Opinion ID: 1172050
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Offensive Jokes to Female Attorneys.

Text: (22) The Commission determined that Judge Ryan committed two acts of prejudicial conduct when he told offensive jokes to female attorneys in his chambers. The judge admits telling the following joke while two female attorneys, among others, were present in his chambers: It's during the period of creation and God has just gone ahead and has made  he's made the earth and the stars and the wind and some of the animals. He's still creating things. Adam and Eve have been created. They discover each other and they discover the physical portions of each other and they lay down and they make love. When they finish, Eve leaves for a little while and then returns. When she returns, she  or Adam says, where have you been? She says, I went to the stream to wash off. And Adam says, gee, I wonder if that's going to give a scent to the fish? The two female attorneys were offended by the joke. In another count, two female attorneys, among others, appeared before the judge in his chambers to conduct a preliminary hearing. Judge Ryan asked the two female attorneys if they knew the difference between a Caesar salad and a blow job. When the attorneys responded that they did not know the difference, the judge said, Great, let's have lunch. The attorneys were offended. Judge Ryan intended these comments as jokes. He later apologized to some of the individuals present. The masters found that the judge had indeed made the comments, but that his conduct was not prejudicial. The Commission disagreed, concluding that prejudicial conduct existed. It is sometimes difficult to determine the line between extremely poor taste and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. Nevertheless, we believe the fact that the judge was acting in his official capacity when he told the Caesar salad joke provides ample support for the Commission's determination that the judge committed prejudicial conduct. When Judge Ryan told the Caesar salad joke, the two female attorneys were appearing before him for a preliminary hearing. The fact that the hearing was conducted in Judge Ryan's chambers makes little difference; his conduct was just as improper as if he had told the joke from the courtroom bench. [11] In Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra, 10 Cal.3d 270, we removed Judge Geiler from office because of his vulgar and profane statements and conduct, among other things. Two of Judge Geiler's vulgar comments are illustrative: (1) Referring to his female court clerk while she was present, Judge Geiler asked other men in his chambers, How would you like to eat that? (2) In conversations with his female clerk, the judge occasionally asked, Did you get any last night? We found the comments made by Judge Geiler to be prejudicial. As we stated in Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 33 Cal.3d 359, [d]erogatory remarks, although made in chambers or at a staff gathering, may become public knowledge and thereby diminish the hearer's esteem for the judiciary  again regardless of the speaker's subjective intent or motivation. The reputation in the community of an individual judge necessarily reflects on that community's regard for the judicial system. ( Id. at p. 377.) We conclude that Judge Ryan's offensive and insensitive jokes constituted prejudicial conduct.