Report 2016-137 Recommendation 6 Responses

Report 2016-137: Commission on Judicial Performance: Weaknesses in Its Oversight Have Created Opportunities for Judicial Misconduct to Persist (Release Date: April 2019)

Recommendation #6 To: Commission on Judicial Performance

To ensure that it adequately investigates alleged judicial misconduct, by April 2020 CJP should expand the role of its legal advisor's office to include periodic reviews of the quality of closed investigations and, as warranted, to recommend changes to CJP's investigative practices.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From April 2021

CJP fully implemented this recommendation. The legal advisor now conducts an annual review of closed investigation files and, if appropriate, makes recommendations for changes to CJP's investigative practices. For the most recent annual review, the legal advisor drafted a report after reviewing a random selection of closed investigation files and consulting with investigating the attorneys who conducted the investigations to resolve any questions that arose. The legal advisor provided that report to the commission. The legal advisor will continue to conduct a thorough review of investigation files on an annual basis.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

We are rating this recommendation as fully implemented because the legal advisor improved the thoroughness of the review of closed investigations since our last assessment and reported pertinent information to the Commission.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2020

CJP fully implemented this recommendation. The legal advisor now conducts an annual review of closed investigation files and, if appropriate, makes recommendations for changes to investigative practices. The legal advisor will continue to conduct a thorough review of investigation files to implement this recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

We are rating this recommendation as partially implemented based on concerns we identified with the legal advisor's first review evaluating the quality of closed investigations. We identified concerns with some of the investigations that the legal advisor did not resolve that were similar to the issues we identified in the audit. Overall, the legal advisor will need to conduct a more thorough review to fully implement this recommendation. We will update our assessment based on our evaluation of the legal advisor's second review of the quality of closed investigations.

1-Year Agency Response

CJP established a policy to have the legal advisor review a random sample of closed investigations and to recommend changes to investigative practices, if necessary. The legal advisor completed the first such review in February 2020.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

We are rating this recommendation as partially implemented based on concerns we identified with the legal advisor's first review evaluating the quality of closed investigations. We identified concerns with some of the investigations that the legal advisor did not resolve that were similar to the issues we identified in the audit. Overall, the legal advisor will need to conduct a more thorough review to fully implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

The efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

Commission staff has established a process for the legal advisor to review one closed preliminary investigation for each investigating attorney on staff. This review will occur in the first quarter of every year.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We assessed the implementation status of this recommendation as pending because CJP has provided insufficient detail regarding how it will conduct its periodic investigation reviews. The documentation CJP provided to us explaining its plans for periodic reviews details the time of year the legal advisor will review investigations and how many investigations the legal advisor will review. To fully implement this recommendation, we expect CJP's plans to include details about what the legal advisor will be assessing as part of her review and under what circumstances the legal advisor would expand her review to determine the cause of any identified deficiencies. Additionally, CJP should describe how and when the legal advisor will report to the commission the steps taken as part of her review and the results of the review, including any recommended changes to CJP's investigative practices. Finally, this recommendation will not be fully implemented until we verify that the legal advisor has conducted an adequate review of investigations in accordance with CJP's planned approach.

All Recommendations in 2016-137

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.