Reformers Turn Critical Eye on Justice System : Courts: Group founded by Irvine woman will keep tabs on judges and lawyers to make sure citizens’ rights are not trampled.

Barbara Swist and her cadre of supporters are out to clean up the legal system in Orange County. Fed up with what they view as incompetence and corruption, the self-appointed watchdogs are scrutinizing the actions of judges and lawyers alike.

“These people act like they’re gods in court, and they’re not,” said Swist, 49, of Irvine.

“They’ve had free rein for too long.”

Swist, president and founder of a fledgling group called Consumers for Legal Reform, said the public knows too little about the people running the judicial system and is being victimized as a result.

Indeed, many of the group’s 30 members feel that they have been wronged in the courts and have horror stories, they say, to prove it. Either an attorney failed to do his job, a witness perjured himself, or a judge overturned a jury’s verdict, they complain.

As for Swist, she decided to form her organization--apparently the first such oversight group of its kind in the county--after a bitter divorce from her attorney husband.

She said her husband hid behind reams of legal documents, “knew all the right loopholes” and took advantage of her in court. She likened her ordeal to “legal rape.”

“We are people who have not only stubbed our toes in court but have had our legs cut off by the system,” Swist said. Nonetheless, “we’re going to look after everyone’s rights and see that the courts operate fairly for everyone. Win or lose.”

Swist and her followers believe that miscarriages of justice occur in the courts every day--some caused maliciously by attorneys or judges, others because the court system is overwhelmed with cases and strapped for resources.

“The public should be educated as to what’s going on inside of the court. But who’s out there to teach us?” asked Swist. “We’re going to be that grass-roots organization letting them know what to look for.”

To make sure things do run smoothly, the group has adopted several confrontational tactics. Members have been known to picket outside the offices of lawyers they think are incompetent. For an attorney who doesn’t return phones calls they stage sit-ins in the office lobby until an answer is given. When they suspect a judge of misconduct, they monitor the courtroom armed with note pads, pencils and evaluation forms to rate the judge’s performance.

Some within the legal profession have embraced Swist and her group.

“I think it’s a good idea,” said Municipal Court Presiding Judge James M. Brooks. “It will make sure that judges aren’t falling asleep on the bench and add a spark to the courtroom.”

But others, while supporting the concept of the group, have questioned whether its members, who for the most part are not schooled in the law, can fairly evaluate what occurs within the halls of justice.

“The more the public comes in and observes the system the better,” said Superior Court Presiding Judge Donald E. Smallwood. “But too often they don’t know what’s going on in court. If (the group’s members) don’t acquaint themselves with the system, I wouldn’t think too well of the group.”

Attorney Thomas R. Malcolm, president of the Orange County Bar Assn. said he, too, would be “concerned about a group that’s not qualified . . . (and) doesn’t have a background in law.”

“For someone without a background in the law to pass judgment, I don’t think that’s fair play,” Malcolm said.

Malcolm said the county bar’s own Client Relations Committee has done a good job of investigating complaints about attorneys in the county and passing on its findings to the state bar association for possible disciplinary actions.

When Swist formed the group last November, she knew that there would be a lot to learn. She went to attorneys and met with the presiding judges from both the Municipal and Superior courts, telling them her plans and seeking advice.

And although the group is still in its formative stages, several things have become clear. “We don’t want to expose just the bad attorneys, we want to promote those with high integrity as well,” she said.

When judging a good or bad attorney, Swist said, there will have to be proof. “We won’t just take somebody’s word. They’ll have to have documents and records.” After the professional worth of an attorney has been determined, his or her name will either go on a referral list or a do-not-hire list.

Swist said people wanting to hire an attorney can call her organization for information on attorneys. In addition, Swist said, people can request a form she put together containing an “Attorney Code of Practice” that lawyers should adhere to, as well as a checklist of questions to ask when hiring attorneys.

As for judges, Swist said she and her group will investigate complaints, monitor their actions on the bench and fill out evaluation forms which have been copied from the San Francisco-based Committee on Judicial Performance, which oversees and investigates judges statewide.

If the group receives several complaints about the same judge, Swist said, a meeting with the judge and the presiding judge will be requested.