RIVERSIDE - A Riverside County Superior Court judge spent Monday on the witness stand on the first day of a hearing ordered by a state commission looking into his conduct.

Judge Robert Spitzer, who was first appointed to the bench 17 years ago, is accused by the Commission on Judicial Performance of backdating documents, falsely signing affidavits to get paid, improperly getting involved in cases and not making decisions on cases in a timely manner.

Three out-of-county judges have been appointed by the state Supreme Court as "special masters" to oversee the hearing, which could last two weeks.

The hearing, held at the state's Fourth District Court of Appeal courtroom in Riverside, is a fact-finding effort as the special masters do not have a say in any discipline Spitzer could receive if found guilty of any of the eight counts.

After the hearing concludes, the special masters will send the commission a report containing their findings. Both sides then have an opportunity to respond.

Should the commission determine that any of the charges have been proven, Spitzer faces a wide range of discipline, including no action, private or public admonishment, censure or removal from the judicial bench.

Spitzer's attorney, Reginald Vitek, told the judges that the allegations stem from his client having a messy courtroom, having "horrible, horrible organization skills" and Riverside County's court system being overloaded.

Any backdating of court documents was not done to make it look like they had actually been signed by him at an earlier time, Spitzer's attorney said.

Vitek said Spitzer didn't fail to decide on civil cases in a timely manner because of laziness or carelessness, but because he is "obsessive-compulsive about getting things right -- obsessive-compulsive to a fault.

"It makes him ill-suited for a civil assignment (as a judge)," the attorney said.

Four of the eight counts Spitzer faces come from civil cases over which he presided. Some of the civil accusations were discussed at Monday's hearing.

Three more counts involve his actions during criminal cases -- including the case of Vondetrick Carr, who was convicted in November 2004 of murder in the death of a Lake Elsinore boy killed in a car crash. The final count alleges a violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics for not properly responding to the commission's preliminary investigation into the other seven counts.

Spitzer is scheduled to resume his testimony today and could get to the criminal-case accusations.

Ten thick binders sat side by side on the witness stand and Spitzer was often directed to them Monday by commission trial attorney Andrew Blum during the judge's testimony. The binders contain thousands of pages of documents and exhibits pertaining to the allegations.

Spitzer explained, regarding the civil cases, that it was his practice to put a past date on a court document if he signed it over a weekend or holiday, instead of dating it on the last previous actual court date.

"I recognize now it was not a good practice," Spitzer testified. "If I signed it on a Saturday or Sunday, I consider it an extension of Friday, the work day."

Testimony on Monday included instances in which documents or entire files were lost or misplaced.

In a 2003 civil case, the state Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by one side, saying it was filed in an untimely manner.

Spitzer admits signing the proposed civil judgment document July 3, 2003, and it was stamped as filed with the court with the date July 7, 2003. However, it was not actually filed with the court until June 2004.

Spitzer testified he found the missing document in the bottom drawer of a file cabinet in his courtroom.

Spitzer admitted Monday that not being able to find the document did delay the appellate process by those involved in the lawsuit.

"It's hard to describe how messy my chambers was," Spitzer said.

He said there was one area where he had accumulated about two years of the Daily Journal, a legal newspaper.

It got to be so bad that two court employees were brought in during either late November or early December 2002 to try to better organize Spitzer's chambers. Things went from disheveled to "nice, neat piles," he said.

Judge Douglas Miller, who as the presiding judge of the Superior Court was Spitzer's supervisor, became concerned that Spitzer had too many cases "under submission" for more than 90 days. Taking a case under submission means a judge is still reviewing it and has yet to render a decision.

By law, a judge has to rule on such matters within 90 days or that jurist does not get paid. Spitzer testified that there were months when he did not get paid because cases were still pending more than 90 days.

Miller and Spitzer exchanged numerous e-mails as the presiding judge tried to get Spitzer to locate documents and resolve cases.

Spitzer testified that there was a "personality conflict" between him and Miller. Spitzer said he felt Miller was "micromanaging cases assigned to me. I resented that interference with my cases."

As the requests from Miller about clearing up past cases became more persistent, Spitzer said the two judges became more harsh with each other.

"I know I said a couple of things I regret and am ashamed of," Spitzer admitted.

His testimony is set to resume this morning.

- Contact staff writer John Hall at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2628, or jhall@californian.com.