AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT Adopted by the Judicial Council on July 21, 2023, effective September 1, 2023 Rule 10.1014. Oversight of administrative presiding justices and presiding justices 2 1 2 3

2 Rule 10.1014. Oversight of administrative presiding justices and presiding justices 1 2 (

a) Purpose 3 4 Administrative presiding justices and presiding justices are accountable for the 5 efficient, effective, and proper administration of the Courts of Appeal and each 6 division of the Courts of Appeal. This rule is intended to advance that objective. 7 8 (

b) Contention procedure 9 10

(1) Any person who contends that an administrative presiding justice or 11 presiding justice has not properly addressed or managed an important matter 12 related to the administration of a Court of Appeal or a division of a Court of 13 Appeal may submit that contention to the administrative presiding justices 14 collectively for their review, subject to (c)(1). 15 16

(2) Any administrative presiding justice or presiding justice who is the subject of 17 a contention under this paragraph must cooperate with the administrative 18 presiding justices responsible for reviewing that contention. 19 20

(3) Any administrative presiding justice who is the subject of a contention under 21 this paragraph is recused from reviewing the contention. 22 23

(4) Following receipt and review of a contention, the administrative presiding 24 justices collectively may take appropriate remedial or other lawful action to 25 address the contention. 26 27

(5) Information on how to submit a contention will be posted on the judicial 28 branch website. 29 30 (

c) Presiding justices in districts with more than one division 31 32

(1) Before a person submits a contention under (b)(1) about a presiding justice of 33 a district with more than one division, including the presiding justice of a 34 geographically separate division, that person must first submit the contention 35 to the administrative presiding justice of the district in which the division is 36 located to provide an opportunity for the contention to be addressed by that 37 administrative presiding justice. 38 39

(2) Presiding justices in districts with more than one division, including the 40 presiding justice of a geographically separate division, must cooperate with 41 the administrative presiding justice of the district in which the division is 42

3 located when the administrative presiding justice is carrying out oversight 1 responsibilities under this rule. 2 3 (

d) Confidentiality 4 5 All procedures under this rule must be conducted in a manner that is as confidential 6 as is reasonably possible, consistent with the need to conduct a thorough and 7 complete investigation, the need for proper administration of the court, and 8 resolution of the contention. 9 10

(1) This subdivision does not prohibit the person who submitted the contention 11 or the justice who is the subject of the contention from making statements 12 regarding the conduct underlying the contention. 13 14

(2) This subdivision does not preclude administrative presiding justices from 15 communicating with the person who submitted the contention or the justice 16 who is the subject of the contention about the conduct underlying the 17 contention or the investigation, conclusion, or resolution of the contention. 18 19

(3) This subdivision does not preclude presiding justices from providing a notice 20 to the Commission on Judicial Performance or forwarding to the commission 21 any requested information. 22 23

(4) This subdivision does not preclude administrative presiding justices from 24 making public, when appropriate, the conclusion or resolution of the 25 contention. 26 27 Rule 10.1014 adopted effective September 1, 2023. 28 29 Advisory Committee Comment 30 31 Subdivision (b). Subdivision (

b) provides a procedure by which any person may submit a 32 contention to the administrative presiding justices regarding an administrative presiding justice or 33 presiding justice related to the administration of a Court of Appeal or a division of a Court of 34 Appeal. 35 36 Subdivision (b)(1).

The term “any person” is intended to be construed broadly and would include 37 a judicial officer, court employee, attorney, litigant, or member of the public. 38 39 The contentions that may be submitted to the administrative presiding justices under the 40 procedures authorized by this rule are those that relate to the administration of a Court of Appeal 41 district or a division of a Court of Appeal. Contentions related to the adjudication of a specific 42 case or the decision in a specific case are not subject to the procedures in this rule. Personnel and 43

4 employment matters are not subject to the procedures in this rule. Personnel matters, including 1 complaints by or against employees, are already governed by employment laws and individual 2 court personnel policies and procedures that vest responsibility for handling such matters with the 3 clerk/executive officer.

If an administrative presiding justice receives a submission and considers 4 it outside the scope of the rule, it would be appropriate for the administrative presiding justice or 5 their delegate to return the submission to the person who submitted it or to forward it to the 6 appropriate official with responsibility for the contention, with a copy notifying the person who 7 submitted it. For example, a personnel matter would be forwarded to the clerk/executive officer 8 of the court. 9 10 Subdivision (b)(4).

This paragraph authorizes the administrative presiding justices collectively to 11 take appropriate remedial or other lawful action to address the contentions submitted under the 12 procedures in this rule.

Examples of actions that the administrative presiding justices may take 13 include recommending amendments to the California Rules of Court or operational policies of the 14 Courts of Appeal, referring a contention to the Commission on Judicial Performance, referring it 15 to mediation, and conducting informal discussions with the person who submitted the contention 16 and the justice who is the subject of the contention.

This paragraph does not authorize 17 administrative presiding justices to take actions that are within the sole purview of the Supreme 18 Court or the Commission on Judicial Performance, for example, the removal, censure, or 19 admonishment of a justice. Similarly, the rule does not authorize an administrative presiding 20 justice to take personnel actions, as such actions are governed by other legal authorities and 21 policies. 22 23 Subdivision (c).

This subdivision is consistent with the governance structure provided in rule 24 10.1004, which gives administrative presiding justices responsibility for “leading the court, 25 establishing policies, promoting access to justice for all members of the public, providing a forum 26 for the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, and maximizing the use of judicial and other 27 resources” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.1004(b)), along with more specific duties (Cal.

Rules of 28 Court, rule 10.1004(c)), and which also prescribes areas in which a presiding justice in a 29 geographically separate division is given authority under the general oversight of the 30 administrative presiding justice (Cal. Rules of Court rule 10.1004(d)). 31 32 Subdivision (d). Providing a process for persons to submit contentions under this rule for 33 consideration and action by administrative presiding justices, either individually or collectively, 34 will advance efficient, effective, and proper administration of the Courts of Appeal and each 35 division of the Courts of Appeal.

Establishing the confidentiality of this procedure is critical to 36 encouraging persons to submit contentions with candor. The necessity for preserving the 37 confidentiality of these procedures and of communications with administrative presiding justices 38 outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice. 39 40 Subdivision (

d) is consistent with confidentiality provisions in other rules. Specifically, the text of 41 subdivision (

d) is modeled after provisions in California Rules of Court, rule 10.703(e), regarding 42 the confidentiality of proceedings related to complaints about subordinate judicial officers in trial 43

5 courts and authorizing certain notices regarding those proceedings, and in Rules of the 1 Commission on Judicial Performance, rule 102. This subdivision is also consistent with 2 maintaining the confidentiality of complaints against judges provided in California Rules of 3 Court, rule 10.500(f)(7). 4