LAW & JUSTICE | CALIFORNIA COURTS

The state's judicial watchdog found that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Griego repeatedly demeaned unrepresented small claims litigants, abandoned proceedings mid-hearing, and ignored official correspondence for months — marking the second time he has been disciplined for the same pattern of behavior.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

LOS ANGELES - California's Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Griego on Wednesday, citing a troubling pattern of demeaning behavior toward self-represented litigants in small claims court and a separate failure to meet his basic administrative obligations.

The formal rebuke, released May 13, 2026, represents a significant escalation of scrutiny over a judge the commission has now disciplined on more than one occasion for the same class of misconduct.

According to the commission's findings, Judge Griego's improper conduct unfolded across three separate court days and involved four distinct cases — each one featuring a litigant who appeared before him without an attorney. The commission, which serves as the constitutional body charged with overseeing the conduct of California's sitting judges, determined that Griego's behavior in those proceedings fell well below the professional and ethical standards the public is entitled to expect from a judicial officer.

"The commission recently disciplined Judge Griego for similar misconduct — a pattern of pervasive poor demeanor toward self-represented litigants."

The specific acts of misconduct documented by investigators were striking in both their breadth and their brazenness. Griego repeatedly cut off litigants in the middle of answering his own questions, leaving them unable to present their positions. He made disparaging and gratuitous remarks toward people who came to court seeking resolution of civil disputes. On separate occasions, he abruptly walked out of the courtroom in the middle of active proceedings — an act the commission characterized as improper. Perhaps most telling was a moment in which Griego instructed a courtroom employee to "talk to the woman" or "talk to her," directing a member of his staff to handle a litigant rather than addressing her himself. The commission concluded that such an instruction directly undermined the integrity of the judicial office he holds.

Beyond the courtroom conduct, the commission also found that Griego committed misconduct relating to his administrative duties. For an extended period spanning several months, Griego failed to review either his court mail or his personal mail. As a result, he did not respond in a timely manner to investigation letters the commission had formally transmitted to him as part of its inquiry.

Under California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics, judges are obligated to maintain professional competence in judicial administration and to cooperate fully and promptly with the commission during any investigation. Griego's extended neglect of his mail — whatever its underlying cause — constituted a breach of both obligations.

The commission weighed several aggravating factors when determining the appropriate level of discipline. Foremost among them was the sheer repetition of the misconduct: the conduct occurred across multiple hearings and affected multiple self-represented litigants. Also aggravating was Griego's apparent failure to appreciate that his behavior was improper. In the commission's assessment, a judge who does not recognize or acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct poses an elevated risk of recurrence — particularly toward the most legally vulnerable court users, those who appear without counsel and depend entirely on the impartiality and patience of the bench.

The commission also noted, with unmistakable gravity, that Griego had already been the subject of disciplinary action for substantially similar misconduct: a prior finding of pervasive poor demeanor directed at self-represented litigants. The repetition of the same misconduct after a prior discipline signals to the commission — and to the public — that admonishment may need to be accompanied by more intensive corrective measures if the behavior continues.

The public admonishment falls short of the most severe sanctions available to the commission, which include removal from the bench. However, it is a formal, public act of discipline that becomes part of the judge's permanent record and is published prominently on the commission's official website at cjp.ca.gov. Judge Griego is represented in this matter by Joanna L. Mishler of the San Diego law firm Rosing Pott & Strohbehn.

The commission itself is a bipartisan body composed of eleven members: six public members, three judges, and two attorneys. Its current chairperson is the Honorable Lisa B. Lench. Commission member Beatriz E. Tapia was recused from participation in this particular matter. The commission's full public admonishment decision is available for review under the "Pending Cases — Press Releases & Documents" and "Public Discipline & Decisions" sections of its website.

Small claims court was designed to be an accessible forum where ordinary Californians — without lawyers, legal jargon, or courtroom experience — can pursue modest civil grievances. Judges presiding in that setting bear a particular responsibility to model patient, respectful, and impartial conduct. When a judge instead interrupts, demeans, and abandons the very litigants the system is meant to serve, the damage extends beyond the individuals in the courtroom. It erodes confidence in a justice system that depends on the public's trust to function. Whether the admonishment proves sufficient to correct Judge Griego's conduct remains to be seen.