The courtroom is a place where justice is sought, and the judge, as the arbiter of law, is expected to embody impartiality, dignity, and respect. However, not every judicial tenure aligns with these lofty ideals. The case of former Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolan M. Sohigian stands as a stark and recurring example of how a judge’s demeanor can repeatedly cross ethical lines, leading to multiple disciplinary actions from the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP).
Judge Sohigian’s disciplinary history wasn’t a one-off incident; it was a decades-long pattern of behavior characterized by an overbearing judicial style, sarcastic remarks, and, at times, outright abuse of authority towards attorneys. His case presents a sobering examination of the challenges of maintaining judicial decorum and the ongoing efforts required by oversight bodies to enforce ethical standards.
A Pattern Emerges: Early Warnings and Continued Misconduct
The first sign of trouble for Judge Sohigian came relatively early in his judicial career.
- 1991: The Advisory Letter. Sohigian received an advisory letter from the CJP. An advisory letter is typically the lowest level of discipline, a private communication meant to warn a judge about minor misconduct or an isolated incident. In Sohigian’s case, it was issued for abusing his authority when sanctioning an attorney. This initial warning, however, did not deter the judge from future ethical breaches.
The Public Spotlight: A Decade of Abusive Behavior
The CJP’s subsequent actions against Judge Sohigian were more severe and public, indicating a persistent and problematic pattern of conduct.
- 2007: Public Admonishment No. 1 – The “Orders to Show Cause” Abuse. Sixteen years after his initial warning, Judge Sohigian received his first public admonishment. This is a significant disciplinary action that formally and publicly censures a judge for misconduct. The CJP found that he had engaged in a troubling practice:
- Issuing unwarranted “orders to show cause” (OSC) for sanctions: Sohigian would issue these OSCs to parties who had not violated any rules, sometimes even for failing to do something they were not legally required to do. This essentially weaponized a judicial tool, using it as a means to intimidate or punish attorneys without legitimate grounds. Such actions constitute a clear abuse of judicial authority, undermining the fairness and efficiency of court proceedings.
- Sarcastic and Belittling Treatment of Attorneys: Beyond the procedural abuse, the commission also found that he treated an attorney in a “sarcastic and belittling manner.” Judicial ethics explicitly require judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous to all who appear before them. This behavior directly violated that fundamental principle, creating a hostile and unprofessional courtroom environment.
The Final Chapter: Harsh Words and a Retirement Admonishment
Even as his judicial career drew to a close, Judge Sohigian’s problematic conduct continued, leading to a final, significant disciplinary action.
- 2014: Public Admonishment No. 2 – The “Pay Tuition” Remark and Further Belittling. Just as he was retiring, the CJP issued a second public admonishment for his treatment of lawyers in two separate cases between 2011 and 2013. The commission once again found that he treated several attorneys in a “sarcastic, belittling, and harsh manner.” A particularly memorable example cited by the CJP highlighted his dismissive attitude: when an attorney asked him to explain why an objection was not hearsay, the judge famously replied, “I’ll explain it to you sometime when you pay tuition.”
This kind of remark, while perhaps intended as a quick wit, is profoundly unprofessional and demeaning. It reflects a judge who views attorneys, even those genuinely seeking clarification, with contempt rather than as essential participants in the pursuit of justice. It undermines the lawyer’s role, embarrasses them publicly, and ultimately erodes respect for the court itself.
The Broader Implications: When Judicial Temperament Fails
Judge Rolan M. Sohigian’s extensive disciplinary record is a stark reminder of several critical aspects of judicial ethics and oversight:
- The Importance of Judicial Temperament: Beyond legal knowledge, a judge’s temperament is crucial. Patience, dignity, and courtesy are not merely polite suggestions; they are foundational requirements for a fair and effective judiciary. A judge who consistently fails in this regard compromises the integrity of their courtroom.
- Persistent Patterns of Misconduct: Sohigian’s case illustrates how deeply ingrained behavioral patterns can be. Despite advisory letters and public admonishments, his conduct remained problematic for decades, highlighting the challenges oversight bodies face in correcting persistent judicial misconduct.
- Impact on the Legal Profession: Such judicial behavior creates a chilling effect on attorneys, particularly younger ones, making them hesitant to advocate fully for their clients. It fosters an environment of fear rather than respectful discourse.
- Accountability for All: The CJP’s repeated actions against Judge Sohigian, even up to his retirement, demonstrate that no one, not even a long-serving judge, is above the ethical standards required of their office. The disciplinary process, though sometimes lengthy, aims to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the judicial system.
Judge Sohigian’s story serves as a cautionary tale: the power of the gavel must always be wielded with profound respect for the law, for the process, and for all individuals who come before the court. When it is used to belittle, intimidate, or abuse, the very foundation of justice begins to crumble.
Want more legal ethics breakdown like this?
Subscribe to our blog or follow us for weekly case summaries, rules analyses, and disciplinary updates.