FILED
clit 15 208
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Worcrar MtSSION ony
FORMAN
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
INQUIRY CONCERNING FORMER | FINDINGS OF FACT AND
JUDGE STEVEN C. BAILEY, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF
THE SPECIAL MASTERS
NO, 202
The Commission on Judicial Performance (the Commission)
charged former El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Steven C. Bailey
(Judge Bailey or Bailey) with willful misconduct in office, conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute,
and improper action within the meaning of article VI, section 18 of the
California Constitution. The Chief Justice of California appointed us as
special masters to hear and take evidence in this matter. We conducted an
evidentiary hearing on September 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11, 2018, in Sacramento,
California, and submit this final report containing findings of fact and
conclusions of law in accordance with rule 129(c) of the Rules of the
Commission.
Introduction
The Special Masters note that the charges against Judge Bailey
fall into two distinct categories. Counts 1 through 6 relate to Bailey’s conduct
as a judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court. Counts 7 through 11
relate to his campaign for Attorney General of California. We are quick to
observe that there is a vast difference between these two categories ofcharges. It is our impression that the conduct at issue in Counts 1 through 6
came to the attention of the Commission only because Judge Bailey became
embroiled in an acrimonious relationship with the county's presiding judge,
Judge Suzanne Kingsbury. Counts 7 through 11 have nothing to do with
their feud.
In considering Counts 1 through 6, we believe it is important for
the Commission to understand the toxic environment that existed in the
Superior Court of El Dorado County during much of Judge Bailey's tenure.
‘The relationship between Judge Bailey, a newly elected judge, and Judge
Kingsbury, the county's long-time presiding judge, started off on the wrong
foot and grew progressively worse over the 8 years Bailey was on the
Superior Court. Judge Kingsbury obviously did not care for Judge Bailey
and, at the hearing before the Special Masters, she expressly stated that she
did not consider him to be a friend. That is an understatement.
Judge Bailey testified his relationship with Judge Kingsbury
began to sour in about 2012, when he declined to help her convince another
judge to retire rather than run for reelection. Around the same time, Bailey,
who had only been a judge for a few years, began openly discussing with his
colleagues his desire to elect a new presiding judge. Bailey approached one of
the more senior judges and asked for his vote to unseat Judge Kingsbury
When that judge indicated he would support Kingsbury, Bailey enlisted a
local attorney to run against him in a contested election. Bailey's
involvement in that election eventually led to the conduct alleged in Count 1
Judge Kingsbury testified her relationship with Judge Bailey
deteriorated in about 2014. Before then, she would talk with him about
performance or ethical issues that came to her attention. She stopped doingthat, however, when it became clear to her that Judge Bailey was not
listening to her and would not accept her advice.
We also infer that Judge Kingsbury took Bailey's efforts to have
her replaced as presiding judge personally. She nicknamed Judge Bailey
“Skippy,” because she thought he was never where he was supposed to be,
and then she used this derogatory nickname in communications with court
employees. Judge Kingsbury also enlisted court employees to keep tabs on
Judge Bailey, because she apparently thought it was appropriate to have
court staff conduct surveillance on a fellow judge. The Special Masters
believe that no judge should ever enlist court employees to spy on a colleague
and report their findings either to the judge or to the Commission. This is
the antithesis of judicial collegiality. Judge Bailey had the right to expect
that court employees would be loyal assistants to all members of the Superior
Court bench.
‘The Commission received numerous emails from court employees
regarding Judge Bailey. We question whether these complaints would have
been made without the efforts of Judge Kingsbury. No employee in the court
system should be put in this position. Judge Kingsbury and the court
employees also appear to have been something other than just reporters of
information. They seem to have taken on the role of investigative staff for
the Commission. At one point, Judge Kingsbury even expressed to staff that
the Commission investigation of Judge Bailey was taking too long. She
became an advocate for the Commission to charge Judge Bailey with
misconduct. She should not have done so. (See In re Marriage of Calcaterra
& Badakhsh (2005) 182 Cal.App.4th 28, 38.)
At the hearing before the Special Masters, the examiner argued
Judge Kingsbury’s conduct was irrelevant. We do not agree. The motivation
Letter From The Commission On Judicial Performance Related To Complaints: Judge Lucas, Judge James Towery, Judge Mary Ann Grilli, Judge Mark Pierce, Judge Mary Arand, Judge Drew Takachi