SAN DIEGO, CA – The distinguished career of former San Diego County Superior Court Judge Howard H. Shore, a veteran of the bench for over 35 years, has been shadowed by a series of disciplinary actions from the California Commission on Judicial Performance. While he ultimately retired, the commission’s dual findings for a “dereliction of duty” and later for racially offensive remarks underscore the high standards of conduct expected of judges, even after they leave office.
A Pattern of Unexcused Absences
The first disciplinary action against Judge Shore stemmed from his habitual and unauthorized absences from court. In a severe public censure issued in December 2023, the commission found that Shore was absent from the courthouse on at least 155 court days over a two-year period, from 2021 to 2022. He was not present in the courthouse a single Friday between May 2021 and November 2022, an absence that exceeded his available vacation time by 87 days.
Shore initially denied the absences but later stipulated to the facts, explaining that his weekly trips to Los Angeles to assist a sick family member, combined with his Orthodox Jewish faith that prohibits driving on the Sabbath, necessitated his Friday departures. The commission, however, found that his personal reasons did not excuse his failure to obtain approval for his absences, calling his conduct a “dereliction of duty.”
New Allegations of Racially Offensive Remarks
After the initial censure and his reassignment from criminal to civil cases, a second investigation was launched into Judge Shore’s conduct. In a public admonishment issued in April 2025, the commission found that he had made “undignified, discourteous, and offensive comments” that could be reasonably perceived as showing racial bias.
These comments occurred during pre-trial hearings on cases brought under the California Racial Justice Act, which allows defendants to challenge their convictions based on racial bias. The commission cited several instances of misconduct, including:
- Denying Systemic Racism: Shore expressed skepticism that systemic racism exists within the judicial system.
- Questioning Statistics: He criticized the use of statistics in racial bias cases, suggesting that more minorities commit crimes than Caucasians.
- Using a Racial Slur: In a gratuitous courtroom exchange with an expert witness, he used a racial epithet for Black people in a hypothetical situation.
The commission noted that these comments were largely irrelevant to the legal issues at hand and constituted gratuitous interjections.
The Consequence: Retirement and Continued Discipline
Facing mounting pressure and a second disciplinary investigation, Judge Shore announced his retirement in January 2025. This decision came just over a month after the severe public censure was issued.
Even though he was no longer on the bench, the California Commission on Judicial Performance has the authority to continue with disciplinary proceedings for misconduct that occurred while a person was still a judge. The subsequent public admonishment for his racially offensive remarks served as a final stain on his long judicial career, confirming his unsuitability for a position of public trust.
Conclusion: A Final Ruling on Judicial Integrity
The disciplinary actions against Judge Shore serve as a powerful testament to the importance of judicial accountability. The commission’s findings make it clear that a judge’s role demands more than just legal knowledge; it requires consistent dedication, impartiality, and personal integrity. By continuing its investigation even after his retirement, the Commission sent a strong message that misconduct cannot be simply outrun by stepping down. His case ultimately stands as a firm reminder that the judiciary’s ethical standards are non-negotiable and are in place to preserve the public’s trust in the justice system.