Judge Susanne Rizo

Judge Susanne M. Rizo serves on the Inyo County Superior Court, having made history in October 2020 as the first woman elected to that bench. Her path to the judiciary was through a contested election rather than gubernatorial appointment, which signals a degree of community accountability and local rootedness that shapes her judicial identity. As a judge in one of California's smallest and most geographically isolated counties, she operates in a legal environment where nearly every attorney, party, and witness may be personally known to her — a structural reality that she has publicly addressed and that the Daily Journal highlighted in January 2024 as a defining challenge of her tenure. The most significant documented event in her judicial record is a public admonishment issued by the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) in October/November 2025. A public admonishment is a formal, published sanction — more serious than a private advisory letter but less severe than censure or removal — and it indicates that the CJP found her conduct fell below the standards required by the California Code of Judicial Ethics. The specific conduct underlying the admonishment is not detailed in available sources, but its existence is a material fact for any attorney appearing before her. It may reflect issues related to demeanor, ex parte communications, conflict-of-interest management, or courtroom conduct, all of which are common bases for CJP action in small-county settings. Given the absence of analyzed rulings or attorney observations, assessments of her substantive legal tendencies must be held with appropriate caution. What the record does establish is a judge who is historically significant to her community, who has publicly engaged with the ethics of small-county judging, and who has faced formal accountability from the state's judicial oversight body. These facts collectively define the strategic landscape for any attorney preparing to appear before her.

Because no ruling analyses or attorney observations are available, strategic guidance must be grounded in the structural and biographical facts on record. The most important strategic reality is that Judge Rizo operates in a small, close-knit county where she likely knows most local practitioners personally. Attorneys should be scrupulously professional and avoid any conduct that could be perceived as leveraging a personal relationship or, conversely, as antagonizing a judge who will see them repeatedly. Out-of-county attorneys should be especially careful not to appear dismissive of local norms or to treat the court as a lesser venue. The CJP public admonishment is a critical strategic data point. While the underlying conduct is unknown, its existence means Judge Rizo is operating under heightened scrutiny — both self-imposed and external. Attorneys should expect her to be particularly attentive to procedural propriety, ethical compliance, and the appearance of impartiality. Arguments that implicate fairness, due process, or judicial neutrality may receive careful attention. Conversely, any conduct by counsel that could be perceived as attempting to exploit her admonishment history — such as aggressive recusal motions without strong factual basis — is likely to be poorly received. Given her public statements about navigating conflicts of interest in a small county, attorneys should proactively and clearly disclose any relationships, prior dealings, or potential conflicts at the earliest opportunity. Do not assume she is already aware of a connection. Raising conflict issues transparently and in writing demonstrates good faith and aligns with the judicial ethics framework she has publicly embraced.

• critical

  Research the CJP Admonishment Details

  Obtain and review the full text of the October/November 2025 CJP public admonishment. CJP decisions are public records available on the CJP website. Understanding the specific conduct at issue will allow you to avoid inadvertently triggering the same sensitivities and to better predict how she may respond to related courtroom dynamics.

• critical

  Conduct Thorough Conflict-of-Interest Analysis

  Before any appearance, map all relationships between your client, witnesses, opposing counsel, and Judge Rizo. Given her public focus on conflict-of-interest management in small counties, she will likely appreciate — and may expect — proactive disclosure. Prepare a written record of your analysis in case the issue arises.

• important

  Brief All Legal Issues Comprehensively

  With no ruling history available, do not assume her positions on any contested legal question. Submit thorough written briefs on all significant motions, citing controlling California authority. Do not rely on oral argument alone to carry a legal point.

• important

  Gather Local Practitioner Intelligence

  Contact attorneys who regularly practice in Inyo County Superior Court to obtain firsthand observations about Judge Rizo's courtroom preferences, demeanor, and procedural expectations. The Inyo County Bar Association or Eastern Sierra legal community may be the best source of current, reliable intelligence not captured in public records.

• important

  Review Local Rules and Standing Orders

  Inyo County Superior Court may have local rules or Judge Rizo may have standing orders governing motion practice, hearing procedures, and courtroom conduct. Review all available local rules carefully, as small-county judges often have strong preferences about procedural compliance that may not be widely documented.

• Nice

  Prepare Professional and Respectful Courtroom Demeanor

  Given the small-county environment and the judge's history-making status, ensure all counsel and client representatives are briefed on courtroom decorum. Inyo County proceedings may feel less formal than urban courts, but that informality should not be mistaken for leniency toward disrespectful or unprepared counsel.

• ›Address all conflict-of-interest or recusal issues proactively and in writing before the hearing — do not wait for the judge to raise them, as she has publicly emphasized the importance of managing these issues in small-county settings.
• ›Treat the courtroom with full formal decorum regardless of the small-county setting; do not assume that familiarity with local counsel or the judge's community role permits informality in proceedings.
• ›Avoid any conduct that could be perceived as attempting to exploit or reference the CJP admonishment history — do not raise it in argument or imply it in recusal motions without a strong, independent factual basis.
• ›Be thoroughly prepared on all procedural and substantive issues; given the limited docket volume, the judge is likely to have read submissions carefully and will notice unprepared or superficial advocacy.
• ›Out-of-county attorneys should introduce themselves clearly, explain their role, and demonstrate respect for local practice norms rather than importing big-city litigation styles that may feel adversarial or dismissive in a small-county context.