It’s the CJP, not the complainant, that must maintain confidentiality

The author of the March 31 Daily Journal column "Is the 3rd District slacking?" wonders why I went public with my recent complaint to the Commission on Judicial Performance about extraordinary decisional delay in the 3rd District Court of Appeal.

When I submitted the complaint on Jan. 26, specifying 150 recently adjudicated cases that had languished for two to seven years after the completion of briefing, at least 130 additional long-delayed appeals still remained undecided by the 3rd District -- appeals filed some three to eight years ago. During the past six weeks, the 3rd District has issued opinions in 39 of those 130 cases and has begun scheduling oral argument in several dozen more. Without a public airing, this sudden about-face would not have happened.

But the about-face alone won't be enough. During the year or so it will take the 3rd District to plow through those 130 cases, more unadjudicated cases waiting their turn in line will cross the threshold into egregious delay.

The March 31 column isn't accurate in saying that CJP complaints must be filed confidentially. The CJP's rules require "the commission and its members" -- not the complainant -- to maintain a complaint's confidentiality.

"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Louis Brandeis, "What Publicity Can Do" (1913).

-- Jon B. Eisenberg

Healdsburg