Simpson Case Creates TV Job Openings for Lawyers : Law: Many are called on as commentators. But not all are qualified to offer instant analysis, some colleagues say.

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Brown was sitting in an NBC affiliate station’s studio opining about the O.J. Simpson case when he happened to look up at a monitor showing a rival station’s program.

“For crying out loud, there was Peter,” said Brown, referring to Peter Keane, a lawyer who sits 20 feet from him at their office. “We were competing against each other for ratings!”

Brown did a double take, but perhaps he should not have been so surprised. During the last several days, lawyers around the country have filed out of courtrooms and into television studios to interpret for viewers the latest legal maneuvers in Simpson’s preliminary hearing, which has created a media feeding frenzy like no other murder case in recent history.

“This looks like the Lawyers Full Employment Act,” cracked prominent Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Barry Tarlow, who has appeared on KNBC-TV Channel 4.

These aspiring Howard Cosells of the legal world will be at it again today, calling the courtroom plays in the third day of the preliminary hearing to decide whether Simpson will go on trial on charges that he murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers.

Even the busiest of lawyers seem to have cleared their calendars to spend a few minutes in the spotlight, and networks and local stations have raced to sign up the biggest names. NBC has former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner. ABC has one of the Menendez lawyers, Leslie Abramson. Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., Michael Jackson’s lawyer, has been a roving free agent, appearing on Court TV, ABC’s “Nightline” and NBC’s “Today Show.”

The commentaries of the TV lawyers have rankled some of their colleagues. They complain that lawyers without criminal law background or recent trial experience are weighing in on matters beyond their expertise. Even experienced criminal defense attorneys, they grumble, have made mistakes about the law in their scramble for a sound bite.

“You have some very good lawyers who are doing it,” said Tarlow, “but then you have people who are either not criminal defense lawyers, or they are not anyone whose judgment a person would depend on. “

Lawyers have long been subjects of television and radio news interviews. But during the Simpson trial they have leaped into a new role as consultants who watch the proceedings with the journalists and provide commentary during the breaks.

Some lawyers who are appearing on television lament that they must give ready replies to legal questions without consulting a lawbook or reading a case. They feel they should be glib even when the truth requires a lot of qualification or specific knowledge of the facts of the crime or the police conduct.

Brown recalled watching a high-priced Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer make a major gaffe on a national news program last week. He was asked about the admissibility of 911 tapes of Nicole Brown Simpson summoning police to intervene in domestic disputes in 1989 and 1993. The lawyer told the national TV audience the tapes might be introduced to show the ex-athlete’s propensity for violence. But the lawyer was wrong, Brown said.

“I could tell right away he felt uncomfortable about what he was saying,” Brown said. “He wanted time to think about his answer, but he had to give the answer right there and then.”

The neutrality of the lawyers may also be questionable. Some defense attorneys said they would purposely withhold comments from interviewers that could damage Simpson’s defense, both out of concern for his rights and respect for his chief lawyer, Robert L. Shapiro.

“If you are saying a motion has no chance,” a highly respected Southern California criminal defense lawyer said, referring to recent comments by lawyers in the news media, “you set up an expectation. And to the extent that saturates through the media, through the public and into the brain cells of the judge or judges who are going to be reviewing that, it might have some impact.”

This lawyer, who has handled high-profile cases, refused to be identified by name because of his low opinion of some of his colleagues.

On the prosecution side, former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Robert Philibosian has also popped up frequently on news shows. Many lawyers questioned whether Philibosian, who is known for his strong law-and-order views, could be objective in analyzing the Simpson case.

When called for a response, Philibosian could not be reached. A secretary said he was doing legal analysis for ABC News anchor Peter Jennings.

Laurie Levenson, a criminal law professor at Loyola Law School, agreed that lawyers could bring their biases into their analyses before the cameras. “As long as your prior position is reported, if you make disclosure, you are OK,” said Levenson, who is commenting on the Simpson proceedings for CBS.

Levenson is a former federal prosecutor. To make up for her lack of experience in state courts, she said, “I do an awful lot of studying.” As part of her teaching and research, she also sits in on criminal trials in state court.

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella, who practiced as a defense lawyer in Boston for 17 years, said he confines his commentary on ABC to legal areas in which he has expertise. He has not tried a case in years, he said, so on questions about defense tactics he defers to fellow commentator Leslie Abramson. Both are being paid for their commentary, said an ABC spokeswoman.

Lawyers agree to sign on as commentators for a variety of reasons. Money is one consideration, although neither the networks nor the lawyers would say how lucrative the assignments are.

But the broadcast barristers claim they are not getting rich off TV appearances. Arenella said his pay from ABC is substantially less than the average hourly fee earned by an attorney. Levenson said she has not yet received a contract but probably will donate what she receives to her law school.

Los Angeles defense attorney Joel R. Isaacson, who has handled many death penalty cases, provided legal commentary last week for Channel 9, watching the preliminary hearing at the station with the news anchors and commenting on it for viewers during court breaks.

“It is exciting,” said Isaacson, who is not getting paid for his time on the air. “You have to be on your toes and follow it closely and try to be prepared to respond to reporter questions.”

A Superior Court judge arranged his court schedule Thursday so that he could be at the television studio for the opening of the Simpson hearing.

Other practicing lawyers said juggling a few days away from the office to sit in a studio was not particularly difficult last week, although sustaining it throughout Simpson’s preliminary hearing--which could run at least another week--would take a toll.

“I think it was a big thrill for a lot of people early on,” said Los Angeles defense attorney Alvin Michaelson, who has provided unpaid commentary for CNN and others on the Simpson case, “but I don’t think it is going to last very long for those who have other lives.”

Isaacson expects his television work will be “a positive thing” for his career. “But I think the reality is that maybe it is impressive to the legal community,” he said. “ . . . You become respected by other professionals in the field, which helps in general terms.”

Tarlow, who is frequently interviewed by the news media, insisted that his high profile has not brought a dime to his lucrative practice.

“All you get,” he complained, “is a bunch of crackpots, someone calling up and saying, ‘The FBI planted a bug in my head, and will you file a civil-rights action?’ ”

* HEARING RESUMES TODAY: The Simpson case will be back in court at 9 a.m. today. A16