Court Investigation

I am troubled by the investigation of the judges of the Superior Court. It appears that each one of them reported the information upon which the investigation is based in the disclosure form they are required to file each year. While it is comforting to know there is no allegation of failure to disclose information, the investigating of some lunches, tickets to a charity event and participation in golf games is ridiculous. Each of the judges named in your articles is a hard-working member of the Superior Court bench.

When gifts or gratuities have been disclosed, no one should claim unfair treatment, especially when there is no allegation the information disclosed results in anyone obtaining an unfair advantage. Unfortunately, this investigation may have a detrimental effect on the working relationship between members of the bench and the bar. Historically, our trial bar and bench have worked closely to have an effective, smooth-running trial court system. The events which reportedly serve as a basis for the investigation are not the kinds of things which, in my view, have the potential to affect the outcome of any case or give one side an edge over the other one. Because the civil litigation community is small, attorneys generally know one another and the judges before whom they appear. In handling hundreds of civil cases in my years in the practice of law, I have never felt a judge ruled for or against anyone on account of a personal relationship.

It is important to keep in mind that the judges named in your articles and other members of the bench devote untold hours preparing, coordinating and presenting continuing legal education courses to attorneys as well as participating in bar-related activities. These efforts both motivate and provide the opportunity for new and experienced attorneys alike to learn ways and means to better serve the interests of their clients and the public at large in litigation matters. There is nothing to my knowledge resulting from social contacts with judges which has given one attorney an advantage over another.

Also, be mindful that it is very difficult to attract and retain good judges. San Diego is fortunate to have an excellent trial bench overall. A great deal of time and effort has been devoted to persuading good people to seek judicial appointments. This investigation and the way it is being conducted in the press damages the important goal of recruiting and retaining good judges who are active, visible leaders instead of recluses who lose touch with the community.

I urge you to keep the foregoing in mind and focus on whether any injustice actually resulted from the social contacts and events, or are the complainers simply trying to justify an adverse outcome in a case which would have occurred regardless of which judge handled the matter.

EDWARD D. CHAPIN

San Diego