for future analysis," Meyer wrote.

He added: "As you know, hundreds of witnesses provided testimony and declarations in support of Justice Johnson, which is also appreciated."

The CJP held 17 days of hearings on Johnson from last August to October. Director and Chief Counsel Gregory P. Dresser said the agency has not set a briefing schedule following the special master report.

In the previous case of a justice being removed from the bench, a panel of appellate court colleagues ordered California Supreme Court Justice Marshall F. McComb removed from office due to "senile dementia" in 1977 after the CJP recommended his removal. In 2017, 6th District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing resigned from office in the face of sexual harassment allegations and a Judicial Council investigation.

"Hard to say what the commission will do," James A. Murphy, who represents judicial officers in such cases but is not involved in the Johnson proceedings said in an email. "If true to past practices and form, however, the examiner's office, I am sure, will ask for his removal."

Another issue is whether the report would affect civil cases involving Johnson. Murphy -- a founding shareholder with Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney -- said the special masters' findings would likely not affect other cases unless it undermined the credibility of an accuser.

"As to the burden of proof, in commission proceedings it is clear and convincing evidence, whereas in a civil proceeding it is preponderance of the evidence," Murphy said.

The report said the examiners failed to provide sufficient burden of proof for some of the claims against Johnson made by a pair of California Highway Patrol officers. These include claims made by Officer Tatiana Sauquillo, who was assigned to work as a driver for the court from 2013-16.

But the report did not question Sauquillo's credibility. A judge ruled last month Sauquillo could continue her harassment case involving claims against Johnson and others. Sauquillo v. California Highway Patrol, 19STCV24910 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed July 17, 2019).

Sauquillo is represented by The Bloom Firm.

"The report speaks for itself, outlining a disturbing pattern of harassing behavior," said founder Lisa Bloom. "We expect the Supreme Court to hold Justice Johnson accountable."

She added that while Sauquillo "appeared and answered questions," she was not a party to Johnson's CJP case.

"We intend to prove up our case via our client's testimony as well as evidence we introduce and witnesses we call at trial," Bloom added.

Meanwhile, Robert Fellmeth, the Price Professor of Public Interest Law and the University of San Diego School of Law, asked in a reaction to the report: "Where has the commission been for the last two decades?"

"I think this is an excellent example of a problem that should have been addressed years ago," Fellmeth said in an email. "It is possible that an early letter of censure would have prevented much of this."