How to Become a Judge in California

In California, becoming a judge involves a rigorous process of legal education, experience, and either appointment or election. However, judges are held to high ethical standards, and there are established procedures to address judicial misconduct. The Commission on Judicial Performance, an independent state agency, plays a crucial role in investigating complaints and imposing disciplinary actions when necessary, ensuring the integrity of the judicial system.

Path to California Judgeship

To become a judge in California, one must first be an attorney admitted to practice law in the state for at least 10 years[1]. The path typically involves:

• Obtaining a law degree and passing the California Bar exam
• Gaining extensive legal experience, often in courtrooms or public service
• Building a reputation for integrity and legal expertise
• Either being elected by county voters in a non-partisan election or appointed by the Governor to fill a vacancy[2]

Once on the bench, judges serve 6-year terms for superior courts or 12-year terms for appellate courts[3]. They must adhere to strict ethical standards outlined in the California Code of Judicial Ethics and can face disciplinary action for misconduct.

Judicial Election and Appointment

Superior court judges in California are elected by county voters on a non-partisan ballot during general elections in even-numbered years. They serve 6-year terms beginning in January following their election. However, most judges initially reach the bench through gubernatorial appointment to fill vacancies. Appointed judges must then stand for election at the next general election. The State Bar's Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation investigates and evaluates prospective nominees' qualifications before appointment[1]. For appellate courts, justices are appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, and must be approved by voters in the next gubernatorial election. They serve 12-year terms and face retention elections where voters decide whether they should remain in office.

Addressing Judicial Misconduct

The Commission on Judicial Performance investigates complaints of judicial misconduct and can impose various disciplinary actions, ranging from confidential advisory letters to public censure or removal from office[1]. Judges can be disqualified from cases if they are perceived to be prejudiced, with parties allowed to file a peremptory challenge without providing specific reasons[2]. For more serious issues, the Commission may suspend a judge without salary if they are charged with a felony or found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude[4]. The California Supreme Court can review the Commission's decisions, and in cases involving Supreme Court justices, a special tribunal of seven Court of Appeal judges is convened to review disciplinary actions[4].

Disciplinary Actions for Judges

The Commission on Judicial Performance in California has several options for disciplining judges who engage in misconduct. Here is an overview of the disciplinary actions available, from least to most severe:

Disciplinary Action	Description
Advisory Letter	A confidential letter advising caution or expressing disapproval of minor misconduct
Private Admonishment	A confidential notice describing more serious improper conduct and the commission's conclusions
Public Admonishment	A public statement detailing misconduct and the commission's findings
Public Censure	A more severe public reprimand for serious misconduct
Removal from Office	The most serious action, removing a judge from their position

The commission determines the appropriate level of discipline based on the severity of the misconduct. For minor infractions, an advisory letter may be issued to caution the judge[1]. More serious misconduct can result in a private admonishment, which remains confidential but provides a formal notice to the judge[1]. Public discipline is reserved for more egregious cases. A public admonishment or censure publicly details the judge's misconduct and the commission's findings[1]. In the most severe cases, the commission can remove a judge from office or order involuntary retirement[1].

The disciplinary process includes investigations, opportunities for judges to respond to allegations, and in some cases, public hearings. The commission's decisions can be reviewed by the California Supreme Court, ensuring due process[4]. It's worth noting that judges can also face immediate suspension without salary if charged with a felony or found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude[4]. Additionally, removed judges are ineligible for future judicial office and may face suspension from practicing law[4]. This system of graduated disciplinary actions allows the Commission on Judicial Performance to address misconduct proportionally while maintaining the integrity of the judiciary[1].

Judicial Training and Continuing Education

Judicial training and continuing education play a crucial role in maintaining a competent and effective judiciary in California. Newly appointed or elected judges are required to complete an initial orientation program, which covers essential aspects of judicial conduct, ethics, and courtroom procedures[1]. Thereafter, judges engage in ongoing professional development through various educational programs and courses offered by institutions like the National Judicial College and state judicial education organizations[1]. These programs cover a wide range of topics, including substantive legal knowledge, judicial skills, ethics, and emerging social issues[3].

California judges typically have dedicated time in their schedules for continuing education, with newly appointed judges often receiving priority for core courses in their first few years on the bench[4]. This commitment to lifelong learning ensures that judges stay current with legal developments, societal changes, and best practices in judicial administration[1].