Judge Emily Spear Is Unworthy of Her Post

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Page 10

EDITORIAL

Judge Emily Spear Is Unworthy of Her Post

ince 2018, when then-Deputy District Attorney Emily Theresa Spear ran for a Los Angeles Superior Court open seat—successfully—we have changed our assessment of her. We said then, in endorsing her opponent:

“She is conceited and immature. Maybe someday she’ll be fit for judicial service, but not now.”

Our rating of her was “not presently qualified.”

We were wrong.

Spear, who presently faces an election challenge, has clearly demonstrated, while in office, that her pronounced character defects—illuminated by facts delineated in a public admonishment of her by the Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”)—indicate that she will never be fit to be a judge.

We also opined seven years ago that “Spear…at 36, acts like a teenager and tells little white lies.”

More recently, her lies apparently have swelled in magnitude. Or perhaps earlier ones of equal size simply weren’t caught.

In light of Spear’s keen political astuteness and the power of her expected ballot designation as a sitting judge, the incumbent is bound to beat off a challenge by Deputy Public Defender Kimberly Repecka. But the matter of who is apt to win is distinct from the question of who ought to win.

Rarely have we not urged a vote for the incumbent in a judicial race. But we can’t endorse Spear. She’s a liar and a finagler.

ooking at Spear’s conduct, as set forth in the CJP’s Sept. 6 report, we find that she has a millennial’s sense of entitlement and a con artist’s brand of ethics. The commission declared in that report:

“Judge Spear’s misconduct included numerous unauthorized and undocumented absences and early departures from court; disparaging remarks about a judicial colleague; discourteous conduct toward, and false statements to, her supervising judge; and manipulation of her calendar for personal benefit.”

Of particular concern are the “false statements.” The portion of the report dealing with Spear’s prevarication, and the portion explaining why a public admonishment was deemed warranted, are set forth below, with some citations extracted.

The short version is that she wanted to extend a vacation scheduled for the week of Sept. 6, 2022, by one week even though she had not accumulated enough vacation days to justify the additional time off. In the course of her chicanery, she:

• Lied to Amy Pellman, then the supervising judge of the court’s Family Law Division, that if she were granted the additional week off, only “minimal coverage” would be needed because “only a few restraining orders and TROs” were on calendar in the week of Sept. 12. Pellman found that there were, in fact, “quite a few cases” on Spear’s calendar for that week.

• Failed to advise Pellman that Connie Quinones, the supervising judge at the Compton Courthouse, where Spear was stationed, had already denied the request for an additional vacation week.

• Lied to Pellman, again, in connection with an effort to take Friday, Sept. 2, off, without clearing it. Spear had instructed her courtroom assistant to move matters on her calendar for Sept. 2 to the following court week (which began on Tuesday, Sept. 6, because Monday was a holiday). Judge Esther Kim was to be filling in for her that week. When her plan to go AWOL came to light, Spear told Pellman that Kim had instructed her to move matters from Sept. 2 to the next week. That was a fabrication.

The commission said that “Judge Spear’s entire course of conduct surrounding her efforts to extend her September 2022 vacation reflects manipulation and dishonesty to get what she wanted.”

It observed “that some of her misconduct reflected a lack of integrity.”

Such connivery on the part of a judge indicates untrustworthiness. Indeed, how can she be trusted to decide cases with impartiality in determining the facts when arriving at truth is not her quest? And can she possibly be counted on to faithfully adhere to the law?

lso of concern is the commission’s finding as to Spear’s “unauthorized and undocumented full-day absences in 2021” and “her routine unauthorized and undocumented early departures from the courthouse in 2021 that resulted in absences of one-half day or more.” She’s a cheater.

(We do believe, however, that the commission took undue note of Spear’s foul-mouthed remarks by telephone to a colleague about Kim. The conduct was illustrative of Spear’s nature—a matter which voters might well find of relevant—but which, in context, was not so much a legitimate concern of the CJP. What Spear uttered was in the belief that she was venting her spleen in the course of a private conversation. Judges do possess a First Amendment right to express themselves privately as they may not publicly. As it happened, Spear had been participating in a telephonic conference with other bench officers in Compton; she diverted her attention to a side phone call, thinking she had muted her contact to the conference call; she hadn’t, and her profane diatribe was overheard by about 29 other judicial officers. This was a gaffe, not a knowing violation of the canons.)

It is meaningful that Spear asserted as a factor in mitigation—which the CJP found she failed to substantiate—that she has serious, possibly life-threatening medical problems. She either lied to the commission about the state of her health, constituting a further instance of dishonesty, or she was in this instance telling the truth, in which event, voters should be concerned that Spear might not be up to performing her duties over the next six years. Some years back, an ill Los Angeles Superior Court judge drew his full salary for a year during which he was on the bench only three days.

e find no inconsistency in last year having endorsed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carol Elswick, who incurred a public admonishment in 2018, and not now endorsing Spear, in light of the conduct underlying her CJP reprimand. As to Elswick, we pointed out:

“Although it appears that Elswick is, on the bench, unpleasant and lacking in humility, she is not known to be dishonorable.”

Spear is. And so was Elswick’s challenger.

Unpleasantness can, through counseling, be corrected. This is a matter of conduct. Honesty or dishonesty are innate qualities—part of a person’s basic make-up.

There’s no “cure” for Spear’s deceitful nature.

Our consistent view has been that there’s no need to assess the relative qualifications of a judge’s election opponent unless it is clear that the incumbent’s performance in office has been defective. Tomorrow, we look at the credentials of challenger Kimberly Repecka.

★★★★

CJP Castigates Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emily Spear

(Below are excerpts from the Commission on Judicial Performance’s Sept. 6 report and order in which Judge Emily Spear was publicly admonished.)

Disrespectful and Deceitful Conduct Toward Supervising Judge and Manipulation of Her Calendar for Personal Benefit - August 2022

In August 2022, to arrange a longer vacation than she had arranged with her judicial colleagues in the Family Law Division at the Compton Courthouse, Judge Spear made false representations to Supervising Judge Pellman and unilaterally manipulated matters on her calendar, without regard for the consequences to her colleagues and litigants.

Specifically, Judge Spear had been scheduled to be on vacation the week beginning Tuesday, September 6, 2022, and Judge Kim was scheduled to cover Judge Spear’s calendar that week. A few weeks before the scheduled time off, Judge Spear sought to extend her vacation to include the entire week of September 12. When Judge Spear asked the site supervising judge for Compton, Judge Connie Quinones, if she could take the week of September 12 off (in addition to the previously-scheduled week of September 6), Judge Quinones denied the request, because Judge Spear had insufficient vacation time, and no other bench officer was available to cover her calendar that week. Thereafter, Judge Spear emailed Supervising Judge Pellman to request “pro tern coverage” for the week of September 12 because she had pre-paid travel arrangements. Judge Spear noted that “[i]t would be minimal coverage needed” because “[i]t is only a few restraining orders and TROs.” She did not disclose that Judge Quinones had already denied her vacation request. Supervising Judge Pellman responded promptly, explaining that requests for vacation should be directed to Judge Quinones, as the site supervising judge. Later that day, Judge Pellman emailed Judge Spear again, informing her that she had become aware that Judge Quinones had already denied the vacation request. Judge Pellman also noted that, contrary to Judge Spear’s representation, there were “quite a few cases on [her] calendar that week.”

Judge Spear also sought to begin her scheduled vacation earlier by taking off Friday, September 2. Judge Spear did not ask Site Supervising Judge Quinones (or Supervising Judge Pellman) for the day off, and, instead, she instructed her judicial assistant to continue the hearings scheduled in her department on Friday, September 2, to Tuesday, September 6, when she would be on vacation and Judge Kim would be covering her calendar. Judge Spear did not discuss moving the hearings with Judge Kim, nor did she discuss it with Judge Quinones (or Judge Pellman). When Judge Kim discovered the continued matters, she notified Judge Pellman, who, on or about August 24, telephoned Judge Spear and counseled her that it was not acceptable to move cases onto another judge’s calendar without asking first. Judge Spear told Judge Pellman that Judge Kim had instructed her to continue the matters to September 6, which was not true. In a subsequent call, on or about the same day. Judge Pellman explained to Judge Spear again why moving her cases onto another judge’s calendar without discussing it with that judge first was problematic. Judge Spear did not appear to understand the problem with doing so, and she exhibited exasperation with Judge Pellman, telling her that she was repeating herself. When Judge Pellman reminded Judge Spear that she was trying to help her and had always shown respect for her and expected the same respect in return. Judge Spear responded, “Well, don’t you get annoyed when lawyers repeat themselves?” or words to that effect.

In her response to the preliminary investigation, Judge Spear admitted that it was a “mistake in judgment” for her to ask Supervising Judge Pellman for the week of September 12 off without disclosing that Site Supervising Judge Quinones had already denied the request. She explained that she did so because she thought Judge Quinones had only denied the request because she (Judge Quinones) was “mad” at her. Judge Spear did not deny the allegations that she misled Judge Pellman about the number of matters on her calendar the week of September 12 or that she falsely told Judge Pellman that Judge Kim had told her to continue the September 2 matters. She also did not deny the allegation that she treated Judge Pellman disrespectfully during the August 24 telephone conversation (by exhibiting exasperation, telling Judge Pellman that she was repeating herself, and stating, sarcastically, “Well, don’t you get annoyed when lawyers repeat themselves?” or words to that effect). Additionally, regarding the allegation that she improperly unilaterally continued hearings from her September 2 calendar to September 6, when Judge Kim would be covering for her, without first discussing it with Judge Kim, Judge Spear responded only that she “rescheduled the matters she had control over and believes they were all timely heard.”

The commission concluded that, by asking Supervising Judge Pellman for time off when Site Supervising Judge Quinones had already denied the same request (and without telling Judge Pellman that Judge Quinones had denied the request), by falsely telling Judge Pellman that she had moved hearings from September 2 to September 6 because Judge Kim had told her to do so, and by underreporting what she had on calendar the week she wanted off, all for the purpose of extending her vacation, Judge Spear exhibited dishonest conduct and a lack of integrity that is not befitting a judicial officer. “The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that honesty is a minimum qualification for every judge. ... If the essential quality of veracity is lacking, other positive qualities of the person cannot redeem or compensate for the missing fundamental.”…

The commission additionally concluded that, by displaying exasperation with Supervising Judge Pellman when Judge Spear was being counseled about manipulating her calendar, and by rudely telling Judge Pellman that she was repeating herself and stating, “Well, don’t you get annoyed when lawyers repeat themselves?” or words to that effect, Judge Spear’s conduct constitutes additional violations of canons….

The commission further concluded that Judge Spear engaged in misconduct when, without notice to her judicial colleague, she continued matters on her September 2 calendar to a later date on which she knew Judge Kim would be covering for her, for the purpose of taking an unplanned and unauthorized day off. The commission acknowledges that judges must, from time to time, continue matters because of personal circumstances, and that doing so is not necessarily misconduct. But here, Judge Spear’s entire course of conduct surrounding her efforts to extend her September 2022 vacation reflects manipulation and dishonesty to get what she wanted, even though she did not have sufficient vacation time to cover the days off she sought. She did not ask her supervising judge for September 2 off, which would have been the appropriate {and required) way to take a vacation day. Instead, she continued matters on her calendar so that her absence would not be noticed. And in doing so, she added to Judge Kim’s workload, without discussing it with her first (or even informing her afterwards). Judge Spear’s manipulation of her calendar for personal benefit violated canons….

DISCIPLINE

Judge Spear asserts that her misconduct is mitigated by a number of factors. In both her response to the preliminary investigation, her objections to the notice of tentative public admonishment, and at her appearance before the commission, Judge Spear argued that her health problems—which she characterized as significant, serious, and potentially life threatening—were well known to her supervising judges and the cause of the majority of her misconduct. Judge Spear, however, presented minimal evidence in support of her claim. And, while in her objections and at her appearance before the commission, Judge Spear claimed that she has received “glowing” and “outstanding” reviews of her current performance from her supervising judges, she presented no evidence to the commission in support of this claim. Further, Judge Spear argues that she has accepted responsibility for her misconduct and is remorseful. Although at her appearance before the commission, Judge Spear acknowledged the impropriety of some of her conduct, in her response to the preliminary investigation she consistently defended her conduct and directed blame towards her colleagues and supervising judges.

In light of the number of incidents of misconduct, the judge’s lack of insight into the seriousness of her misconduct, and the fact that some of her misconduct reflected a lack of integrity…, the commission has determined that a public admonishment is the appropriate discipline.