SF DA calls former judge's bar complaint attempt to curtail free speech

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said Thursday that a retired judge who has supported her political opponents abused the State Bar complaint process by filing allegations about the DA's criticism of judges.

Retired Santa Clara County judge LaDoris Cordell filed a complaint with the State Bar on April 20 claiming Jenkins' criticism of three San Francisco judges in public and on social media violates the California Business and Professions Code and the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.

She called Jenkins' comments "outspoken disrespect" toward the judges.

In an emailed statement on Thursday, Jenkins said of Cordell, "Her attacks on me are clearly disingenuous given her recent criticisms of the Supreme Court." Jenkins referred to Cordell calling the Republican-appointed high court justices a "gang of six" and questioning the motives for their rulings.

"Once again, my political opponents are abusing the State Bar complaint process by attempting to weaponize it against me in an effort to curtail my First Amendment right to free speech and attack my character," Jenkins said.

Responding in an interview, Cordell said, "Once the U.S. Supreme Court issues its rulings, it is the court of last resort. Therefore, criticisms of their rulings do not influence their decision making.

"In contrast, the judges whom Ms. Jenkins has attacked are trial court judges before whom she and her staff attorneys regularly appear. These courts are not courts of last resort, which means that she has every right to appeal the decisions with which she disagrees," Cordell said.

Cordell added that she believes Jenkins' right to free speech is not unlimited under the California Business & Professions Code.

Cordell provided a copy of her April 20 complaint to the Daily Journal. In it, she said she had never met Jenkins but was filing the complaint in the capacity of opposing counsel and because of her duty to report misconduct. She claimed Jenkins had violated a rule requiring lawyers "to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers."

Cordell also cited Rule 8.2 of California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct states, "A lawyer shall not make a statement of fact that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge or judicial officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial office."

She added, "The Comment to this Rule states, 'To maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers should defend judges and courts unjustly criticized.'"

Jenkins and Cordell traded statements underlining their disagreements about criticism of judges' rulings in March, when Cordell quit the DA's Innocence Commission, saying Jenkins was endangering judicial independence with her public comments.

Jenkins responded that she speaks out on judges who are lenient toward dangerous criminals in the interest of judicial transparency. Jenkins has also referred to Cordell's political support of former San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin, who was recalled in an election that saw Jenkins take on the position.

Erin Joyce, who specializes in defending attorneys through her firm Erin Joyce Law, said Thursday that Jenkins's First Amendment rights should render Cordell's bar complaint "unactionable."

"Generally speaking, there are very limited circumstances where an attorney's First Amendment rights are infringed," Joyce said in a phone interview. "Assuming everything she [Cordell] said is correct, I would say none of that should be actionable.

"It will go through the normal process. Generally speaking, a case is not resolved in 60 days. Based on what I see of her [Cordell's] allegations, it doesn't have any merit," Joyce added.

Cordell mentioned four incidents her complaint claiming the DA "hurled disrespectful and false public attacks against jurists on the San Francisco Superior Court."

The former judge claimed Jenkins had said, "The majority of (San Francisco) judges do not treat drug dealing as a serious crime."

Another incident Cordell took issue with was Jenkins attendance at a protest in March 2024 after retired assigned Judge Kay Tsenin allowed mental health treatment rather than prison for a man with a long criminal history who pleaded guilty to stabbing a 94-year-old Asian American woman in June 2021. The president of Bar Association of San Francisco at the time, Teresa L. Johnson, said that death threats had been made against Tsenin following her decision in that case.

Jenkins also took to X this January to criticize San Francisco Superior Court Judge Gerardo Sandoval, who gave a misdemeanor sentence to a convicted thief who had previous felony convictions.

Jenkins commented after another case in January, when Superior Court Judge Bruce Chan handed down a sentence that resulted in the defendant spending four months in prison in an auto burglary case, though the guilty party had prior felony convictions.

Earlier this month, the State Bar told Jenkins it would close out a series of other complaints against her by referring her to an ethics training diversion program.

Retired judge Eugene Hyman, who presided over cases in the criminal, civil, probate, family and delinquency divisions at the Santa Clara County Superior Court for 20 years, said that Cordell's retirement status, since 2001, could impact how the State Bar views her complaint.

"If Cordell were an active judge, it's more likely to go to another stage," Hyman in a phone interview. "When active judges make complaints, it's usually almost always about people who are actually in front of them. This case is really unusual because she's not the person who is appearing in court."

Hyman said that typically complaints of this nature will come before an intake officer who will then decide if the case has enough merit to move to the next stage.

"The question is, does the intake officer feel it needs to go to the next step or not? And the reality is that most complaints against lawyers are made by clients. There's not a lot of complaints that are made against lawyers by judges, and most complaints that are made by clients are dealt with at the intake and never go further," Hyman said.

The State Bar could not confirm whether it had received a complaint from Cordell and said disciplinary records only become public when a notice of disciplinary charges is filed with State Bar Court or a stipulation to a particular level of discipline is filed with the court.

An emailed statement from the State Bar said, "Speaking generally and not to your specific question or any particular case, while the State Bar is precluded by statute from stating whether it has received a complaint, or sharing any of the details of a complaint, a complaining witness is not bound by the same restrictions and may share a complaint as they see fit."

The State Bar added that it was a misdemeanor for any person, including an attorney, to submit a complaint to the State Bar stating another attorney has engaged in professional misconduct, knowing the complaint to be false and malicious.

Commission on Judicial Performance Director-Chief Counsel Gregory Dresser responded to emailed questions about the matter, saying the commission has no jurisdiction over former judges for their conduct after they have retired.

Dresser was asked about whether the CJP has jurisdiction over anyone who identifies themselves publicly as a judge in a way that may lead to public misunderstanding. The question was in reference to Cordell's email and web site listed on her State Bar web page: ladoris@judgecordell.com and https://judgecordell.com.

"Any misconduct in which they engage would be regulated, if at all, by another authority, Dresser said in an email.

"The commission also does not have jurisdiction over anyone who is not, or never was, a judge. If the former judge or the person who was never a judge is licensed by the State Bar, the State Bar might pursue attorney discipline for any acts of misconduct in which the person engaged."