On Friday, May 2, 2025, the Daily Journal reported that San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins denounced a State Bar complaint filed by retired Santa Clara County Judge LaDoris Cordell as an effort to suppress her free speech. The complaint, lodged on April 20, accuses Jenkins of violating professional conduct rules by publicly criticizing three San Francisco Superior Court judges.

Cordell’s filing alleges that Jenkins’ statements, made in public and on social media, demonstrate “outspoken disrespect” toward the judiciary, breaching the California Business and Professions Code and State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, Cordell pointed to a rule requiring attorneys to show respect for courts and judicial officers and Rule 8.2, which bars lawyers from making knowingly false or recklessly inaccurate statements about a judge’s qualifications or integrity. Cordell, who shared the complaint with the Daily Journal, said she filed it out of a duty to report misconduct, despite having no personal acquaintance with Jenkins.

In an emailed statement, Jenkins called the complaint a politically motivated abuse of the State Bar process, aimed at curbing her First Amendment rights. She highlighted Cordell’s own criticism of U.S. Supreme Court justices, whom Cordell labeled a “gang of six” while questioning their decisions, suggesting inconsistency in Cordell’s stance. Jenkins maintained that her remarks about judges focus on leniency toward serious criminals to foster judicial transparency.

In an interview, Cordell responded that criticizing Supreme Court rulings, which are final, differs from Jenkins’ attacks on trial court judges, before whom her office regularly appears. She argued that Jenkins’ free speech is limited by California’s Business & Professions Code.

Cordell’s complaint details four instances of alleged misconduct, including Jenkins’ claim that most San Francisco judges do not view drug dealing as a serious crime. Another incident involved Jenkins’ presence at a March 2024 protest after retired Judge Kay Tsenin ordered mental health treatment instead of prison for a man who stabbed a 94-year-old woman. The Bar Association of San Francisco reported death threats against Tsenin following the ruling. Jenkins also posted on X in January to criticize Judge Gerardo Sandoval for giving a misdemeanor sentence to a thief with prior felony convictions and Judge Bruce Chan for a four-month sentence in an auto burglary case, despite a longer sentence held in abeyance pending probation.

Erin Joyce, an attorney specializing in defending lawyers, stated that Jenkins’ First Amendment protections likely make Cordell’s complaint “unactionable.” She anticipated the State Bar would dismiss the allegations, noting such cases typically exceed 60 days to resolve.

Retired Judge Eugene Hyman, who served 20 years on the Santa Clara County Superior Court, indicated that Cordell’s retired status since 2001 might lessen the complaint’s impact, as active judges’ complaints often stem from direct courtroom encounters. He noted that an intake officer would determine if the case proceeds, with most complaints resolved at this stage.

The State Bar, bound by confidentiality, could not confirm receiving Cordell’s complaint, stating that disciplinary records become public only upon filing charges or stipulations. It noted that submitting a knowingly false or malicious complaint is a misdemeanor. The Commission on Judicial Performance clarified it has no authority over retired judges’ post-retirement actions, and any misconduct by Cordell, a licensed attorney, would be handled by the State Bar.

Last month, the State Bar resolved other complaints against Jenkins by referring her to an ethics training program.

 

 

Source: Daily Journal