In a case that has rattled the California judiciary, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has been publicly admonished for repeatedly breaking into fellow jurists' chambers after hours, rifling through confidential documents and attempting to access their computers. The state's Commission on Judicial Performance condemned the behavior as a "serious breach of trust", an extraordinary rebuke for conduct that undermined the integrity of the court.

Judge's Unauthorized Entries Spark Security Crackdown

Judge Daviann L. Mitchell, who has sat on the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench since 2006, was found to have entered the chambers of Supervising Judge Denise McLaughlin-Bennett and Judge Kathleen Blanchard on multiple occasions in 2023 without permission. The breaches occurred during what Mitchell later described as a personal and professional crisis that impaired her judgment and mental well-being.

The discovery of the intrusions prompted security measures, including locking doors, moving confidential documents, and ultimately changing the lock on Judge McLaughlin-Bennett’s chamber door. Despite warnings and the installation of security cameras, the unauthorized entries continued, according to the commission’s report.

In Judge Blanchard’s office, Mitchell allegedly searched through desk drawers, cabinets, and even a personal briefcase, in what the commission deemed a blatant violation of judicial ethics.

"I Lost My Way" – Judge Mitchell Admits Misconduct

During the disciplinary process, Judge Mitchell acknowledged her wrongdoing, expressing deep regret for her actions. She described her behavior as "entirely unacceptable" and admitted she had "lost her way" during a time of distress. She also claimed to have sought guidance from mentors and court leadership to address her issues.

Despite her contrition, the commission ruled that her actions violated Canons 1, 2, and 2A of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, which mandate judicial integrity, the avoidance of impropriety, and the maintenance of public confidence in the judiciary.

Judge’s Comments in Criminal Case Also Under Fire

The unauthorized entries weren’t the only misconduct that led to Mitchell’s admonishment. In a separate case, while presiding over a criminal plea deal involving child endangerment, she issued an inappropriate warning to the defendant—one that raised concerns about judicial impartiality and decorum.

“You’re a younger man, handsome, and well-built,” Mitchell told the defendant, according to court transcripts. “You will be an attraction in state prison… Is that the environment you want to be in?”

The commission found her remarks undignified and discourteous, ruling that she violated Canons 3B(4) and 2A of the judicial code. Mitchell later admitted that commenting on a defendant’s physical appearance was inappropriate and stated that she regretted her choice of words.

Judicial Commission Issues Rare Public Admonishment

The Commission on Judicial Performance voted 8-0 to publicly admonish Judge Mitchell, with one commissioner recused, another not participating, and one seat vacant. The commission—comprised of six public members, three judges, and two attorneys—rarely issues public reprimands, underscoring the gravity of the violations.

Neither Judge Mitchell nor a representative for the commission could be reached for comment.

As the dust settles on this extraordinary case, the California Judge Jurists Chambers scandal serves as a stark reminder of the high ethical standards judges must uphold—and the consequences when those standards are breached.