The state’s judicial watchdog censured Orange County Superior Court Judge Scott Steiner for having sex in his chambers on multiple occasions with two of his former law students.

The California Commission on Judicial Performance also disciplined Steiner for trying to help one of his sex partners get a job at the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, failing to disqualify himself in a case involving a longtime friend, and other rules violations related to conflicts of interest.

“Engaging in sexual intercourse in the courthouse is the height of irresponsible and improper behavior by a judge,” the commission wrote in an agreement approved Aug. 20 and announced Tuesday.

“It reflects an utter disrespect for the dignity and decorum of the court, and is seriously at odds with a judge’s duty to avoid conduct that tarnishes the esteem of the judicial office in the public’s eye.”

The panel also said Steiner’s behavior could create a hostile work environment at the courthouse.

Steiner’s attorney, Paul S. Meyer, said his client is sorry.

“Judge Steiner cooperated fully in the investigation. He apologizes and appreciates the commission’s thorough review and fair findings in this matter,” Meyer said.

The censure, while a public rebuke, allows Steiner to remain on the bench with full pay and benefits. His salary is listed as $181,292 per year.

Soon after allegations against Steiner arose in early 2013, he was moved from the central courthouse in Santa Ana to the Fullerton courthouse, where he has been hearing criminal cases.

The commission has disciplined three other Orange County judges since 2012, including one who was removed from the bench. Statewide, the commission disciplined 30 judges in 2013, mostly with advisory letters.

A former prosecutor, Steiner was elected to the Superior Court bench in 2010, after the retirement of longtime Judge Margaret Anderson. He was endorsed by a virtual who’s who of county government, including Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and District Attorney Tony Rackauckas. Steiner’s term expires in 2017 and it’s unclear if he’ll run again.

Fred Smoller, associate professor of political science at Chapman University, said that while the censure certainly wouldn’t help Steiner in any re-election bid, it isn’t an automatic end to his political career. “My guess (is) if he admits it by 2017, and if no one runs against him, he’ll be OK.”

A criminal investigation into Steiner’s practices ended with the state attorney general declining to file charges.

The main allegation was that Steiner engaged in sex three times in 2012 in his chambers, twice while the courthouse was open. His partners were former students he’d taught at Chapman School of Law. Steiner remains on leave from Chapman while the university conducts an internal investigation.

One of Steiner’s partners was a practicing attorney. The commission found that Steiner violated regulations after he began recusing himself from the attorney’s cases and sending them to other judges, instead of allowing the presiding judge to decide where the cases should go.

The commission found no evidence that the attorney engaged in sex with Steiner in exchange for help in “obtaining employment.”

Another partner once worked as an intern for Steiner. The commission found that Steiner improperly inquired with his former colleagues at the District Attorney’s Office on behalf of the former intern – who was seeking employment there.

According to the commission, Steiner talked to two people at the District Attorney’s Office, after the former intern was denied the job. He asked whether they had seen his letter of recommendation, and what she could do to improve her application.

“Well, I guess writing a letter of recommendation means nothing,” he said during one of the conversations.

Steiner did not ask directly that she be hired, the commission said.

While judges are allowed to provide references or write letters of recommendations, Steiner’s actions crossed the line of proper conduct, the commission wrote.

Besides the allegations involving the two women, Steiner failed to disqualify himself from cases involving a close friend, the commission found. Steiner had mistakenly concluded that disclosing the relationship was enough to take care of any legal concerns.

“Disclosure is not sufficient when disqualification is required,” said the commission.

Contact the writer: tsaavedra@ocregister.com