Judge Kreis ‘Censured and Barred’ in Agreement to Close Ethics Case

Former Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Greg Kreis has resolved the ethics complaint lodged against him by the Commission on Judicial Performance, admitting to 17 charges that he violated the code of judicial ethics and agreeing to be publicly censured, resign his position and never seek judicial office again.

Kreis, whose campaign to retain the seat he was appointed to in 2017 was rocked by the commission’s case against him and was soundly defeated at the polls in March, declined to comment when reached by the Journal.

The stipulation resolving the ethics case, which was approved by a unanimous vote of the commission, sees Kreis admit to 68 specific allegations of misconduct, though not the most salacious ones in the complaint initially filed against him.

“Much of Judge Kreis’ misconduct relates to his failure to disclose his relationships with seven attorneys; his familiarity with individuals involved in matters before him; or the extent of his relationships with the individuals, in at least 44 cases over which he presided,” the stipulation states. “This type of misconduct is serious. The purpose of California’s statutory disclosure requirements is to ensure public confidence in the judiciary. A judge’s persistent failure to comply with these requirements reflects an unacceptable lack of concern about the public’s perception of the integrity and fairness of the judiciary.”

In addition to failing to disclose friendships and other relationships with litigants in his courtroom, Kreis admits in the stipulation to being discourteous and making inappropriate comments to litigants and attorneys, and to grabbing or slapping a woman’s buttocks after she’d explicitly told him not to one night in November of 2018.

“Sexual misconduct severely undermines public esteem or the integrity of the judiciary,” the stipulation reads. “Treating women disrespectfully, including unwanted touching, reflects a sense of entitlement completely at odds with the canons of judicial ethics and the role of any judge. Sexual misconduct has no place in the judiciary and is an affront to the dignity of the judicial office.”

The stipulation represents a stark contrast from the formal answers Kreis previously filed to the charges leveled against him, in which he denied nearly all of them and maintained he had not done anything unethical. (Kreis did admit to slapping the woman’s buttocks in 2018 but said he thought she’d been “kidding” when she told him not to do it and that he apologized immediately, having realized his mistake.)

Kreis’ resignation was effective May 27, according to the stipulation, and the Humboldt County Superior Court issued a press release May 28 advising that Judge Kelly Neel will be taking over as presiding judge and that visiting judges will fill Kreis’ seat until Judge-elect April Van Dyke takes office in January.

Appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017, Kreis had practiced law for about 14 years prior to joining the bench. He filled the role of interim public defender briefly after Kevin Robinson’s retirement, and later served as the county’s conflict counsel. Most of the cases in which Kreis failed to disclose relationships with lawyers practicing in his courtroom centered on friendships he’d made while working in the public defender’s office.

While the public censure and barring Kreis from holding judicial office again represents the most severe sanction the Commission on Judicial Performance can impose on a judge who has resigned or retired, the stipulation does not address the most salacious charges Kreis had faced, those that prompted the case to make national headlines. Specifically, Kreis did not admit allegations that he directed antisemitic comments at a deputy public defender, that he used cocaine, including once while driving, sexual assaulted a passed-out co-worker and friend, lied to hide a workplace affair, getting someone fired in the process, and drove a car while drinking alcohol.

In entering into the stipulation, Kreis agrees that facts recited to buttress each of the counts he admitted to are “true and correct,” and that the discipline agreed to “is appropriate in light of those facts.”

In addition to failing to disclose personal relationships with attorneys and litigants in his court, Kreis also admitted to other misconduct, including violating litigants’ due process rights, issuing arbitrary rulings, making false statements, losing his temper in court and abusing his judicial authority. He also admitted to making inappropriate comments in court, joking once about killing a deputy public defender, implying that another was late for court because he’d been drinking at a local bar, saying in open court he wished a local attorney would “disappear” and, prior to joining the bench, calling a deputy district attorney a “bitch.” Additionally, he admitted to making sarcastic comments about family law litigants, and to having inappropriately recorded videos for his re-election campaign from his judicial office.

“Judge Kreis’ conduct in treating attorneys and litigants poorly, making inappropriate, sarcastic and gratuitous comments to them … undermines public perception of the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” the stipulation states. “Everyone appearing before Judge Kreis should be assured that he would dispense justice fairly and respectfully. His conduct and remarks did not inspire confidence that he would do so.”

The stipulation also notes that Kreis should have known better, noting he’d been disciplined by the commission in 2018 for similar conduct.

“He received an advisory letter in 2018 for the following remarks about a criminal defendant during a sentencing hearing: ‘He’s a dirtbag of the highest order … What’s kind of burning me up right now is the fact that he was paid more than I’m paid, to sell cars, and then he stole money on top of it. How pathetic is that?”

If the commission and Kreis had failed to negotiate a stipulation, the matter would have moved to the formal proceedings stage, with the case heard by a panel of three “special masters” — judges selected by the California Supreme Court to preside over the hearing. These special masters would then have prepared a report of the hearing’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, presenting them to the Commission on Judicial Performance for action.

It’s incredibly rare for cases to proceed to that stage. In 2022, the commission processed 1,385 complaints, 1,294 of which were closed after the initial review stage. Of the 91 cases that proceeded to an investigation, 60 were closed without discipline, while 29 resulted in discipline and two were closed after the involved judge resigned or retired. Only one case that year reached a formal proceeding. In 2022, just one case resulted in a judge being censured.

In the stipulation, the commission addresses why it felt resolving the case against Kreis was appropriate.

“The judge’s agreement to resign effective May 27, 2024, and not to seek or hold judicial office, effectively reaches the same resolution as removal, affords protection to the public, enforces rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintains public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system in the most expeditious manner by avoiding the delay of further proceedings,” states the stipulation, which was signed by Kreis on May 1 and approved through a unanimous vote of the commission May 15.

This article appears in ‘Unprecedented’.