Panel to Probe Actions of Federal Circuit Judge : Courts: In unusual move, committee will look into complaint against A. Andrew Hauk. He has been criticized by numerous attorneys and women’s and minority organizations.

In a highly unusual move, the chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court has appointed a special committee to investigate charges that Los Angeles federal Judge A. Andrew Hauk is unable to discharge his duties because of “a mental disability,” according to documents obtained by The Times.

Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace of San Diego formed the committee on July 27 in response to a March, 1993, complaint from Julian Ayrs, a Los Angeles literary agent. Ayrs contended that Hauk severely abused him during a hearing and tried to “coerce him into silence.”

Although Wallace would not discuss the case specifically, he said in a telephone interview that it would be rare for the court to publicly discipline one of its judges. He also said that most complaints he receives about judges are frivolous and dismissed before this stage. Other cases are resolved privately by the chief judge without the need to form a committee.

The probe was launched under a section of the U.S. Penal Code that allows any person to file a complaint against a federal judge who the individual believes “has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts,” or “is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability.”

Hauk has long been criticized by numerous attorneys as well as representatives of women’s and minority organizations for what they have claimed is intemperate and unpredictable courtroom behavior.

Hauk’s secretary said the judge never responds to press inquiries about anything that occurs in his courtroom.

Ayrs, 42, alleged in his complaint that Hauk was prejudiced against him merely because he was representing himself and that the judge “threatened to falsely imprison” him for simply expressing his legal opinions.

A transcript of the December, 1992, hearing reveals that Hauk, in fact, threatened to jail Ayrs twice and told him that “anybody who represents themself has a fool for a client.”

Hauk, 81, also told Ayrs he was wasting his time by attempting to have action taken against him. “If you want to be sort of an American-Spanish conquistador known as Don Quixote, you do it, but . . . you are spinning your wheels for nothing.”

At one point, Hauk told Ayrs that he was about to issue an order that Ayrs was “not to file any more cases in this court, but that might be a little heavy, because you might have a chance to ride in an Army airplane or Air Force airplane and be injured and have some sort of a claim and suit against the United States.”

Then, Hauk ordered Ayrs not to file any more papers in the case. The court clerk immediately admonished the judge: “Your law clerk should put that in a formal order, your honor. That is a very significant order. That should be formal.”

This incident is the latest of many involving Hauk, who has been a federal judge since 1966 and was named the worst district judge in the 9th Circuit by American Lawyer magazine in 1980.

In 1989, the 2,000-member California Women Lawyers group unsuccessfully asked the 9th Circuit for an investigation into the judge’s “repeated public display of biased attitudes” after Hauk’s declaration that women are “soft touches . . . particularly when sex is involved.”

In a 1979 antitrust case against the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, he frequently referred to the defendants as “the Opeckers.”

During the Gulf War, Hauk delivered a rambling dissertation on military strategy, the virtues of nuclear weapons and the vices of Saddam Hussein as he expunged a criminal conviction of any Army reservist who claimed that he needed a clean record so he could accompany his unit to the Persian Gulf. In response to an appeal from the U.S. attorney’s office, the 9th Circuit reversed that decision.

Twice in recent years, Hauk has jailed lawyers representing people suing policemen on brutality charges. In 1993, a panel of 9th Circuit judges removed Hauk from the retrial of another police brutality case, saying the record of the first trial left the judges “with the distinct belief that Judge Hauk’s remarks exhibit a pro-police bias.”

The fact that Wallace formed the special investigative committee means he has conducted a preliminary probe and found “no grounds which dismiss or conclude the proceeding,” according to the court order appointing the committee.

The nine-member governing council of the 9th Circuit has several options in judicial discipline cases, including certifying a judge as disabled, requesting a judge to voluntarily retire on full salary, ordering no further cases assigned to the judge, or public or private censure.

Circuit Judge James R. Browning of San Francisco, who preceded Wallace as chief judge and has been a 9th Circuit judge since 1961, said he could remember no instance in his tenure when a judge in the nine-state circuit was publicly disciplined, with the exception of Nevada federal Judge Harry Claiborne, who was impeached by the U.S. Senate in 1986 after being convicted on income tax evasion charges in 1984.

Judge Wallace named Circuit Judge Procter Hug Jr. of Reno and U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle of Fresno to serve with him on the special committee. It is not clear how long it will take the trio to complete their probe.

Hauk has the right to receive written notice of the charges, to present evidence, to attend any hearing held by the special committee, to be represented by an attorney and to be compensated for the costs of such representation.

Ayrs also has the right to be represented by an attorney, but must pay those costs himself. He may submit written arguments to the committee, but it is left to the committee’s discretion whether he will be called as a witness at a hearing. He also does not have the right to attend any hearing other than when he testifies.

Ayrs said Monday that he was pleased the 9th Circuit seemed to be taking his complaint--which had its genesis in a 1989 case--seriously.

In that case, Ayrs won a $29,500 judgment stemming from a dispute over his purchase of a used car. The defendant in that case later filed a bankruptcy petition that Ayrs asserted was invalid, but federal bankruptcy judge Arthur M. Greenwald disagreed.

Appeals are pending on that matter. As part of his attempt to get relief from Greenwald’s rulings, Ayrs filed a complaint in U.S. District Court that was randomly assigned to Hauk. During the December, 1992, hearing that is at issue now, Hauk referred to Greenwald as “an excellent and fine judge.”

The transcript reveals that the hearing was quite rancorous, with Hauk and Ayrs, who had represented himself in the prior cases, arguing about numerous issues. At one point Hauk asked Ayrs if he was a lawyer and Ayrs responded that he had studied law on his own--including using the law library of the television show “L.A. Law,” where he had worked temporarily.

Ayrs said he was particularly disturbed that Hauk’s comments reflected the sentiment that Ayrs had no business representing himself.

“Under the Constitution we’re supposed to have access to state and federal courts,” Ayrs said. “Not everyone can afford an attorney. The way he acted toward me showed that unless you’re an attorney, you don’t have proper access to the courts.

“To be told you’re going to be thrown into jail for disagreeing with him, this was like a police state, un-American,” he added. “That’s terribly wrong.”