Court Committees & Programs

The Supreme Court is responsible for promulgating the Code of Judicial Ethics pursuant to Article VI, section 18(m), of the California Constitution. The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics makes recommendations to the court regarding whether amendments to the Code are necessary or appropriate.

Below is a list of the committee members:

• Hon. Marla J. Miller (Chair), Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two
• Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr., Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
• Hon. James N. Bianco, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
• Hon. Kevin A. Enright, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
• Hon. Laura W. Halgren (Ret.), Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
• Ms. Beth Jay, Attorney
• Hon. Barbara J.R. Jones (Ret.), Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five
• Hon. Lisa B. Lench, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
• Hon. Laurence D. Rubin, Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight

Staff Contact: Ms. Dawn Payne
Phone: 415-865-4287

Committee Activity

Past Invitations to Comment

News Releases

• Supreme Court Amends Code of Judicial Ethics (October 10, 2018)
• Public Comment Sought On Proposed Changes to Code of Judicial Ethics (June 1, 2011)

The Supreme Court established the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) to help inform the judiciary and the public about judicial ethics. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80.) CJEO publishes formal advisory opinions, issues confidential written opinions, and provides oral advice on proper judicial conduct under the California Code of Judicial Ethics. In providing its advisory opinions, the committee acts independently of the Supreme Court, the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(b).)

Visit the CJEO website for more information about the committee and its published advisory opinions.

Purpose

The Supreme Court of California's Jury Selection Work Group will study whether modifications or additional measures are needed to guard against impermissible discrimination in jury selection. Read the group's charge.

Members

The work group includes 11 judges and justices that reflect the diversity of the judicial branch throughout the state. They are:

• Justice Kathleen E. O'Leary (Chair)
• Justice Kathryn Werdegar
• Justice Teri L. Jackson
• Justice Dorothy C. Kim
• Justice William Murray, Jr.
• Justice Rosendo Peña, Jr.
• Judge Kevin Brazile
• Judge Laurie Earl
• Judge Jackson Lucky
• Judge Lauren Thomasson
• Judge Robert Trentacosta

Five others will join the work group in an advisory capacity. They are:

• Michael Canzoneri, supervising deputy attorney general, Office of the California Attorney General
• Cliff Gardner, criminal defense attorney specializing in post-conviction representation and lecturer at Berkeley Law
• Mary McComb, State Public Defender
• Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney
• Jose H. Varela, Marin County Public Defender

Invitation to Comment

The work group has posed several questions for public comment. The deadline for comments is June 4, 2021. Please note that comments received will become part of the public record.

Invitation to Comment

Mission Statement

Pursuant to Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 10.20, the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Bias Prevention Committee (Bias Prevention Committee) aims to support the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system and promote an appellate court environment free of bias and the appearance of bias.

Standard 10.20. of the California Standards of Judicial Administration

(a) Statement of purpose
The California judicial branch is committed to ensuring the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system and to court interactions free of bias and the appearance of bias.

Consistent with this commitment, each court should work within its community to improve dialogue and engagement with members of various cultures, backgrounds, and groups to learn, understand, and appreciate the unique qualities and needs of each group.

The Bias Prevention Committee will be composed of representative members of the appellate court community, including judicial officers from the Supreme Court and each Appellate District, a court administrator, as well as attorneys practicing in those courts. The committee will facilitate a dynamic and interactive exchange with appellate court users to better recognize, prevent, and eliminate unconscious and explicit biases within appellate court interactions, while focusing on understanding the many forms, causes, and impacts of bias with the goal of improving how courts combat bias.

Members

Justice Martin J. Jenkins, Chair
California Supreme Court

Justice Helen I. Bendix
Court of Appeal Second Appellate District, Division One

Justice Stacy E.Boulware Eurie
Court of Appeal Third Appellate District

Justice Truc T. Do
Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Division One

Justice Carin T. Fujisaki
Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division Three

Justice Cynthia C. Lie
Court of Appeal Sixth Appellate District

Justice Rosendo Pena, Jr.
Court of Appeal Fifth Appellate District

Mr. Amit Kurlekar
Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco

Ms. Eva McClintock
Clerk/Executive Officer Court of Appeal Second Appellate District

Mr. Charles Ragland
Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General, San Diego

Mr. Charles Sevilla
Attorney, Law Offices of Charles Sevilla, San Diego

Mr. Benjamin Shatz
Attorney, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Los Angeles

Ms. Rasha Gerges Shields
Attorney, Jones Day, Los Angeles

Ms. Rupa Singh
Attorney, Niddrie Addams Fuller & Singh LLP, San Diego

Ms. Laurel Thorpe
Executive Director, Central California Appellate Program, Sacramento

The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules for Publication of Court of Appeal Opinions is charged with reviewing the current standards used by the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court in determining which Court of Appeal opinions should be certified for publication and with making recommendations to the Supreme Court on what changes, if any, should be instituted to better ensure that appropriate cases are published. The 13-member committee is chaired by Supreme Court Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar.

News Release: Supreme Court Amends Rules on Publication of Court of Appeal Opinions (December 12, 2006)

Below is a list of the committee members (Effective November 2004):

• Hon. Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (Chair), Associate Justice, California Supreme Court
• Hon. Patricia D. Benke, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Div. One
• Ms. Victoria DeGoff, Attorney at Law, Berkeley
• Mr. Dennis A. Fischer, Attorney at Law, Santa Monica
• Mr. Richard Frank, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento
• Hon. Gene M. Gomes, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District
• Mr. Ellis J. Horvitz, Attorney at Law, Encino
• Ms. Beth J. Jay, Principal Attorney to the Chief Justice, California Supreme Court
• Mr. Edward Jessen, Reporter of Decisions, California Supreme Court
• Hon. Richard J. McAdams, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District
• Hon. Fred K. Morrison, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
• Hon. Joanne Parrilli, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Div. Three
• Hon. Kathryn Doi Todd, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Div. Two

Staff Contacts:
Ms. Lyn Hinegardner, 415-865-7698
Mr. Clifford Alumno, 415-865-7683

Committee Activity

Final Report and Recommendations (November 2006)
Report and recommendations of the committee appointed by the Supreme Court to review the rules for the publication of Court of Appeal opinions and recommend whether the criteria or procedures in the rules should be changed. The report summarizes publication statistics, survey results and other information considered by the committee and recommends changes in the rules, including stating that an opinion which meets one or more of the publication criteria should be certified for publication.

Invitation to Comment: Revised Recommendations for Amendment to California Rule of Court, Rule 976 (CLOSED April 28, 2006, 32 KB)

News Release: Supreme Court Committee Seeks New Comments on Publication Proposal (February 23, 2006)

Invitation to Comment: Preliminary Report and Recommendations on Rules for Publication of Court of Appeal Opinion  (CLOSED Jan. 6, 2006 1,141 KB)

News Release: Supreme Court to Study Rules for Publication of Court of Appeal Opinions (Nov. 23, 2004

• Report and Recommendations | PDF Format (347 KB)
• Appendixes | PDF Format (1,205 KB)

The Supreme Court Multijurisdictional Practice Implementation Committee was appointed to determine the specific rules and procedures necessary to implement recommendations for modifying the restrictions on the practice of law by attorneys who are not members of the State Bar of California. The committee submitted its report and recommendations to the Supreme Court, which has adopted the committee's proposed rules governing practice by non-California attorneys serving as in-house counsel, legal services attorneys, litigation attorneys in California in anticipation of litigation or in connection with litigation elsewhere, and non-litigation attorneys temporarily in California. The new rules took effect on November 15, 2004.

Committee Reports

• Final Report and Proposed Rules of the California Supreme Court Multijurisdictional Practice Implementation Committee (March 2004, 77 KB)
  Report and recommendations by the committee appointed by the Supreme Court to implement the recommendations of the court's Task Force on Multijurisdictional Practice. The report considers the extent to which attorneys not licensed to practice by the State Bar of California may provide services in California, and includes proposed rules governing their conduct.

Below is a list of the committee members:

• Mr. Raymond C. Marshall (Chair), Bingham McCutchen LLP
• Mr. Fred Alvarez, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
• Ms. Teveia Barnes, Lawyers for One America
• Mr. Jerome Braun, Senior Executive, Admissions and Certification, State Bar of California
• Ms. Joanne M. Garvey, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe LLP
• Mr. Andrew J. Guilford, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
• Ms. Beth J. Jay, Principal Attorney to the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California
• Ms. Margaret Levy, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
• Ms. Andrea Ordin, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Hon. Dennis M. Perluss, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven
• Mr. Mike Petersen, Policy Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus
• Ms. Karen Randall, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Universal Studios
• Mr. Peter Siggins, Former Chief Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Legal Affairs Secretary, Governor's Office
• Ms. Karen Snell, Clarence & Snell LLP
• Mr. Brian Sun, O'Neill, & Sun LLP
• Mr. James E. Towery, Hoge Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc.
• Mr. Gene Wong, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee

Reporter: Mr. Joshua Paul Davis, Associate Professor, University of San Francisco Law School

Staff Contact: Ms. Susan Goins, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Administrative Office of the Courts, Phone: 415-865-7990

After announcing in late 2007 that it would appoint a Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions, the Supreme Court appointed an Implementation Committee to make recommendations to the court on proposed procedures and rules for the new ethics committee. The Implementation Committee included the seven members of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics, two members nominated by the Commission on Judicial Performance, and two members nominated by the California Judges Association. The chair of the committee was Justice Richard D. Fybel of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three.  The California Supreme Court then adopted Rule 9.80, effective July 1, 2009, governing the practices and procedures to be followed by its new Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions.

• Memorandum: Implementation Committee's Final Report to the Supreme Court Concerning the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions
• Invitation to Comment on the Implementation Committee's Report and Recommendations to the Supreme Court Concerning the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions