‘People’s Court’ Judge Wapner Sparks $75-Million Debate

If you needed a doctor, would you call Robert Young because he played Marcus Welby in the long-running television series?

No? So why did attorneys for Malibu homeowners choose TV’s “People’s Court” Judge Joseph A. Wapner to disburse up to $75 million won by the homeowners in a suit against the California Department of Transportation?

Wapner’s 20 years on the Superior Court bench before he retired in 1979 helped. So did the fact that last year he handled the disbursement of $8.75 million to 120 families in a Fullerton suit.

But equally as important was Wapner’s six years of television exposure, according to the attorneys involved, who believe his visibility built a large audience among the plaintiffs in the case.

The People’s Confidence

“He starts with credibility and that is very important to these people’s confidence, that they’re going to be treated fairly,” said Los Angeles attorney Kenneth R. Chiate, who represented the complainants.

But where do you draw the line between television and reality?

“I think when someone steps out of reality into television, they ought to stay there and not journey back and forth willy-nilly,” said Tom Shales, television critic of the Washington Post. “We have enough problem separating reality and fantasy thanks to television. . . . It leads to confusion and disorientation among viewers.”

John Carman, television critic of the San Francisco Chronicle, called it “saddening to see the star of a syndicated lowbrow television show adjudged to be the most adroit legal mind to settle a case of that magnitude.

“The other thing it reminds me of is that commercial that ran several months back where the guy says ‘I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV.’ On that basis you’re supposed to take him seriously.”

“This sounds like some bizarre nightmare,” said Tom Jicha, television editor of the Miami News. “What do we have next? Perry Mason pleading a case before the Supreme Court?”

Bill Carter, television critic for the Baltimore Sun, said the situation seemed “a little strange but not as bad as some other things that could be done.”

” . . . Wapner has increased his visibility and in TV, visibility is credibility,” he said. “It bothers me a whole lot more when people see Oliver North on television and want to talk about making him president just because he has awesome camera presence.”

Unique Situation

The legal profession was far less concerned.

“In the case like Judge Wapner, you have a really unique situation where he was a highly respected, highly competent judge before filling this TV role,” said Scott Bice, the dean of the USC School of Law.

“In that situation I think there’s no impropriety at all and I think it’s a good idea to elicit his services. Where you have a difficult settlement, one key element is that people trust and respect the fairness and wisdom of the decision maker.

“Obviously you wouldn’t want someone to go through that sort of role if they were simply an actor. You would not want to go out and ask actors from “L.A. Law” to represent you.”

Wapner himself made a similar point.

Judge Is Not an Actor

“The TV show is not about a judge who’s an actor,” he said. “It’s about real cases handled by a real judge whose first assignment as a judge was small claims cases, who over 20 years handled millions and millions of dollars and decided whether people would live.

“If you took John Houseman--who’s a marvelous man and a marvelous actor--and if he were selected, he wouldn’t have the background experience to handle it.

“So we’re not talking about that,” he said, speaking from the Hollywood studio set where he films his show once a week. “You can’t mix up apples and oranges.”