Scandal Ends Career: Former Judge Kreis Resigns Amidst Ethical Violations

Judge Gregory J. Kreis [Image from 2017 University of San Diego School of Law News Center]

According to the arrangement, “The parties believe that the settlement provided by this agreement is in the best interests of the commission and Judge Kreis because, among other reasons,…a public censure adequately protects the public and will avoid the delay and expense of further proceedings.”  

The cover page of the Decision and Order Imposing Public Censure and Bar Pursuant to Stipulation, filed May 28 after being approved for filing earlier in the month, with the formal agreement (also shown below) for discipline entered into by Kries on April 21.  

Gregory Kreis agreed to resign from his post as Humboldt County Superior Court Judge following negotiations with his legal council, per the terms of a “Stipulation For Discipline By Consent” which outlined the remedies agreed to by Kreis and his legal representation. This development comes as a surprise to the legal community, which has seen the Judge appearing on cases in the county’s Dependency Court, and filling in for cases in other departments.  Those cases in which Kreis was assigned, will now be handled by a different judge. 

In his response to the complaint, which was later amended to include additional charges including some related to his campaigning for reelection, Kreis denied the accusations against him outright, or asserted that he was not in the wrong due to “his understanding” of the circumstances related to particular violations, and later doubled down in an Amended Response, where he further denied any wrongdoing during to his campaigning from his county office of employment. 

Kreis now concedes formally that the asserted counts are factual in nature. According to the Decision And Order filed by the CJP yesterday, May 28, “Judge Kreis agrees that the facts recited herein are true and correct, and that the discipline to which the parties stipulate herein is appropriate in light of those facts.”  

Screenshot of the KMUD News candidate election forum showing Kreis fielding questions while seated in his office in front a campaign sign advertising his run for election, within the courthouse – an activity cited as “a violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics, canons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), and 5” as noted in the Amended Notice of Formal Proceedings against him.

Now, having lost his bid for re-election, and having agreed to being removed from the bench in light of the case against him, Kreis is prohibited from seeking any position as a judge, or as a judicial officer in the future.  

The “censure and bar” against Kreis articulated in the May 28 stipulated agreement reflected in the Order is “the most severe sanction that the commission may issue to a judge who has resigned or retired.” 

The Commission did take into account the pending appointment of newly-elected Judge April Van Dyke, who is slated to take the bench at the start of January 2025. Explaining the timing of the stipulated outcome, the CJP wrote, “in the absence of a stipulated disposition, commission proceedings could not be completed before the judge’s current term ends in January 2025. As the judge has not been reelected, once his current term ends, the highest discipline that the commission could impose would be a censure and a bar which, in effect, is the disposition proposed by this stipulation.”

Humboldt County Courthouse, Eureka, 2024. [Photo by Ryan Hutson]

As explained by the ruling, the commission issued the formal “censure and bar to Judge Kreis as a result of multiple acts of misconduct.” Recapping the highlights of the case against Kreis in a press release, the CJP clarified that in “at least 44 cases over which he presided, Judge Kreis failed to disclose his relationships with seven attorneys, his familiarity with individuals involved in matters before him; or the extent of his relationships with the individuals.”  

The commission stated that it took particularly seriously the judge’s sexual misconduct with a female acquaintance. Explaining the basis for their conclusion, the CJP “based the censure and bar on Judge Kreis’s conduct in treating attorneys and litigants poorly, including making inappropriate, sarcastic, and gratuitous comments to them.”  

Not only was Kries held accountable for recent misdeeds in and outside of the courtroom, but the Commission also noted that back in 2018, the former Judge was “issued an advisory letter… for intemperate and inappropriate remarks he made about a criminal defendant during a sentencing hearing,” which was also taken into account while evaluating the former Judge’s temperament and pattern of misconduct in past years.    

Disciplinary action the commission can take include the following sanctions under California law: advisory letter, private admonishment, public admonishment, public censure, or removal from office or “involuntary” retirement. Since 1995, the commission has only imposed the following public discipline: 13 Removals, 45 Public Censures – which is where Kreis fits in, 17 Public Reprovals, and 114 Public Admonishments. 

The above agreement (found at the very end of the 71 page Decision and Order), which formally obligates Judge Kreis to comply with terms stated in the Stipulation For Discipline is binding as of the date of signing, shown as April 21st. Kreis was active in court cases as recently as early April according to a verified source within the legal community.

The full range of implications of Kreis’ choice to resign in compliance with the CJP’s Order remains to be seen, as the Commission’s decision on accepting the terms of the “Stipulated Agreement” are yet to be announced. It remains unclear if this will affect Kreis’ retirement plan. We’ve requested more information from the Judicial Council.

The CJP explains that the matter is all but settled, writing that “If the commission accepts this proposed disposition, the commission’s decision and order imposing public censure and bar may articulate the reasons for its decision and include explanatory language that the commission deems appropriate,” but also noted that with “acceptance by the commission, this Stipulation, the judge’s affidavit of consent, and the commission’s decision and order” would be made public.” 

In the interest of transparency, this reporter also works as a Legal Assistant in Humboldt County, primarily in family law. 

Please reach out to Ryan Hutson at [email protected] or to Kym Kemp and the team at [email protected] if you have a related story you want us to know about.  

Earlier:

• Sex, Drugs, Cronyism, and Lies: Judge Kreis in the Hot Seat as Commission on Judicial Performance Details Alleged Judicial Code Violations
• Van Dyke Responds to Allegations Against Judge Kreis
• Judge Kreis Denies Personal Indiscretion, Judicial Complaints: Alleges Other Candidates Saw ‘Blood In The Water’