Counsel for the Commission on Judicial Performance filed a brief in September urging the commission to reject the findings of a panel of special masters, which rejected nearly all of the charges of misconduct brought against Harris. The 30-year judicial officer retired last month.

The CJP accused Harris of seeking to establish personal relationships with sexual assault victims, making inappropriately personal comments to jurors, attorneys, and court staff, throwing a file at a deputy city attorney, and lying during an investigation into his conduct.

The masters rejected charges that after two felony sexual assault trials in 2000, Harris met in chambers with the victims and sought to initiate personal relationships.

Harris acknowledged that he spoke to the victims in chambers and that the meetings were improper because the cases were not yet final. But he testified that he sought only to comfort the victims because he was moved by their plight, and did not intend to have any extensive or improper continuing relationships with them.

The masters found that testimony credible, citing many witnesses who said that Harris was an empathetic person by nature and noting that despite his years of judicial experience, he was new to handling felony sex crimes.

The masters also found that the commission had failed to prove that comments made by Harris to or about female attorneys, court staff members, or jurors on various occasions were inappropriately flirtatious or sexual.

A hearing was held Nov. 15 through 18 in Pasadena regarding Ross, who was charged May 7 with three counts of judicial misconduct.

Ventura Superior Court Judge Vincent J. O'Neill, Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice Judith Haller, and San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Michael A. Smith were the special masters for the hearing, which was postponed from September after the commission brought additional charges.

The CJP asserted in its original formal notice of proceedings that Ross made comments about pending cases on a public television program on four occasions, was twice absent from court without authorization, and in four instances treated criminal defendants inappropriately. It later added allegations that the jurist improperly sought to promote a courtroom simulation television program in which he would star.

The CJP originally cited 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 relate to public appearances made by the judge.

In March of 2000, the CJP alleged, Ross arrived about an hour late because he was giving a radio interview about Proposition 21, a juvenile crime initiative statute. In his testimony, Ross acknowledged giving the interview, which he said was a legitimate public outreach activity, and taking the bench about 9:30 a.m. But he denied that court business was interrupted.

In April of 2002 he asked for and was granted two days off to attend a California Association of Black Lawyers conference in Palm Springs. The CJP alleged that he made a misrepresentation to the court because there were no conference events scheduled during the first day and Ross spent the time taping a television segment and attending an inner-city economic summit.

Ross acknowledged in his testimony that there were no conference events that first day, but said his attendance at the economic summit was related to his judicial duties.

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.

In the amended notice filed Sept. 1, the CJP said the judge contracted in 2002 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.

The show's premise was that the hearing would take place at the scene of the dispute.

The videotape, which was played for the masters during the hearing, was shown to representatives of television stations, but found no buyers.

On the videotape, Ross presided over the cases as "Judge Kevin Ross," and the marketing efforts listed him as "judge/host." Among the ethical canons violated by Ross' conduct, the CJP asserted, was 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 to 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.