Lessons from Richard Y. Lee: Ethics, Fairness & Judicial Leadership

The story of Richard Y. Lee illustrates how judicial leadership grounded in ethics and fairness can meaningfully impact both court culture and public trust. As a judge who served on the Orange County Superior Court and chaired its Equal Access to Justice and Prevention of Bias Committee, Lee offers valuable lessons in maintaining impartiality, promoting access, and leading with integrity. In this article we’ll explore Richard Y. Lee’s key practices, what they reveal about ethical and fair judicial leadership, and how they apply to broader contexts of court and organisational governance.

Who is Richard Y. Lee?

Background & career path

• Lee earned his undergraduate degree from Stanford University and his J.D. from University of Southern California Gould School of Law.
• Before becoming a judge, he worked for about ten years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, handling federal offenses and even national-security matters.
• In August 2010 Lee was appointed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the Orange County Superior Court — becoming the first (and to date only) Korean-American judge in that jurisdiction.
• He has also served in supervisory and appellate-division roles at the Court, and participates in judicial education (teaching ethics, new judge orientation) via the Judicial Branch Access, Ethics & Fairness Curriculum Committee.

Why his example matters

Richard Y. Lee’s journey illustrates several important threads for judicial leadership:

• From prosecution to judge: showing breadth of experience.
• A mindful focus on access, fairness, and diversity: beyond just adjudication.
• Active involvement in ethics training and institutional reform: not only deciding cases, but fostering culture.

Ethics as Foundation

The ethical imperative in the judiciary

Judges are governed by formal ethical frameworks. For example, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges states that “A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary” and “Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.”

How Lee champions ethics

• Lee’s profile notes he serves on the curriculum committee for “Access, Ethics and Fairness” for the California judicial branch.
• By participating in ethics education for judges, he helps embed the virtues of transparency, impartiality and accountability in the judiciary.

Practical take-aways for organisations

• Embed ethics training: Like Lee’s participation in judicial training, organisations should invest in ongoing ethics education, not just at orientation but throughout tenure.
• Visible role models: A leader who teaches ethics (as Lee does) signals that ethics matter.
• Formal frameworks + culture: The Code sets the rules; upholding them consistently builds trust.

Fairness & Access to Justice

The importance of fairness

Fairness in the judicial context means treating every litigant equally, avoiding bias, ensuring the appearance of fairness, and preserving public confidence. The Centre for Judicial Ethics emphasises that the judiciary’s integrity is the “foundation of public trust in the courts.”

Lee’s work on access and bias

• Lee chairs the Equal Access to Justice and Prevention of Bias Committee at the Orange County Superior Court. Under his leadership, the Court developed a diversity and inclusion collaboration with legal aid and local bar associations to support under-represented attorneys.
• The committee’s mission: “fair and equal justice under the law for every person… regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation or identity.”

How this translates to leadership

• Proactive fairness: It’s one thing to avoid bias; Lee shows how to actively expand access and inclusion.
• Representation matters: By supporting less-experienced and under-represented attorneys, Lee addresses pipeline issues — and broader system fairness.
• Accountability for bias elimination: Setting up training, forums and education subcommittees (as his committee does) embeds fairness in process.

Example scenario

Imagine a court where minority litigants feel their concerns aren’t heard. Under Lee’s model, leadership would ensure:

• Data-tracking of representation (who appears before the court).
• Training for judges and staff on implicit bias.
• Outreach programmes to disadvantaged communities.
• Transparency on how fairness is measured and improved.

Judicial Leadership & Institutional Change

What does “judicial leadership” mean?

Judicial leadership goes beyond deciding cases—it encompasses management of court operations, guiding staff, shaping culture, engaging with community and championing reforms. According to scholarship, effective judicial leaders define roles, motivate others and view the system wide, not just case by case.

Lee’s leadership in action

• He served as Supervising Judge of the West Justice Center (2015-2018) at the Orange County Superior Court.
• His involvement in committees (Technology, Externship, Employee Appreciation, Supervising Judges’ Committee) shows leadership beyond adjudication.
• By teaching and participating in legal education (e.g., at the UCI Law School) he contributes to preparing the next generation of legal professionals.

Leadership lessons we can generalise

• Lead by example: Hands-on involvement (in teaching, committees) builds credibility.
• System-thinking: Not just individual cases — Lee’s service shows attention to court infrastructure, technology, externships.
• Mentorship matters: By investing in training and externships, he builds future capacity.
• Change-oriented: His chairmanship of bias-prevention and access committees points to institutional reform rather than status quo.

Table: Attributes of Lee’s judicial leadership

How You (or Your Organization) Can Apply These Lessons

Here are actionable steps inspired by Richard Y. Lee’s approach:

1. Conduct an ethics audit
   • Review existing rules/code of conduct.
   • Ask: Are staff aware? Is training ongoing?
   • Create refresher programmes and track participation.
2. Promote fairness & access
   • Collect demographic data (staff, clients/patrons) to identify under-representation.
   • Establish mentorship or training programmes for disadvantaged groups.
   • Ensure decision-making processes are transparent and accessible.
3. Lead institutionally, not just operationally
   • Encourage leadership roles beyond day-to-day tasks (committees, innovation).
   • Emphasise system improvement—technology, training, support structures.
   • Mentor next-generation leaders.
4. Measure and communicate progress
   • Set metrics (e.g., diversity of participants, training hours, bias complaint reductions).
   • Publish updates internally and externally to build trust (mirroring Lee’s public-facing committee).
   • Adopt a feedback loop: listen, act, review.
5. Stay visible and engaged
   • Leaders should not hide behind titles. Like Lee teaching and chairing committees, show commitment.
   • Openness to community or external stakeholders fosters credibility.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Why is judicial ethics so important?

A: Ethics are the bedrock of public confidence in justice systems. When judges are seen as impartial, fair and above influence, trust is maintained. The Center for Judicial Ethics notes that “public confidence in the judiciary depends … on judges acting without fear or favor.”

Q: What does “access to justice” really mean?

A: Access to justice means that all individuals — regardless of race, gender, income, or identity — have fair and meaningful ability to use the court system, receive representation (where appropriate), and have their case heard fairly. Lee’s chairmanship of the Equal Access to Justice and Prevention of Bias Committee is a real-world illustration.

Q: How can organisations outside the judiciary learn from judicial leadership?

A: While the setting is judicial, the principles translate: ethics + fairness + institutional leadership = trust and effectiveness. Organisations can emulate by: enforcing ethical codes, promoting diversity/inclusion, and leading systems (not just tasks).

Q: What are some risks if fairness and ethics are neglected?

A: Neglecting ethics may erode trust. In the judiciary, this means litigants will doubt decisions or assume bias. According to the Harvard Law Review, ethical lapses (e.g., undisclosed gifts, poor disclosure) lead to serious credibility issues.

Conclusion

In closing, the example of Richard Y. Lee underscores that ethical integrity, commitment to fairness and access, and leadership at the institutional level are not optional — but essential — for effective judicial (and organisational) leadership. By embracing these lessons — embedding ethics training, championing fairness, mentoring and system-thinking — leaders can build trust, drive meaningful change and cultivate an environment where justice truly is equal and visible.

For anyone seeking to lead with purpose — whether in courts, organisations or public service — the path traced by Richard Y. Lee offers a meaningful roadmap.