Judge Mark C. Kim

Judge Mark C. Kim has served on the Los Angeles Superior Court since his appointment by Governor Jerry Brown on November 10, 2011, and has presided over cases in the Long Beach area. He earned his law degree from USC Gould School of Law. The available public record reflects two notable rulings: a 2023 decision in which he ordered the return of a home to an elderly woman who had been defrauded by an investor, and a 2020 ruling in which he approved the termination of a Long Beach police officer found to have ignored a crime scene and moved a bloody knife. These rulings, as reported by the Long Beach Post, reflect a judicial record that includes consumer and victim protection outcomes, as well as accountability for law enforcement misconduct. News coverage characterizes Judge Kim's disposition as oriented toward protecting fraud victims and imposing meaningful consequences in violent and sexual assault cases. His willingness to rule against both private actors who defraud vulnerable individuals and public employees who violate professional duties signals a results-oriented approach grounded in factual accountability. Attorneys should note that a Commission on Judicial Performance record exists for this judge, which is a material fact for case assessment and judicial conduct research. Because no analyzed rulings, attorney observations, or ingested content are available beyond the profile data, the intelligence in this report is drawn exclusively from verified biographical and public news sources. Attorneys are strongly encouraged to supplement this profile with independent research into the CJP record and any available docket history before appearing before Judge Kim.

Attorneys appearing before Judge Kim should ground their arguments in concrete facts and documentary evidence. His publicly reported rulings demonstrate a pattern of responding to clear factual records — the 2023 fraud case turned on documented deception of a vulnerable victim, and the 2020 police termination case turned on specific officer conduct at a crime scene. Arguments that are fact-dense and tied to specific evidence are better suited to this courtroom than abstract legal theory alone. When representing a party who is a victim of fraud, elder abuse, or misconduct by a person in a position of trust or authority, attorneys should present the factual record of harm in a structured, chronological manner. The available data shows Judge Kim has ruled in favor of restoring rights and imposing accountability in such circumstances. Conversely, attorneys defending institutional actors — including law enforcement, employers, or investors — should be prepared for close scrutiny of their client's conduct and should not rely on deference to institutional status. Given the existence of a CJP record, attorneys should research that record through the Commission on Judicial Performance's public database before appearing. Understanding any prior disciplinary findings or advisory letters can inform how to frame procedural and substantive arguments, and may be relevant to any recusal or disqualification analysis.

• critical

  Research the CJP Record

  A Commission on Judicial Performance record exists for Judge Kim. Before any appearance, attorneys should pull the full CJP public record to understand the nature and outcome of any disciplinary proceedings. This is essential for case strategy and any potential disqualification analysis.

• critical

  Build a Fact-Intensive Evidentiary Record

  Reported rulings show Judge Kim resolves cases based on specific documented facts — fraudulent conduct, officer behavior at a crime scene. Attorneys should organize their evidentiary record chronologically and ensure every key factual assertion is supported by documentary or testimonial evidence.

• important

  Prepare Victim Impact and Harm Documentation

  In cases involving fraud, elder abuse, or misconduct, the reported rulings reflect sensitivity to the concrete harm suffered by victims. Attorneys representing harmed parties should document the nature, extent, and impact of harm with specificity.

• important

  Research Long Beach Area Docket History

  Judge Kim has presided over cases in the Long Beach area. Attorneys should search available docket records and local legal press for additional rulings that may reveal procedural preferences and substantive patterns not captured in this profile.

• important

  Assess Client Conduct for Institutional Accountability Issues

  If representing an institutional actor, employer, or investor, conduct a thorough pre-hearing review of your client's conduct record. The available data shows Judge Kim has upheld adverse findings against both private investors and law enforcement officers when the factual record supported misconduct.

• ›Present arguments with specific factual grounding — the reported rulings reflect decisions driven by concrete documented facts rather than general legal principles alone.
• ›When representing a vulnerable or victimized party, frame the factual narrative clearly and chronologically to align with the documented pattern of victim-protective rulings.
• ›Do not rely on institutional status or professional authority as a substitute for factual justification — the 2020 police officer ruling demonstrates that institutional actors are held to the same evidentiary standard as private parties.
• ›Research the CJP record in advance and be prepared to address any judicial conduct history that may be relevant to the proceedings.