L.A. County fights old law barring judges as public defenders

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted unanimously to ask state legislators to change an obscure 89-year-old law that appears to prohibit judges from serving as county public defender, the office in charge of giving legal representation to the poor.

California law appears to disqualify one of the applicants said to be seeking the public defender job in Los Angeles County. Sources said that candidate is Peter Espinoza, supervising judge of the criminal division of the L.A. County Superior Court. He has overseen recent prominent cases, including the “bling ring” celebrity burglary case and Roman Polanski’s bid to be sentenced in absentia for child-sex crimes.

California government code Section 27701 says that a person must be a practicing attorney in California for at least a year prior to being appointed public defender. The state Constitution says judges may not practice law, said County Counsel Andrea Ordin.

Ordin said the law requiring public defenders to be practicing attorneys was passed in 1921, back when the office of public defender consisted of a single lawyer.

“Since the public defender was the lawyer who went into court, they wanted to be sure that their courtroom skills were up to par,” Ordin said.

Today, the public defender in L.A. County oversees an office of more than 700 attorneys with a budget of $179.4 million. Michael P. Judge, who ran the office for 16 years, retired June 30, but was hired on a contract basis for 120 more days.

Supervisor Gloria Molina, who sponsored Tuesday’s motion, said other high-ranking official legal jobs, such as county counsel, don’t have such limitations. Molina questioned why people with extensive legal experience, including elected officials or recently retired attorneys, should be barred from the job.

“This is an antiquated law,” Molina said.

The Los Angeles County Public Defenders’ Assn. opposed Molina’s motion, calling it “untimely, inappropriate and a waste of scarce resources.”

An amendment approved by the supervisors clarified that a change in state law would not apply to the current search.

“Yes, this law needs to be changed, but to do so now might … disrupt a process that has been conducted appropriately,” said Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, “particularly if it’s perceived to accommodate an individual person.”

But if supervisors reject all of the candidates under consideration by county Chief Executive William T Fujioka and state law changes, supervisors probably can initiate a new search that considers judges for the job.

ron.lin@latimes.com