Judges Helped ‘Roast’ Attorney in Cougar Case : Courts: Two appellate jurists feted lawyer days before panel urged county to settle suit. They call social mixing inevitable and insist they scrupulously avoid discussing any court matters.

With a controversial $2-million case pending before them, two members of the 4th District Court of Appeal gathered with dozens of other prominent county officials for a night of dining and dancing at the fashionable Le Meridien Hotel in Newport Beach.

The occasion: a charity fund-raiser and roast, feting noted Santa Ana lawyer Wylie Aitken.

Justice David G. Sills, the court’s presiding judge, was there, as was Associate Justice Edward J. Wallin, one of the roast-masters who took his turn at the microphone for a few moments of playful ribbing directed at the guest of honor.

Surrounded by some of his most treasured clients, including the mother of Laura Small--the victim of a fearsome cougar attack in a county park and the central figure in the $2-million case before the appeals court--Aitken later recalled that one of the good-natured jibes, but not by Wallin, was a reference to his involvement in the Small case.

The soiree might have passed as any other on the busy Orange County social calendar except for its timing and collection of guests.

Five days after the friendly dinner party, an appeals court panel, with Wallin participating, urged the County of Orange to begin settlement negotiations with the party’s honored guest and his client, Laura Small.

As previously reported, Sills is expected to oversee the upcoming settlement conference.

The judges’ attendance at the Sept. 18 event, sponsored by the Orange County Trial Lawyers Assn., did not violate any ethics laws, experts said.

Wallin and Sills said it is inevitable that county judges and lawyers will mix at social occasions. But both maintained that they are scrupulous about avoiding discussions about cases before them.

But their presence at an event honoring a lawyer, less than a week before the court urged the county to discuss a settlement with him, has rankled a local legal reform advocate.

“With a case this timely and this critical before them, they should have excused themselves (from the dinner),” said Barbara Swist, director of Consumers for Legal Reform in Orange County. “It was totally inappropriate for them to be there. If that is the only network of friends the judges have, that is sad. We’re talking about a lot of taxpayers’ money” in any possible settlement.

Attorney David Casselman, who represented 80 cities taking the county’s side in the case, said he did not learn the judges were guests at the dinner until he saw photos of the event in a recent issue of the Los Angeles Daily Journal--after he presented arguments in the case last Thursday.

“Certainly (their attendance) is of concern when you are talking about a case of such importance,” Casselman said in an interview. “Not because it is improper, but because (such social contact) is often unavoidable when you are dealing with a lawyer of such prominence.”

Aitken, the guest of honor, rejected any suggestion that there was anything improper about the judges attending the fund-raiser.

“Judges attend seminars with lawyers, serve on panels with lawyers, meet for cocktails with lawyers, serve on charity boards, reform commissions and the like,” Aitken said. “This intermixing prevents judges from being sealed from the community in some chamber and allows them to breathe the same social air we all breathe.”

When the court’s recommendation to settle the case came before the Board of Supervisors for their consideration in closed session Tuesday, Supervisor Roger R. Stanton, also a guest at the dinner, abstained from participating in the discussions when the board agreed to settlement negotiations, because of his relationship with Aitken, who has donated money to his political campaigns.

Campaign finance reports show that Aitken gave Stanton’s campaign fund $250 earlier this year.

“I have not participated in this case because of my personal friendship with Wylie Aitken,” Stanton said, “but I am not going to neutralize that good judgment by commenting on who was at the party.”

No other county supervisor attended the function, which raised $20,000 to supply car safety seats for a UCI birthing center. To the best of county officials’ knowledge, no county attorneys associated with the case attended the fund-raiser.

All county officials declined to comment about the judges’ appearance at the event.

Despite the timing of the event and the Sept. 23 hearing, Wallin and Sills said they never considered not going, because they are regular guests at events where judges mix with lawyers who have cases before them.

“I think it really dishonors the profession when people have the honor of serving in the position I do and they don’t break bread with the bar,” Wallin said. “A court case is a court case. I’ve probably got 200 cases in various stages in which I am the author of an opinion or a . . . member” of the three-judge panel hearing a case.

He noted that the oral arguments that took place last week were originally scheduled for April or May, but were postponed to accommodate attorneys’ vacation schedules.

Said Sills: “Everybody knows the rules. I can’t think of any lawyer presumptuous enough to talk about a case during a function like that. This was not some private dinner party.”

Both judges said they did not know that Sue Mattern-Small was in the audience that night.

The event was attended by more than 200 members of the local Bar Assn. and other guests.

Aitken said Mattern-Small was there simply as “one in a number of clients” with whom he has established friendships.

“The roast was planned months ago,” Aitken said. “None of this had any relationship whatsoever to the case.”

Attorney Barry L. Allen, the county’s hired counsel in the appeal, said he was “unaware” of the Aitken dinner, but declined further comment.

The county’s appeal followed an Aug. 23, 1991, jury decision to award $2 million to Laura Small, who was mauled by a mountain lion in Ronald W. Caspers Wilderness Park seven years ago, and $75,000 to her mother. Both awards were appealed.

In their decision, the Superior Court jury found that the county was negligent in failing to protect the youngster. The attack left Laura Small blind in her right eye and partially paralyzed.

In oral arguments at the appeals court last Thursday, Justice Henry T. Moore Jr. strongly urged attorneys for the county to negotiate a settlement rather than continue to contest the case.

Associate Justices Wallin and Sheila Sonenshine, the two other judges on the three-judge panel, also encouraged the county to accept the recommendation for a settlement conference.

At the time of the judges’ recommendation, even Aitken described the development as “unusual” and “dramatic.”

Laurie Levenson, associate professor of legal ethics at Loyola Marymount University Law School, said that while the timing of the court hearing and dinner is “odd,” the judges’ conduct would not cross any ethical lines.

“The biggest problem here is appearances,” Levenson said. “You’ve got to remember that judges are lawyers who have gone up through the ranks. It is really a close-knit community. They know each other and like each other and spend a lot of time with each other. This is not unusual.”

While he expressed concern, Casselman also said the close working relationships between lawyers and judges prompt such social gatherings.

“I would prefer that the plaintiffs’ attorney was someone unknown (but) I have to have confidence that (the judges) would consider a case on its merits.”

Times staff writer Mark I. Pinsky contributed to this report.