U.S. Judge Real Refuses to Give Up Case

The chief federal trial judge in Los Angeles refused Monday to relinquish control of a controversial case involving an outspoken civil rights lawyer, who immediately declared that he will seek contempt charges against the jurist.

U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real, ordered by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to let another judge decide whether sanctions should be imposed on the attorney, Stephen Yagman, set a March 16 hearing instead of stepping aside.

“He’s defying the orders of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,” Yagman told reporters. “ . . . They ordered him to reassign the case. He has blatantly declined to do that. . . .”

Real was rebuked by a three-member appellate panel in August for “abuse of discretion” by imposing a $250,000 fine on Yagman for alleged courtroom misconduct in a $20-million defamation suit dismissed more than two years ago.

The 9th Circuit held that Real was correct in dismissing the suit and agreed that Yagman’s clients had not been denied “a fair trial and an impartial judge” but held that the fine could not stand.

When Yagman originally was fined, he reacted with public statements that shocked members of the legal establishment conditioned by the respect most lawyers show federal judges. Yagman suggested that Real “suffers from mental disorders.”

“I think he is a tyrant who ought to be impeached,” the lawyer said.

Yagman was again talking about impeachment after Monday’s hearing, at which he had asked Real to “step down now.” The judge, in a tightly controlled voice, responded by repeating his order setting a hearing and left the bench.

Yagman said he would ask the 9th Circuit in San Francisco today to declare Real in contempt of court for failing to obey the order to give up the case. The lawyer said he considers the judge’s actions grounds for impeachment. He said he had contacted three congressmen, whom he declined to identify, about a bill of impeachment.

Attorney Donald Smaltz, who has represented Real in another jurisdiction case involving the 9th Circuit, said that the “real dispute” is over the independence of the judiciary. The question, he said, is whether an appellate court can order a sitting judge off an existing case.

Smaltz quoted from the 9th Circuit’s opinion, stating:

“We have firmly rejected Yagman’s claims of judicial bias and thus are hesitant to grant this extraordinary relief. We do not doubt Judge Real’s ability to fact fairly. We grant this relief, however, because we believe it is necessary to preserve the appearance of justice.”

In his order setting the March 16 hearing, Real directed Yagman and two opposing attorneys to address 11 questions, including the query, “What is the constitutional authority of the Court of Appeals in the assignment of cases in the District Court?”

Submit Statement

But Yagman indicated Monday that he would ignore the judge’s questions and submit a statement telling Real that “he doesn’t have the right any longer to tell us to do anything.”

“He has the right to do one thing: reassign the case,” he said.

The original dispute grew out of a case that Yagman brought against two pathologists on behalf of a Signal Hill police detective and a former police cadet in the death of Ron Settles, a California State University, Long Beach, football player who was arrested for speeding and later was found hanging in his jail cell.

Yagman charged that the doctors had defamed his clients at a news conference on an autopsy of Settles. Real dismissed the case on April 5, 1984, on grounds that there was not enough evidence to warrant continuation of the trial.

The two opposing lawyers, Harvey Schneider and Mark Beck, then accused Yagman of filing the suit “in bad faith for improper motives,” suggesting that he was interested in personal gain rather than the welfare of his clients.

Frivolous Lawsuit

In fining Yagman, Real in effect found that the attorney had brought a frivolous lawsuit and that Yagman should pay the legal fees of the opposing lawyers. The 9th District characterized Yagman’s actions in the case as “poor lawyering.”

“We do not condone any of Yagman’s misbehavior . . . we empathize with (Real’s) desire to punish Yagman’s actions. . . ,” the appeals court said.

But, the three appellate judges, Blaine Anderson of Idaho, Charles E. Wiggins of San Francisco and Harry Pregerson of Los Angeles, said that to permit a “generic, all-encompassing, massive, post-trial retribution, with no indication whatsoever of reasonableness, would send shivers through the Bar.”

They declared that rules and sanctions governing courtroom conduct were not designed “to chill an attorney’s enthusiasm or creativity pursuing factual or legal theories . . . (the fine) poses a direct threat to the balance between sanctioning improper behavior and chilling vigorous advocacy.”