Retired/Visiting Judge Stephen Drew of San Francisco; ethical troll

The state of California presented Stephen Vincent Drew with a law license in 1972 after he graduated from the University of San Francisco School of Law.  

The California Commission on Judicial Performance found Stevie guilty of engaging in the following misconduct.

• Failed to respect and comply with the law (scofflaw)
• Acted in an injudicious manner in handling peremptory challenges of prospective jurors
• Failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary
• Denied a defendant his right to appointed counsel (aka, due process)
• improper criteria for determining whether he was indigent
• Failed to act in manner promoting public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary
• Utilized improper criteria for determining whether a defendant was indigent
• Rather than appoint counsel for Mr. Lewis, an indigent defendant, Stevie ordered him to apply for work so that he might be able to retain private counsel
• When Mr. Lewis later failed to appear in court for a scheduled pretrial conference, Stevie issued a bench warrant, and Mr. Lewis was remanded to custody
• After Mr. Lewis was taken into custody, Stevie again improperly refused to appoint counsel for him
• Stevie cited a private defense attorney for contempt based on failure to appear for confirmation of a misdemeanor jury trial, even though the attorney had another attorney appear on his behalf
• Gave the impression that he was retaliating against defendants and/or their counsel when they sought to have him removed from the case pursuant to existing California law
• After a peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure was filed against Stevie, he illegally continued to handle the arraignment of the four defendants in the case over their objection
• Stevie’s actions involving the four defendants interfered with their rights to seek a continuance
• Failed to disqualify himself from various cases even though disqualification was mandatory
• Stevie has displayed bias against attorneys who have filed peremptory challenges
• against him
• He has appeared to retaliate against those attorneys, by barring them from areas of the courthouse near his chambers open to other attorneys
• Stevie has appeared to exhibit animosity toward the public defender’s office and certain attorneys in that office
• While not acting in a judicial capacity, Stevie has made improper, derogatory comments about the public defender’s office and attorneys in that office.
• For example, Stevie made disparaging remarks about a deputy public defender to another attorney, while watching the deputy public defender present argument to another judge

As a direct consequence of his misconduct, the cheerleaders for Judicial Misfits sitting on the California Commission on Judicial Performance State Bar Court punished Stevie by gifting him with a complimentary admonishment.

And lastly, as one would suspect, Eric fails to mention the misconduct set forth above on his self-serving website at www.jo,emez-esq.com. Apparently, he chose to conceal this relevant information from prospective client for the purpose of not limiting his future victim pool.

As we speak (ca. September 2023), Stevie practices his so-called brand of law with the Law Offices of Eric A. Jimenez, 5250 Lankershim Blvd in North Hollywood, California.