An Orange County Superior Court judge has been publicly reprimanded by the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance for engaging in repeated incidents of discourteous, angry or impatient behavior toward female or fledgling attorneys.
The panel publicly admonished Judge Julian Bailey, who has been on the Orange County bench since 2012, on Feb. 13 in the wake of misconduct that took place in 2014, 2022 and 2023, according to the commission’s decision and order.
“Judge Bailey engaged in a pattern of discourteous, undignified and impatient behavior with female and/or inexperienced attorneys, in 10 separate matters …” the decision says. “In some of the matters, Judge Bailey conveyed the appearance of embroilment and bias on the basis of gender, race, national origin or ethnicity.”
The decision appears to be final, since Bailey waived his right to seek a review by the California Supreme Court. His attorney, Paul S. Meyer, declined to comment on the panel’s decision, and it is unclear if the judge will hear new cases after the admonishment.
“Judge Bailey is not sitting on assignment right now,” a spokesman for the Orange County Superior Court told the Southern California Record, declining further comment.
Bailey is not a county employee but an elected official. His current term in office ends on Jan. 4, 2027, according to the Balletpedia website.
The judge was also criticized by the commission for improperly meeting with a witness to some of Bailey’s misconduct, allegedly to influence that attorney’s recollection of the incidents in question.
The admonishment describes a 2022 event in which Bailey was presiding in his chambers over a conference with Deputy District Attorney Nikki Chambers and a deputy public defender, Jane Win-Thu. At one point after Win-Thu requested a competency hearing for her client, Bailey accused her of making an “offensive facial expression” at him, the record of the incident states.
The admonishment quotes the judge as saying, “Counsel, the way you’re looking at me right now, it’s like you’re saying, ‘F– you, Judge.’ … You need to watch your facial expressions or nonverbal communications. If this is how you’re communicating with me, ultimately, it’s not going to be beneficial to your client.”
Bailey chewed out the same attorney another time for allegedly rolling her eyes at a deputy district attorney. The panel found the beratement of Win-Thu to be “discourteous, humiliating and unwarranted.”
Another deputy public defender, Neha Nagrath, entered the judge’s chambers in 2014 to assist a colleague during a conference when Bailey told her that she was out of line for entering the chambers, later remarking that she is “f–ing rude” and “has no clue”
The judge later compared a white female deputy public defender to Nagrath, who is of Indian or South Asian descent, saying “The difference between the two of you is night and day. There are two kinds of people in this world – blondes and brunettes.” The remarks conveyed bias on the basis of race or ethnicity in addition to gender, the commission concluded.
In meeting with the commission, Bailey suggested that some “underlying medical conditions” could explain some of his behavior, according to the admonishment. But the panel disagreed.
“The commission found that the judge’s medical conditions did not excuse his misconduct,” the admonishment states. “... If a medical condition contributes to a judge engaging in misconduct, they are obligated to take time away from their duties until such time as they can once again perform their duties ethically.”