Lucas’ Travels

* With reference to “State Chief Justice Lucas’ Travels Did Not Violate Ethics, Panel Says” (Jan. 29), I am outraged and dismayed with the finding of the California Commission on Judicial Performance that there is no basis for disciplining Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas for accepting reimbursement from a subsidiary of a corporation that has had cases before the court. It is immaterial and irrelevant that Lucas may have voted against the corporation’s interests after the trips for which he had received payment.

It stretches credulity to accept the commission’s finding that this did not create even an appearance of impropriety. Of all people, the chief justice should recognize that indeed, in the eyes of the average person, to accept reimbursement from a corporation for trips to conferences does not only give a strong indication of impropriety but is in fact more than appearance, it is improper. What would the chief justice say of a legislator or of a judge on a lower court who did the same thing?

And one more thing: Who composes the commission that made the favorable ruling for the chief justice? Aren’t the members of the commission judges themselves, who have reason to defer to the chief? As a citizen and retired attorney, I am ashamed of the commission and vastly disappointed in Justice Lucas.

EDWARD HARRIGAN

Los Angeles