Attorney’s Bitter Battle With Judge Typifies His Brash Tactical Manner

Stephen Yagman, the lawyer who won a major round Monday in his bitter battle with a Los Angeles federal judge, does not mince words.

Take, for example, his response to a reporter’s question Monday as to why he moved here from New York.

“It was a mistake,” he answered quickly, without a trace of humor. “Southern California had seemed like a nice place. . . . But I hadn’t met any Southern Californians yet,” Yagman said.

“When I got here, I didn’t like it. Compared to New York, Boston, Western Europe, the level of culture and intelligence here is very, very low.”

The remark is typical of the 42-year-old Yagman, who says he doesn’t worry about stepping on other people’s toes.

And some of the toes that he’s squashed the hardest are those of Chief U.S. District Judge Manuel Real.

The dispute between the judge and the lawyer started in 1984, when Real fined Yagman $250,000, upholding claims that the attorney had filed a $20-million defamation suit more for his personal gain than for the welfare of his clients.

Yagman responded by publicly questioning Real’s sanity, saying he had hired a psychiatrist to study the judge’s “aberrant” courtroom behavior.

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn., accusing Yagman of crossing “the fine line between valid criticism of the judiciary and a personal attack on the judiciary,” said Yagman “was held in the lowest regard by virtually the entire legal community.” The Federal Bar Assn. censured Yagman’s remarks as “professionally deplorable.”

Yagman appealed the fine to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which threw out the fine, saying the image of justice was being tarnished by the continuing dispute. Real appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected his appeal.

“It’s just a shame that a Brooklyn boy like me had to come out here to stop one of the local tyrants from abusing the law,” Yagman said.

That’s how Yagman sees himself--as a man whose job it is “to vindicate the rights of people oppressed by government.”

Asked if he’s good at it, Yagman said he thinks he is.

There are those who agree, and those who don’t.

“I think Yagman is an extremely able, hard-working, principled and dedicated lawyer,” said Stanley Greenberg, a fellow attorney who practices frequently in federal court.

“He is a tough and contentious guy who is not afraid to speak his mind about a subject, and I think that sometimes has gotten him into more difficulty than he deserves,” said Brian O’Neill, Yagman’s lawyer and a longtime acquaintance. “He’s not a member of the establishment, and I think that scares people, it makes them uncomfortable.”

Others praise Yagman’s intelligence and effectiveness, while questioning some of his methods.

Like Selling Burgers

“He practices law the way McDonald’s sells hamburgers,” said John M. Porter, a Riverside attorney who has faced Yagman often. “He doesn’t prepare as thoroughly as most, but he has been very successful.”

On the other hand, some say Yagman’s brash and sometimes rude tactics override any of his abilities and successes.

“Yagman brings discredit to himself and to (the legal profession),” said attorney Johnnie L. Cochran, another courtroom foe.

Yagman said the criticisms don’t bother him.

“I didn’t generate the controversy,” he said. “Civil rights law is controversial.”

Graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 1974, Yagman said he first worked as a lawyer for the New York attorney general’s office, prosecuting nursing home fraud.

After his arrival in Southern California in 1976, Yagman represented the American Civil Liberties Union in several cases, some of them involving suits he filed alleging police misconduct.

Then, in a sharp reversal of form--although he says, not principle, since he was defending another underdog--Yagman earned a lot of publicity when he represented Signal Hill Police Officer Jerry Lee Brown, once a suspect in the jail cell death of Cal State Long Beach football star Ron Settles, in a wrongful-death suit brought by Settles’ parents. The Settles family eventually settled the suit for about $750,000.

A year later, Yagman took on another federal judge, Malcolm M. Lucas, whom Gov. George Deukmejian nominated to the state Supreme Court.

While most lawyers at Lucas’ confirmation hearing praised him as diligent, even-tempered, bright and fair, Yagman called Lucas a “manipulator of the law” who had “a clear bias against those who bring suit against the government.”

State Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp accused Yagman of “playing fast and loose with a man’s reputation and career.” Yagman’s critics said his opposition was motivated by Lucas’ earlier refusal to postpone a case so Yagman could fly to New York to attend his seriously ill father.