The Los Angeles Superior Court Executive Committee and the president of the American Bar Association have come to the defense of First District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline, accused of misconduct for a dissenting opinion that declined to follow a state Supreme Court ruling.

The Superior Court disclosed in a press release that its Executive Committee met Wednesday and adopted a resolution attacking the Commission on Judicial Performance, saying it had overstepped its bounds by citing a judicial opinion as a basis for a charge of misconduct. 

Calling the commission's action a "dangerous intrusion into legitimate legal discourse," the committee said the filing of charges "has the effect of chilling judicial expression because no member of the judiciary knows the extent to which the CJP can, or will, exercise jurisdiction based on statements made by a judge in a judicial decision."

Judicial Independence

The resolution also urged the California Judges Association to support Kline "against this affront to the independence of the California judiciary." The CJA Executive Committee is scheduled to meet in San Francisco Aug. 1, and the Kline case is expected to be discussed. 

The resolution was approved with only two dissenting votes on the 17-member committee, Presiding Judge Robert Parkin told the MetNews. He declined to name the dissenters, but said their disagreement was over the wording of the resolution and that there was "pretty much a consensus" that the commission was wrong. 

"Everybody was of the mind that the CJP getting into legal decisions was somewhat frightening," Parkin explained. 

Also yesterday, ABA President Jerome Shestack of Philadelphia made public a letter he had written to the commission urging dismissal of the proceedings against Kline. 

"The inquiry launched against Justice Kline has a 'chilling effect' on all judges in California," Shestack wrote. "It is possible that all judges across the state will hesitate to express dissent on controversial matters because of the threat of similar inquiry."

Widespread Support

Lawyers, judges and legal commentators of diverse ideologies have rushed to the support of the liberal Kline since the commission announced its charges July 6.

Kline, the commission alleges, committed misconduct when he wrote that he could no longer follow a 1992 state Supreme Court ruling that allows parties in a civil lawsuit, as part of a settlement, to erase all previous court decisions in their case.

He said the ruling allowed private parties to buy and sell court judgments and should be reconsidered by the state's high court, which declined the invitation.

The commission last Friday issued a release in which it attempted to clarify its position, saying the issue wasn't Kline's criticism of Neary v. Regents of the University of California but his "voting against a motion which he expressly acknowledged that the law required by granted and stating that he would continue to refuse to grant such motions unless specifically ordered to do so by the Supreme Court."

Also, the National Law Journal ran a story on the case this week, quoting Donald Vinson, a public member of the commission, as saying it was acting to "protect the public" and "see that judges follow the law...and the canons of judicial ethics."