San Diego judge sanctioned for skipping work is disciplined again

The state agency overseeing judges handed down more discipline against former San Diego Superior Court Judge Howard Shore, the second time in 15 months the now-retired jurist has been sanctioned. 

The Commission on Judicial Performance on Thursday slapped Shore with a public admonishment for making a series of statements in several pre-trial hearings in which defendants were challenging the charges against them under the state Racial Justice Act. 

The commission concluded the statements, which in one instance included Shore using a racial epithet for Black people, were “undignified, discourteous, and offensive” and could be perceived as showing racial and ethnic bias.  

He was also slapped for comments he made to two leaders of Public Defenders offices during a meeting on Dec. 4, 2023. He had asked to meet with the pair to tell them that the CJP was about to announce its first disciplinary move against him — a “severe public censure” that was announced nine days later. 

That penalty was issued because Shore had missed 155 days of work over the previous two years, including being absent nearly every Friday between May 2021 and November 2022. 

In its decision Thursday, the commission concluded that in the meeting with the lawyers, and even after the censure was made public, Shore downplayed and minimized his misconduct. Doing so showed a “lack of candor” and violated several ethical rules for judges, the commision concluded.

A public admonishment is a medium level of discipline that the CJP can hand down. It is one step below a public censure, and two below removal from the bench. 

Shore retired on Jan. 23, ending 35 years on the bench. While it may seem like the commission disciplining Shore after he left the bench is doing little more than bombing the rubble, the agency has the authority under law to penalize former judges if their misconduct occurred while they were still active judges. 

In a lengthy statement emailed to inewsource, Shore said the CJP accepted a “host of misleading and inaccurate conclusions” that were contained in a sworn declaration from the two lawyers that detailed comments he made in the December meeting. 

“Therefore,” he wrote, “I categorically reject this Public Admonishment as unjustified.”

That declaration also became part of 19 separate motions brought later by defense lawyers seeking to disqualify Shore from hearing any Racial Justice Act cases. Those motions alleged a pattern of statements Shore made in several hearings that demonstrated racial bias. 

In one hearing Shore questioned an expert on racial profiling who had been called to testify by defense lawyers about the definition of racism. During the exchange Shore said that he has presided over cases involving Hispanic and Black gangs fighting and where the N-word was used.

The commission noted Shore “gratuitously” used the full epithet in the courtroom exchange. The exchange so disturbed the witness that she later wrote a two-page letter saying Shore should not be hearing Racial Justice Act cases. 

In his statement Shore said he was trying to make a point that minorities can be racially biased. “My use of the word was anything but gratuitous,” he wrote. 

Overall the commission said that Shore’s comments in the hearings could be perceived as showing bias.

In his statement Shore said he “categorically” denied that conclusion. “Any comments I made reflected my professional concern for reaching a just result based on a proper weighing of the evidence and accurate interpretation of a new statute, unaccompanied by the kind of appellate guidance present with more established legislation,” he wrote. 

Eventually the disqualification motions were heard by a judge in Orange County. Last spring Judge Cheri Pham disqualified Shore from hearing a number of those cases, citing his “insensitive language and comments” in prior cases. 

She wrote that the comments could lead someone to conclude that Shore “believes certain racial or ethnic groups commit more crimes than others and that he will not give weight to statistical evidence that indicates there is an implicit bias against certain racial or ethnic groups.” 

He also said that his retirement was not prompted by the new investigation into his conduct. He wrote that he had used up most of his allotted vacation days on religious holidays — Shore is an observant Jew — and tending to family matters, leaving little time for vacation with his wife. 

He said he only learned of the complaints to the CJP after he decided to retire in December.