Judge, Lawyer Indicted Over Indigent Bills

The presiding judge of South Gate Municipal Court and a lawyer who now serves as a Municipal Court commissioner in South Gate were indicted Wednesday on grand theft charges arising from an alleged $10,165 overbilling of the county for defending indigent clients.

Judge John R. Hopson and Commissioner J. Francis Spelman were released on their own responsibility, pending arraignment March 8 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

A few hours after Hopson was released, Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird suspended him from the bench pending resolution of the case.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Steven A. Sowders said the indictments covered a period from Jan. 7, 1982, to Jan. 6, 1983, when Spelman was an attorney appointed by Hopson to defend indigents in South Gate. Sowders declined to discuss specifics of the case, citing the legal requirement that grand jury transcripts be sealed for 10 days.

Sowders said the case was referred to his office by the county auditor-controller’s office, which had been asked to investigate by the Board of Supervisors in July, 1983.

Examining attorney appointment and payment processes of the South Gate branch of the Southeast Judicial District, Sowders said, the auditors discovered that expenditures for private attorneys representing indigents in that branch were four times greater than in the Huntington Beach branch, which makes up the other half of the district.

Courts may appoint private attorneys to represent clients who cannot afford to hire counsel. The court-appointed attorneys then bill the county for their services.

Spelman’s earnings from representing indigent clients in South Gate in fiscal 1982-83 came to $37,170, according to the audit, which was released last month.

In a letter to Spelman dated Feb. 3, 1984, Auditor-Controller Mark H. Bloodgood sought to recover the $10,165, saying:

“Our review disclosed that on 11 occasions you requested and received payments twice for services rendered once, and on two occasions you submitted claims for services prior to the dates of your appointment.

“We also noted that you claimed to have provided ‘court time’ that exceeded eight hours per day on 17 separate occasions.”

Hopson’s attorney, Leo B. Newton, said his client’s suspension from the bench was “routine.”

“Under the Government Code, he’s required to report this to Chief Justice Bird, which he has done, and she is required to suspend him from sitting until this matter is resolved,” Newton said.

The indictment followed closely in the wake of a report from the county auditor-controller’s office to the Board of Supervisors recommending changes in the method by which private attorneys are appointed to represent the poor and indicating that its investigation had uncovered “significant abuses” by some lawyers.

However, Hopson and Spelman were not mentioned in that report.

Indigent Clients

Fees collected by lawyers representing indigent clients have come under close scrutiny of late in the wake of charges that three private attorneys collected nearly $1 million in fees to handle such cases during one 16-month period.

Neither Hopson nor Spelman was immediately available for comment. Spelman’s lawyer, John Torribio, said he could make no statement until a transcript of the indictment becomes available. However, Newton said Hopson was “dumbfounded” by the indictment.

“He responded to the (grand jury) subpoena. He testified fully and completely,” Newton said, “and I had understood that the district attorney recommended that no indictment be returned.”

In 1981, Hopson and South Gate Municipal Judge Frank Grafkowski Jr. were investigated by the district attorney’s office on similar questions concerning appointment of private attorneys to represent indigents.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Terry Green, who conducted that investigation, said an “excess of unjustified (appointments of lawyers) was found” in South Gate. He said, however, “I could not find . . . evidence that either judge had committed a crime.”

Issued Order

No stranger to controversy, Hopson drew attention last March when he ordered Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block to build him a new courtroom.

The order was the first known to have been issued under a section of the state Government Code that allows a judge to direct the county sheriff to provide “suitable rooms for holding courts” if the county Board of Supervisors fails to provide such facilities.

In September, Hopson filed suit in Superior Court, asking for an order requiring the sheriff to obey him.

Six weeks later, the court ordered the sheriff to provide adequate facilities but set no deadline.

Times Staff Writer Ralph Cipriano also contributed to this story.