Municipal Judge, Court Aide Cleared in Grand Theft Case

Grand theft charges were dismissed Friday against the presiding judge of the South Gate Municipal Court and a court commissioner who, prosecutors alleged, were involved in overbilling Los Angeles County $10,165 for defending indigent clients.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David A. Horowitz ruled that a grand jury did not have enough evidence to show criminal intent when it indicted Judge John R. Hopson and South Gate Municipal Court Commissioner J. Francis Spelman in February.

Before becoming a commissioner, Spelman, a private attorney, was appointed by Hopson to defend indigents and billed the county for as many as 24 hours of work per day, prosecutors alleged. Hopson, who acknowledged to the grand jury that he had known Spelman since 1949, when they were both Los Angeles police officers, signed many of Spelman’s billing sheets.

“There was no crime, and there never has been, and no one ever intended to take any money from anyone,” Hopson said after Horowitz’s ruling.

Horowitz, in explaining his decision, said problems do exist in the court’s system of hiring private attorneys to represent clients who cannot afford counsel. However, he added, “we should not attempt to solve this by improper and ill-advised indictments.”

The amount of hours spent on each case is only one factor in determining billings, Horowitz said. He cited a state Penal Code section stating that fees should also be based on factors including the degree of professional ability, skill and experience called for in providing legal services.

If the county believes it was overbilled, the judge noted, it should seek repayment in civil court. Horowitz also noted that payment guidelines presented to the grand jury were for the Los Angeles Municipal Court and did not necessarily apply to the court in South Gate.

The case had been referred to the district attorney’s office by the county auditor-controller’s office, which had been asked to investigate by the Board of Supervisors in mid-1983. At that time, county auditors had determined that expenditures for private attorneys representing indigents at the South Gate branch of the Southeast Judicial District were four times greater than in the Huntington Park branch, which makes up the other half of the district.

Both Suspended With Pay

Spelman, who, along with Hopson, had been suspended from his court post with pay pending resolution of the case, told the grand jury that he found nothing wrong with billing for more time than he actually worked.

Citing an instance in which he billed for 10 hours of court work, even though he appeared in court only five hours, Spelman said he had handled two cases for the same defendant during that five-hour period.

“In private practice,” he explained, “when I took a case, if a man was arrested on this day, and while he was out on bail . . . he was arrested (again), on that case, you don’t think for a moment that I’m going to let him have that one for free, do you?”

Spelman’s attorney, John A. Torribio, told Horowitz Friday that in billing the county, his client never showed any intent to steal.

Called a Civil Dispute

“We have (instead) a civil dispute between the Board of Supervisors--represented by the auditor--and Mr. Spelman,” he said.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Steven A. Sowders countered that the case was “rather simple--Mr. Spelman claimed hours for which he did not work.”

Spelman, he noted, admitted to the grand jury that he did not work 24 hours on May 5, 1982, even though he submitted bills, and was paid, for that time.

Sowders acknowledged, however, that the indictment was returned despite a recommendation by Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard Healey, who had told the 22 grand jurors he did not believe the district attorney’s office could prove either Hopson or Spelman had the specific intent to commit a crime.

Sowders said Friday that no further effort would be made to prosecute Hopson.

As for Spelman, he said, no “snap decision” would be made whether to appeal, refile or drop the case.

Decision Up to Board

Any decision to file civil litigation to recover the $10,165 would be up to the Board of Supervisors, he said.

Sowders said he respected Horowitz’s judgment and did not believe the decision would give a green light to attorneys to unjustly bill extra hours on indigent cases.

“I think the spotlight is on the system right now (and will prove a deterrent),” he said.

Healey, commenting on the judge’s ruling, questioned whether Horowitz misconstrued the Penal Code, which, he said, allows discretion on hourly fee rates--but it makes no reference to the filing of false bills.