Judge Aid Effort May Clash With State Code

An effort to persuade lawyers to help pay for the legal defense of a Beverly Hills judge accused of illegally suspending fines on more than 200 parking tickets may have run afoul of the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct.

At least 80 friends of Judge Charles D. Boags, many of them attorneys, have been invited to a $100-a-person cocktail party Friday evening at the home of Paul Caruso, a prominent Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer.

According to the invitation, the money is to be used to help pay the costs of Boags’ legal defense.

At least one of the attorneys who has already sent in his check told The Times that he has appeared before Boags on at least one occasion, representing a client charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. The attorney, a Boags supporter, asked to remain anonymous.

In an opinion issued last summer in an unrelated case, the Committee on Judicial Ethics of the California Judges Assn. held that judges “may privately and discreetly solicit contributions to their own legal defense funds and may allow others to do so, but only from those whose interests have not and are not likely to come before the judge.”

The opinion was based on Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which outlines the circumstances under which judges may accept gifts other than political contributions.

In separate interviews, neither Caruso nor Boags’ two defense attorneys were able to say who received invitations to the fund-raiser, or whether the mailing list was screened to eliminate lawyers who have appeared before Boags or who are likely to in the future.

“I didn’t have anything to do with the invitations. The mailing list was not my mailing list,” Caruso said, adding that he does not know who prepared it. “I forget who I was talking to, who said, ‘I’m having a fund-raiser for Charlie Boags,’ and I said, ‘I’ll volunteer my house.’

“I just get a report as to what we can expect as a number. It ranges between 20 and 80 as of the moment.” Caruso noted that he has hosted political fund-raisers for other judges. “I happen to believe in Charlie Boags and I want to help him any way I can,” he said.

“I received an invitation,” said Richard G. Hirsch, one of Boags’ attorneys, “but I have no idea where it emanated from. . . . I know the judge hasn’t done this (prepare the mailing list) and the people doing this on his behalf, I can’t say whether they were aware of the people who appeared before him (Boags). . . .”

Boags’ other attorney, Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., said he was also invited. “I don’t know how they got the list together,” he said, but added that he presumed most of those who were invited are attorneys.

Cochran noted that Boags has been hearing only civil cases since the criminal charges were filed against him last Jan. 29. “I would doubt certainly that many civil (attorneys) are going to come,” Cochran said.

Opinion on Fund-Raising

Both Hirsch and Cochran said they were unfamiliar with the opinion on judicial fund-raising released last August by the judges’ association ethics committee.

Boags, 57, could not be reached for comment.

The solicitation of money by judges must be tightly restricted, the ethics committee said, because “it demeans the judicial office for a judge to ask others for money for any purpose, even a charitable one.

“It also puts undue pressure to contribute on those the judge approaches, especially among lawyers and others with an interest before the court. It likewise may create an impression that those who heed the judge’s solicitation are in special favor with the judge.”

In its opinion, the ethics committee drew a distinction between money solicited for a judge’s legal defense and money solicited for political contributions, on which there are no restrictions.

Specific Exemption

” . . . Canon 7 (of the Code of Judicial Conduct) specifically exempts contributions to a judge’s campaign for judicial office from the gift limitation of Canon 5,” the committee said. “The (canon), however, does not specifically allow any other form of gift to the judge from those whose ‘interests’ have come or are likely to come before the judge.”

The conduct of California’s judges is regulated by the state Commission on Judicial Performance. The commission’s director and chief counsel, Jack E. Frankel, said Wednesday that he does not recall a commission ruling on the propriety of fund-raising for a judge’s legal defense. If such a case were to come before the commission, Frankel said, the opinion drafted by the ethics committee would be considered.

Boags was charged last January with three misdemeanors for improperly suspending fines on 207 parking tickets issued to cars driven by his son and the young man’s friends, many of whom were members of the Beverly Hills High School football team.

The charges were filed by the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office nine months after The Times disclosed that Boags had suspended fines on at least 72 tickets issued to his own car, a Honda that the judge’s son, Martin R. Boags, drove to school.

If convicted, the judge could face fines of up to $10,000 and up to a year in Los Angeles County Jail. He is formally accused of conspiracy to obstruct justice, failing to remove himself from a case in which he had a financial interest, and committing acts prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Hirsch and Cochran are scheduled to appear Friday in Beverly Hills Municipal Court to ask for a hearing on the constitutionality of the charges against the judge.