Robert S. Draper has been a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court for 14 years. Much of the case against him grew out of his handling of Odom v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 470, a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by a tenured professor against her employer. In 2022 a jury in Judge Draper’s courtroom awarded the professor $10 million. In April 2025, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed that verdict and ordered a new trial, citing prejudicial evidentiary rulings and criticizing the trial judge’s remarks by name.

On January 14, 2026, the Commission on Judicial Performance filed a Notice of Formal Proceedings against Judge Draper, which it announced publicly on January 20. The notice charged seven counts with 22 separate allegations. They covered his failure to cooperate with the commission’s investigation, his conduct during the Odom trial, his treatment of court staff and colleagues, improper ex parte communications, demeaning courtroom comments, and his defiance of court administrators while on leave.

The California Supreme Court appointed three special masters: Justice James M. Humes of the First District Court of Appeal, Judge Matthew P. Guasco of Ventura County, and Judge Michael A. Knish of San Bernardino County. They held a six-day evidentiary hearing in April and May 2026. Judge Draper lost his bid for reelection in June 2026, and his term ends in January 2027.

In a July 24, 2026 report, the masters found that Judge Draper had committed willful misconduct on parts of six counts and prejudicial misconduct on parts of three. They also found one instance of improper action and concluded that several allegations were not proven. They found that he lacked candor in several respects and that parts of his testimony were not credible. The commission heard oral argument on October 7, 2026. Judge Draper represented himself after substituting out his counsel in August.

In the Commission on Judicial Performance decision of Inquiry Concerning Judge Robert S. Draper, No. 212 (November 2026), the commission ordered Judge Draper removed from office, disqualifying him from acting as a judge. The commission is the constitutional agency that disciplines California judges; it is not a court, and this is a disciplinary order, not a judicial opinion. It adopted the masters’ factual and credibility findings in full and went further on several legal conclusions, finding nine acts of willful misconduct, eight of prejudicial misconduct, and one of improper action. Eight commissioners voted in favor and none dissented. Two commissioners were recused and one did not participate. Judge Draper may seek review in the California Supreme Court.

Under article VI, section 18, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution, a judge may be removed for willful misconduct in office or for prejudicial conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute, but not for improper action alone. The commission found ample grounds of the first two kinds.

The Odom trial. The commission found that Judge Draper made irrelevant and insensitive comments about race, made gender-based remarks including references to “little girls,” told a vulgar story about secretaries, and became emotionally entangled in the case. It found each of these to be prejudicial misconduct. It found willful misconduct in two later episodes. Judge Draper left a voicemail for defense counsel falsely saying the commission had requested a review. He also presided over an August 2023 hearing after he had recused himself, and at that hearing he threatened to report two attorneys to the State Bar in what appeared to be retaliation. An allegation that he intentionally touched an attorney’s hair was dismissed as unproven.

Court staff and colleagues. Judge Draper told the presiding judge she was “cute when [she was] mad” and repeated the remark after being counseled. He called a court administrator “cute” after being told not to, and he patted court counsel on the head. Each was prejudicial misconduct. More seriously, he emailed confidential juvenile dependency records, including photographs of unclothed children, to colleagues, a retired judge, and a commission attorney, which the commission found to be willful misconduct. Rejecting the masters’ contrary view, it also held that sending staff and colleagues graphic photos of his own injuries, including his unclothed backside, was prejudicial misconduct.

Ex parte contacts and courtroom conduct. The commission found willful misconduct where Judge Draper recruited two judges to testify for a litigant with whom he had discussed cases. Disagreeing with the masters, who had called it improper action, it also found willful misconduct where he tried to discuss a restraining-order case with a commissioner, who cut him off. Calling a litigant “a liar and a cheat” and holding him in contempt was likewise willful misconduct.

Defiance and non-cooperation. The commission found that Judge Draper willfully failed to respond adequately to its investigation letters for more than a year and sent discourteous emails to its staff. While on leave, he sent court leadership rude and abusive emails and repeatedly defied the presiding judge’s directives, including orders not to contact staff or use court systems. Acting in bad faith, he also vacated a colleague’s order granting a peremptory challenge, which went beyond the limits of his authority. The commission did not find credible his claim that he believed the order was invalid.

Why removal. The commission said Judge Draper had “persistently violated the standards governing judicial behavior.” It treated as aggravating his lack of candor, the number and seriousness of the violations, the harm to individuals and to public confidence, and his continued denial of wrongdoing through oral argument. It gave limited weight to his 14 years without prior discipline and found that his health problems and positive qualities were not substantially mitigating. Because he leaves the bench in January 2027 anyway, the risk of future misconduct carried less weight. Even so, the commission concluded that any lesser sanction would greatly diminish public confidence in the judiciary.