Judge who said he 'lost track' of cases is admonished for 3 untimely rulings
Image from iStockPhoto.
Judge Brian Lamb of Inyo County in California had an explanation for untimely rulings in three family law cases.
Lamb said he “lost track” of two of the uncompleted cases, and he had met the 90-day deadline in a third by issuing a tentative decision—albeit not a final statement of decision—within that period.
He also said he was not aware that he was making a false statement when he filed two salary invoices that falsely stated he had met the 90-day deadline in one of the cases. California law requires judges to certify that no case decisions have been pending for more than 90 days before they are paid for their work.
Lamb’s explanations didn’t sway the California Commission on Judicial Performance, which issued a public admonishment July 2. Law360, the Recorder and the Metropolitan News-Enterprise have coverage.
The commission said the judicial ethics code requires judges to resolve matters promptly and efficiently, to perform their duties competently and diligently, and to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary.
In one case, Lamb didn’t issue a final judgment and statement of decision until 14 months after objections were filed to his proposed statement of decision. In the second, Lamb delayed a final statement of decision for more than a year after filing a tentative decision. In a third, he ruled 63 days late on a request for support and attorney fees. He acknowledged that court employees had emailed him about deadlines in the third case.
The admonishment noted prior discipline for similar conduct and prior explanations that were similar in nature. “The commission recognizes that Judge Lamb is a hard-working judge, but it did not consider his assertions about his workload or his apologies mitigating in this matter because he has been previously disciplined twice for similar misconduct,” the commission said.
Lamb received an advisory letter in 2006 for missing a 90-day deadline by 22 days. Lamb said the matter “slipped between the cracks” and “dropped from his radar screen.” He said at that time that he had conferred with the presiding judge, and new parallel calendaring systems would avoid future problems.
Image from Shutterstock.com.
Lamb received a private admonishment in 2015 for issuing a decision six months after the promised time and for filing false salary affidavits declaring that all cases had been decided in the 90-day deadlines. At the time, Lamb recognized that he should not have allowed the matter to “fall off his radar.”
Lamb’s lawyer, Daniel Agle, told Law360 and the Recorder that Lamb is grateful for the opportunity to serve as a judge. “He accepts the commission’s findings and will continue to do his very best to adhere to the judicial canons and to comport himself in a manner that supports public confidence in the judiciary,” Agle said.
