North County Defender’s Office Draws Judge’s Scorn

The presiding judge of the Vista Municipal Court, in a letter delivered Friday, lambasted the North County branch of the county public defender’s office, accusing it of chronic tardiness and its attorneys of being ill-prepared.

Officials at the public defender’s office rejected the criticisms, saying the judge was “out of touch with reality.”

In a six-page letter to Public Defender Francis Bardsley, Judge Victor Ramirez said the performance of the North County office was “absolutely abysmal” and concluded that the problems were either caused by understaffing or poor management. Ramirez demanded that Bardsley rectify the problems by Nov. 1.

If no changes are evident by then, Ramirez said, he is prepared to reassign as many as one-third of the criminal cases away from the public defender’s office and appoint private attorneys instead.

Ramirez’s letter is less likely to bring about any changes in the public defender’s office than it is to exacerbate the already sour relations between the judge and the defender’s office. The battle began July 27, when Ramirez threatened to jail Deputy Public Defender Kathleen Cannon for contempt of court because of a misunderstanding stemming from the fact that there was no attorney available to go to trial on a misdemeanor drunk-driving case.

Survey of 10 Judges

At the time, Ramirez blasted the defender’s office for being unprepared, but said he was willing to wait one month to see if the attorneys’ performance would improve before taking action.

The letter issued Tuesday was the result of a survey of all 10 Vista municipal court judges, who were asked to evaluate the performance of the defender’s office during the month of August, Ramirez said.

In the letter, Ramirez lists seven examples of what he called “substantially substandard” representation of clients in felony cases during August:

* The same attorneys being assigned to calendar calls for preliminary hearings, arraignments, readiness conferences, trials and sentencings, despite the fact that many of the calendars are called at the same time in different courtrooms.

* Many cases in which the defendant was not contacted or interviewed by the defense attorney before a critical court hearing.

* Frequent declarations of conflicts of interest by the defense attorneys, caused by a failure to interview the defendants or investigate the case adequately.

* Frequent failure of the attorneys to notify courtrooms of their estimated time of arrival for hearings, giving the impression that the attorneys have forgotten to appear.

* Attorneys failing to pay adequate attention to their misdemeanor cases because they are also assigned to a number of felony cases.

* Consistent failure to obtain information about a case from the district attorney’s office and police before the preliminary hearing, resulting in delays.

* Many missed or late appearances.

“I am displeased, but not surprised,” Bardsley said after receiving the letter. “Judge Ramirez has exhibited a rather pronounced and evident bias against the public defender’s office.”

‘Full of Inaccuracies’

Bardsley said he “absolutely” rejected all of Ramirez’s assertions. “From top to bottom, this document is full of inaccuracies, half-truths and misleading statements,” he said. The judge “has slandered a group of very hard-working employees of this county.”

Bardsley called the judge’s approach “rather belligerent and immature” and said: “I’d be more than happy to sit down and try to make things work, but he does not seem interested in that.”

The public defender’s office will prepare a formal response to Ramirez, but Bardsley said it could take weeks to obtain court transcripts to document all the instances of tardiness and poor performance cited in the letter. “The letter as a legal document is so poorly drafted and imprecise, it will be difficult to respond to,” he said.

In the letter, Ramirez states that attorneys for the public defender’s office were on time and ready to proceed with felony arraignments and bail reviews only three times during the month of August. Ramirez also said that four defendants in his courtroom asked to have the public defender removed from their cases that month because they were dissatisfied with the representation. Ramirez lists many other instances of attorneys being late or failing to appear altogether, but does not refer to the specific dates or cases.

Larry S. Beyersdorf, head of the public defender’s office in Vista, said Tuesday that Ramirez’s conclusions were predictable. “He’s been generally hostile toward our office. I don’t think he ever wanted us here in the first place,” Beyersdorf said.

‘Lot of Angry Young Lawyers’

The lawyers in his office, aware they were being scrutinized, gave it their best shot and felt they performed well, Beyersdorf said. “There are a lot of angry young lawyers over here.”

The Vista office has the appropriate number of attorneys and is not overburdened, he said. The public defender’s office was established one year ago by the County Board of Supervisors to replace the county Office of Defender’s Services.