Bird Opponents Assail Her Donations From Lawyers

Opponents of California Chief Justice Rose Bird Thursday charged that Bird has received much of her campaign funds from a special-interest group--lawyers who have gotten favorable treatment from Bird--and urged her to give the money back to avoid tarnishing the court’s reputation.

At a press conference here, spokesmen for Crime Victims for Court Reform, one of the two major organizations working to defeat the chief justice, said that 80% of the more than $1 million raised by Bird has come from lawyers and most of that from criminal defense and personal injury lawyers who have been on the winning side of Bird’s opinions.

“Beyond any question, this gives an appearance of impropriety,” said Edward R. Jagels, Kern County district attorney and chairman of the Crime Victims’ group’s steering committee.

“What we are saying is that in a judicial campaign you should avoid the appearance of impropriety,” Jagels said. “What we are saying is that Bird should return the contributions of special interests.”

Jagels buttressed his case with a list of 169 lawyers whom he said had contributed to Bird during the last three years. The same lawyers, according to the list, were the beneficiaries of favorable opinions from Bird in cases before the Supreme Court between 1978 and 1985.

The list did not indicate how much money each of the 169 lawyers gave, but said the 28 lawyers who gave the most accounted for $192,000.

Bird’s principal campaign spokesman, Steve Glazer, said that the Crime Victims’ press conference was built around “innuendo and baseless charges” and rejected the notion that the nature of Bird’s financial support casts a shadow on the honor of the judiciary.

Glazer invoked the state’s code of judicial ethics which permits lawyers to contribute to judicial campaigns, and he said that lawyers’ motives in giving to Bird had nothing to do with self-interest.

“Lawyers have a specific interest in protecting a judicial system that honors the rule of law and not the rule of politics or special-interest groups,” Glazer said. “We are proud of the fact that attorneys who are in a unique position to view the court at close range have demonstrated so clearly their support for the integrity, principles and competence of the chief justice.”

Glazer then accused the crime victims’ group of ignoring its own dependency on special interests, in particular, business interests, who, he said, contributed at least 50% of the $93,000 the group raised during the first two months of this year.

A review of Crime Victims’ financial statement by The Times showed that 65% of the $93,000 came from business interests.

At the press conference, Jagels acknowledged that it was not illegal for lawyers to contribute to a judicial campaign, and he conceded that the campaign to defeat Bird is relying on financial help from groups such as insurance companies whose officials believe that Bird is hostile to their interests.

Jagels argued that contributions made by such groups are minuscule compared to money given by lawyers supporting the chief justice. And, Jagels and others painted a picture of the campaign as a lopsided financial contest that pits successful law firms that contribute up to $100,000 to Bird against ordinary citizens who give $10 and $15 apiece to oppose the chief justice.

“It’s Rose Bird and the lawyers versus the people of California,” said Lynn Rivera, a member of Crime Victims whose son was murdered two years ago.

Indeed, most of the $4 million that has been raised by the anti-Bird forces has come from small donations solicited through a direct-mail campaign that, so far, has spent nearly as much as it has raised.

Although not members of a special-interest group, the people who have contributed in response to the anti-Bird direct-mail campaign, tend to be middle-aged Republican businessmen, according to data released last month by officials of the campaign against Bird.