The “Da Vinci Code” judge who found himself the subject of a disciplinary inquiry after being accused of bias and “intemperate” behaviour has escaped with a reprimand for misconduct, it was announced today.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said he hoped a line could now be drawn underneath the high-profile disciplinary case involving Mr Justice Peter Smith — who famously inserted a code of his own when delivering judgment in the Da Vinci Code ruling.

Mr Justice Peter Smith was referred to the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) last year after showing “undoubted animosity” towards one of the parties in a case before him.

Such disciplinary action against a High Court judge was unprecedented in recent times and came after the Court of Appeal ruled that he had been “intemperate” and his behaviour “wholly inappropriate” when he got carried away and indulged in “extraordinary” exchanges in court.

The judge was castigated after failing to step down from a case involving a law firm towards which he had shown “undoubted animosity”.

He had previously been in unsuccessful negotiations with Addleshaw Goddard, the 15th-largest firm in Britain with nearly 600 solicitors, for a possible job.

When a case involving a partner in the firm came before him, he was asked — but refused — to stand down.

Today a Judicial Communications Office spokesman said: “The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have carefully considered the Court of Appeal’s comments on the conduct of Mr Justice Peter Smith . . . and have concluded that the conduct in question amounted to misconduct.

“As a result, the Lord Chief Justice has issued a reprimand to the judge.”

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said: “I consider that a firm line has now been drawn under this matter.

“Both I and the Lord Chancellor value the services of Mr Justice Peter Smith and he has my full confidence.”

It was the first time that such a senior judge had been referred to the OJC, set up in 2006 to decide disciplinary action against judges.

A reprimand is at the lower end of the scale of possible punishments that can follow an OJC investigation.

In the most extreme cases a High Court judge can be removed but only with the Lord Chancellor, who is jointly responsible for disciplining judges, moving an address to both Houses of Parliament for the judge’s removal from office.

Mr Justice Peter Smith was criticised severely by appeal judges last July for refusing to stand aside in the case which led to the disciplinary action.

The judge had been in discussion with law firm Addleshaw Goddard over a possible job and been turned down, to his “extreme” disappointment, the appeal judges found.

Mr Justice Smith then found himself due to try a case which involved a partner with Addleshaw Goddard.

The partner, Paul Howell, applied for the judge to stand down but he refused.

Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, and two other appeal judges ruled that the judge had got “carried away” and indulged in “extraordinary” exchanges in court.

He was described as “intemperate” in the way he handled the application for him to stand down and showed “undoubted animosity”.

Two other judges are awaiting the findings of a disciplinary inquiry: the two immigration judges who were embroiled in the so-called “chilli hot stuff” blackmail case.

A Brazilian cleaner was cleared last October of blackmailing two judges whom she worked for with stolen sex videos. The two judges, known as Judge Ilyas Khan and Judge J, were also lovers.

Judge Khan is on leave on full pay on a salary of more than £117,000 a year. Judge J has taken early retirement on medical grounds and is now on a medical pension.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers