President of Judges Unit Raps Bar Assn. : Judiciary: He says the lawyers failed to fight legislative moves to slash the Supreme Court’s budget, allowing themselves to be muzzled by politicians.

The president of the California Judges Assn. assailed the state’s lawyers Sunday for failing to join the fight against legislative moves to slash the state Supreme Court’s budget and curb judicial authority.

“It represents the decision to abdicate to others the preservation of the judiciary,” Sacramento Municipal Judge Michael S. Ullman told the annual meeting of the State Bar of California.

“It is tragic that the talent and expertise of this important association is muzzled when faced with the prospect of offending legislators.”

Ullman’s unusual attack on a sister organization came after a stormy session of the Legislature that produced unprecedented--but unsuccessful--attempts to strike back at high court approval of an initiative limiting legislative terms and drastically cutting the lawmakers’ operating budget.

Legislators gave preliminary approval to a 38% cut in the court’s budget--exactly the same percentage mandated for the Legislature’s operations under Proposition 140. Lawmakers also proposed broad cuts in judicial pensions and a constitutional amendment that would have repealed the courts’ power to order a governmental agency to pay court judgments or fund programs.

All three proposals were defeated, but the debate left relations between the judicial and legislative branches strained to the limit.

Powerful lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), also proposed abolishing the State Bar--to which all of California’s 133,000 lawyers must belong--and replace it with a voluntary association. Instead, legislators adopted a proposal to studythe matter, but that measure was vetoed last week by Gov. Pete Wilson.

Ullman told the lawyers group Sunday that the Bar’s refusal to do battle with the Legislature reflected its desire to save itself at the expense of the preservation of an independent judiciary.

The jurist said he understood the Bar’s plight in view of its dependence on the Legislature for its existence. But he said it is time for the Bar to become a voluntary association or seek a law that would give the court system--rather than the Legislature--control over setting the dues that lawyers pay to support the Bar.

In another speech Sunday, Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas reiterated his concern that budgetary constraints could undermine judicial independence. In an oblique reference to the ruling on term limits, Lucas said that the courts “must be free from fear of fiscal retribution for deciding cases in a particular way.”

“There is no reason the judicial branch should be exempt from reductions, as long as they do not threaten the courts’ basic ability to perform their constitutional role,” Lucas said in his State of the Judiciary address. “But I part company at the notion that the administration of justice can be shortchanged without fundamental detriment to society.”

Earlier, at the judges association’s separate annual meeting, the judges were told of unprecedented resentment of the courts among legislators--some of whom had memorized lengthy passages of the term-limits decision to quote back bitterly to court defenders. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Roger K. Warren, member of a discussion panel on the “politicization of the judiciary,” said legislators were “surprised, shocked and offended” by the high court ruling. Loren V. Smith, a judges association lobbyist, said that previously friendly lawmakers had told him “you’ve got a problem this year--a real problem.”

Judge Stephen S. Trott of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told the jurists they could expect trouble from the public only if it believes judges are imposing their personal views rather than neutral principles of law. “To the extent we are perceived as merely inflicting policy preferences, we lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public,” Trott said.

State Sen. Nicholas C. Petris (D-Oakland), a supporter of the courts, said this year’s legislative attention to judicial affairs was unique. “This is the first year in history that the Legislature has even looked at the budget of the Supreme Court,” Petris said. “It’s the only state agency that has been treated that way . . . but we’re in a rough period right now.”