The career of retired San Diego County Judge Howard H. Shore came to a controversial end after two separate disciplinary actions by the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP). The case serves as a striking example of how judicial misconduct both on and off the bench can lead to public censure and a ruined legacy, even for a long-serving jurist.
The First Sanction: Dereliction of Duty
In late 2023, Judge Shore received a severe public censure for what the CJP called a “serious dereliction of duty.” The core of the issue was his rampant and unauthorized absenteeism. From May 2021 to November 2022, he was absent from the courthouse for at least 155 days, including every single Friday. This was not just a few missed days; his absences exceeded his accrued vacation time by 87 days, all while he continued to collect his full salary.
The CJP found that Judge Shore had been disingenuous about the situation, initially denying the extent of his absences. He later attempted to justify the behavior by citing a family medical emergency and his faith as an Orthodox Jew, which prevented him from driving on the Sabbath. While a judge’s personal life can impact their professional duties, the CJP found his explanations to be a “misrepresentation” and “minimization” of the facts. In essence, he chose to work a four-day week for nearly two years without court approval, violating the fundamental ethical canon that a judge must be diligent and competent.
The Second Sanction: A Bridge Too Far
Even after the severe censure, Judge Shore’s conduct drew further condemnation. Following his reassignment from criminal to civil cases, he retired in January 2025. However, his departure didn’t shield him from another disciplinary action. In early 2025, the CJP issued a public admonishment for new violations, including racially insensitive remarks and a lack of candor.
- Racially Offensive Remarks: While presiding over hearings related to California’s Racial Justice Act, Judge Shore made what the CJP described as “undignified, discourteous, and offensive” comments. In one instance, he used a racial slur in a hypothetical argument with an expert witness. He also expressed skepticism about the existence of systemic racism and questioned the wisdom of the law itself, statements the CJP found could be “reasonably perceived as bias, prejudice, or harassment, based on race.”
- Lack of Candor: The CJP also determined that he had been dishonest about his previous disciplinary case. He was found to have made misrepresentations and omissions when discussing his unauthorized absences with public defenders. This further aggravated his initial misconduct and demonstrated a repeated failure to be truthful.
Conclusion
The disciplinary case against Judge Shore is a clear and powerful cautionary tale about the immense responsibility of judicial office. His actions, both in his prolonged absences and his racially charged comments, represent a profound ethical failure.
While his initial absences might have been a result of personal struggles, his decision to deliberately deceive his colleagues and the public about their frequency is inexcusable. The second set of disciplinary actions is even more alarming, particularly the use of a racial slur in court. A judge is expected to be a model of integrity and impartiality, and his behavior fell well short of that standard. A judge who is skeptical of systemic racism and uses a racial slur while presiding over a case on the Racial Justice Act fundamentally undermines the purpose of that law and the public’s trust in the justice system.
Judge Shore’s career, which spanned 35 years, ended not with the respect befitting a long-serving jurist, but with a series of public reprimands. This case highlights the critical importance of strong judicial oversight. It shows that even in retirement, judges can and should be held accountable for their actions while in office. The CJP’s decision to pursue discipline even after his retirement sends a clear message: a judge’s ethical obligations don’t expire when they leave the bench.