Judge Robert S. Draper: CJP Charges and 2026 Case Status
Article overview: This article reviews cited records, source materials and commentary concerning Judge Robert S. Draper: CJP Charges and 2026 Case Status. It distinguishes allegations and opinions from procedural history or adjudicated findings where the available sources permit.
SEO structure updated July 24, 2026.
Current status: The California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) instituted formal proceedings concerning Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert S. Draper in Inquiry No. 212. The filing contains allegations of judicial misconduct; it is not a final determination that misconduct occurred. Judge Draper filed a verified answer disputing the charges and denying that he violated the cited judicial canons.
Last checked July 24, 2026. This page summarizes public records and links to the original filings so readers can review both the Commission’s allegations and Judge Draper’s response.
Judge Robert S. Draper case at a glance
| Proceeding | Inquiry Concerning Judge Robert S. Draper, No. 212 |
|---|---|
| Agency | California Commission on Judicial Performance |
| Notice filed | January 14, 2026 |
| Commission announcement | January 20, 2026 |
| Verified answer filed | February 4, 2026 |
| Public hearing | CJP scheduled the hearing to begin April 27, 2026 |
| Final CJP decision | No final decision appears on the CJP pending-cases page as of July 24, 2026 |
| 2026 election | Official results: Tal K. Valbuena 56.84%; Robert S. Draper 43.16% |
What the Commission’s notice alleges
The 56-page Notice of Formal Proceedings states that the Commission instituted proceedings to inquire into seven counts. The notice alleges conduct that, if proven, could constitute willful misconduct in office, persistent failure or inability to perform judicial duties, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, or improper action.
The allegations cover several different categories of conduct, including:
- the adequacy and timing of responses to the Commission’s preliminary investigation;
- statements and conduct during and after proceedings in Odom v. Los Angeles Community College District, including allegations involving bias, courtroom demeanor, contacts with counsel, and recusal-related issues;
- communications and conduct involving court employees, attorneys, judicial colleagues, and court administration;
- alleged efforts to assist or communicate about matters involving personal acquaintances;
- courtroom statements and treatment of attorneys;
- an interaction involving a courthouse visitor; and
- communications and conduct while on medical leave and compliance with administrative directives.
This is a summary, not a substitute for the notice. The filing contains detailed allegations, quoted communications, dates, named cases, and the specific judicial canons the Commission contends were implicated.
Judge Draper’s verified response
Judge Draper filed a 13-page Verified Answer to the Notice of Formal Proceedings on February 4, 2026. He denies violating the cited canons and disputes the Commission’s interpretation of the events.
The answer admits some underlying actions or statements while denying that they constituted misconduct. For example, the answer acknowledges certain communications and contacts, but argues that the Commission omitted context, mischaracterized intent, or relied on incomplete or inaccurate accounts. Other factual allegations are denied outright.
Regarding the binder referenced in the original version of this post, the answer states that Judge Draper personally delivered a binder in November 2022 containing a table of contents and substantive material behind tabs 1 through 8. It further alleges that Commission staff did not adequately respond to or investigate that material. Those statements are Judge Draper’s position in his verified answer; they are not findings by the Commission.
What formal proceedings mean
The Commission’s January 20 press release expressly states that commencing formal proceedings is not a determination of judicial misconduct. Formal charges make the proceeding public and create a process in which both sides may present evidence and examine witnesses.
The Notice of Hearing scheduled a public hearing before three special masters appointed by the California Supreme Court to begin April 27, 2026. After the hearing, the special masters provide findings to the Commission. The parties may respond through briefing and argument.
According to the Commission, charges proven by clear and convincing evidence may result in discipline authorized by the California Constitution. Charges not proven are dismissed. A Commission decision involving removal, censure, or admonishment may be subject to discretionary review.
2026 Los Angeles County judicial election result
Judge Draper sought reelection to Los Angeles County Superior Court Office No. 2 in the June 2, 2026 primary. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s final results report 981,043 votes (56.84%) for Tal K. Valbuena and 744,824 votes (43.16%) for Robert S. Draper.
The election result and the disciplinary proceeding are separate matters. An election result is not a Commission finding, and the Commission’s public process can continue independently of the election.
Primary documents and official sources
- CJP Notice of Formal Proceedings, filed January 14, 2026
- CJP press release announcing formal proceedings, January 20, 2026
- Judge Draper’s Verified Answer, filed February 4, 2026
- CJP Notice of Hearing, April 2, 2026
- CJP pending cases and current public documents
- Los Angeles County official June 2, 2026 election results
Frequently asked questions
Was Judge Robert S. Draper found guilty of misconduct?
Not in the Notice of Formal Proceedings. The notice contains charges to be adjudicated. The Commission itself states that beginning formal proceedings is not a determination of misconduct. Readers should check the CJP pending-cases page for any later report, decision, or order.
Did Judge Draper respond to the allegations?
Yes. He filed a verified answer on February 4, 2026. The answer denies violations, disputes the Commission’s characterization of events, and admits or denies particular underlying allegations in detail.
What happened in the 2026 election?
Official Los Angeles County results show Tal K. Valbuena received 56.84% and Robert S. Draper received 43.16% for Superior Court Office No. 2.
Where can I find future updates?
The most authoritative public source is the Commission on Judicial Performance pending-cases page. This site will update the article when the Commission publishes a report, decision, or other material filing.
For related coverage, browse the Judge Robert S. Draper archive.
Related reading: For related context, read Judge Robert S. Draper Misconduct Allegations: Part Two, What is Forensic Toxicology?, What Does a Forensic Toxicologist Do? Role and Daily Work.
