On Nov. 17, the Commission on Judicial Performance ordered Ross, a judge since 1999, removed from office.

The commission found that Ross:

• Committed willful misconduct by adding charges-for which there was no factual basis-against a defendant, arraigning her without counsel present, and summarily remanding her to custody; by disregarding another defendant's right to counsel, becoming embroiled in the case and acting in a prosecutorial role; by revealing on a public television program information he had learned while presiding over a confidential juvenile matter; and by participating in the filming of a pilot for a television program which was "degrading to the judge and all the participants" in the course of which his name and title were used for promotional purposes and he arbitrated actual disputes.

• Engaged in prejudicial misconduct by disregarding another defendant's right to a formal probation violation hearing and continuing the proceedings in the absence of counsel;

• Engaged in improper conduct by making ex parte telephone contact with a defendant, and by making prejudicial comments about a Northern California sex offender case during an appearance on public television.

• Violated no canons of judicial ethics by speaking on a radio program about a statewide ballot proposition during courtroom hours, participating in a community outreach program different from the one for which he had obtained an approved leave without notifying the court of the change, or by commenting in what the commission found to be a neutral manner on the issues involved in the case of two Inglewood police officers accused of abusing a suspect.

In a 9-0 decision, the commission said removal from office was appropriate because of the number of instances of misconduct and the judge's lack of candor in his dealings with the commission.

Ross, who was elected to the Inglewood Municipal Court in 1998 and became a judge of the unified Superior Court in January 2000, can petition the California Supreme Court for review, and is currently suspended without pay.

Ross admitted that in one case, he inappropriately ordered a traffic court defendant jailed because he believed she had provided false information about her identity, and that in another matter, he improperly interrogated an unrepresented defendant after the man said he wanted to consult with an attorney.

Ross also acknowledged problems with his 2002 arrangement with a production company for a show to be called "Mobile Court." Ross was to resolve small claims cases, with the parties stipulating to be bound by his rulings.

In making the deal, the masters said, Ross violated Canon 2B(2), which provides that a judge "shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others."

Ross' attorney and agent testified that his name and title were not supposed to be used in connection with the presentation. Ross said he unintentionally violated the ethics code by signing arbitration awards in favor of the winning "litigants," since judges cannot engage in private alternative dispute resolution, but denied that he abused his office by participating in the effort to sell the program.

The charges rejected by the masters involved appearances by Ross, a former prosecutor, on the KCET public television program "Life and Times Tonight" during 2001 and 2002. Ross, a frequent guest on the public affairs discussion program, gained a seat on the Inglewood Municipal Court in 1998 by defeating Judge Lawrence Mason and became a Superior Court judge upon unification in 2000.

Among the canons of the Code of Judicial Ethics violated by the four appearances, the CJP asserted, is Canon 3B(9), which says that a judge shall not shall not "make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court."

Both of the unauthorized absence allegations also related to public appearances made by the judge.

Ross testified that his television appearances were consistent with the California courts' efforts to educate the public on the judicial process and noted that other judicial officers had appeared with him or on similar programs. He also contended that the restrictions on judicial comment on pending cases are unconstitutional.