On Friday, February 14, 2025, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported that Orange County Superior Court Judge Julian W. Bailey received a public admonishment from the California Commission on Judicial Performance. The admonishment stemmed from a pattern of inappropriate conduct towards female and/or inexperienced attorneys across ten separate incidents. The commission’s findings detailed a series of discourteous, undignified, and impatient actions, suggesting in some cases a potential bias based on gender, race, national origin, or ethnicity.
One incident involved a March 2014 interaction with a deputy public defender who needed a break to pump breast milk for her infant. Judge Bailey responded with a dismissive gesture and sound. Earlier that year, he made comments about how fortunate he was to work with “beautiful women,” referencing two female attorneys.
Further instances of offensive comments occurred in 2014 involving then-Deputy Public Defender Neha Nagrath. During an in-chambers meeting, Judge Bailey used profanity and accused Nagrath of lacking tact upon her entry. He then contrasted her appearance with that of another attorney, making comments about blondes and brunettes.
Between 2022 and 2023, Judge Bailey engaged in multiple discourteous interactions with Deputy Public Defender Jane Win-Thu. One instance involved criticizing her facial expressions and suggesting they negatively impacted her client’s case, using an expletive. He later apologized to Win-Thu. Another incident saw him raise his voice and point at Win-Thu for rolling her eyes in response to a court decision.
In January 2023, Judge Bailey shouted at Deputy Public Defender Tammy Nguyen during a chambers meeting, demanding a simple date. He had previously reprimanded Nguyen for allegedly rolling her eyes, a gesture she denied.
The Commission’s investigation also revealed an attempt by Judge Bailey to improperly influence a witness. Following a complaint regarding three of the incidents, he spoke with Deputy District Attorney Nikki Chambers, inquiring about her perception of his behavior and probing her recollection of the events. The Commission deemed this an improper attempt to influence a witness, violating several canons of judicial ethics.
Judge Bailey acknowledged some misconduct, suggesting underlying medical conditions might partially explain his behavior. The Commission, however, emphasized that if a medical condition contributed to the misconduct, he had an obligation to temporarily abstain from his duties until he could ethically perform them.
The public admonishment highlighted that Judge Bailey’s behavior wasn’t an isolated incident but rather a pattern of misconduct spanning several years.
Source: Metropolitan News-Enterprise
