Court Opinion

ID: 9535106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:45:33.539056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:10.246600
License: Public Domain

KAUS, J.
I agree wholeheartedly with the court’s disposition of this case. I respectfully dissent, however from that portion of the court’s opinion which seeks to regulate the period, after filing of the record in this court, during which commission proceedings recommending public censure shall remain confidential.
Justice Mosk’s criticism of current procedures as expressed in Roberts was primarily based on the fact that they undermine the availability of private admonishment as a realistic option. Once the proceedings are made public, private admonishment—though deemed by us to be adequate—becomes a farce. I thought Justice Mosk was dead right on that point when I read his dissent in Roberts and I still think so. The reason why I did not join him then was threefold: (a) Article VI, section 18, subdivision (f) of the Constitution directs the Judicial Council, not us or the commission, to make rules implementing confidentiality, (b) The basic Judicial Council rule was rule 902(a), of the California Rules of Court which, in effect, provided that confidentiality ceased when the record was filed with us. (For that reason I thought Justice Mosk’s criticism of the commission’s press release was somewhat unfair: the exceptions to confidentiality set forth in rule 902(b) clearly relate only to releases before the filing of the record: once the record is filed, the proceedings are simply a public document as any other filed with this court.) (c) Even if we were to write the rules, I saw no practical way of “keeping the lid” on commission proceedings, short of maintaining confidentiality at least until we filed our opinion. Today’s holding proves my point: assuming, as we must, the possibility of eventual vindication—or private admonishment—it seems naive to believe that the filing of a petition for review by the judge will remove the sting of what may prove to be an unjust accusation or an unjustifiably harsh recommendation for public censure. In the event of complete vindication or private admonishment, nothing but permanent confidentiality will suffice.
I continue to believe that since the Constitution has entrusted the rule-making power to the Judicial Council, we should let it rest there, at least unless we can say that its rules simply do not provide for confidentiality. *64(E.g., Mosk v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 474, 488-499 [159 Cal.Rptr. 494, 601 P.2d 1030].) This does not mean that I do not believe that present rules cannot be improved upon. I do not, however, believe that this decision is an improvement, since it does not go far enough to accomplish its purpose.