Panel Finds Training Poor, Morale Low in D.A.’s Office : Lawyers: Study says ‘9 to 5’ work culture and lack of resources hurt performance, but commends special units.

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office has serious morale problems, trains its lawyers poorly, is short on basic resources--particularly computers--and suffers from a “9 to 5” work culture that hurts its performance, according to a special blue-ribbon committee report on the office released Thursday.

The report, commissioned by Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti after a string of losses by prosecutors in widely watched trials, also found that there are no clear criteria for top management’s selection of lawyers for big cases.

The study adds that many of the office’s prosecutors “believe the assignment of high-profile cases is based on factors other than merit.”

Although the report acknowledges that the office wins a very high percentage of its cases, losing major trials has a significant impact because such losses generate public criticism and hurt office morale.

At the same time, the report extols the office’s success in using specialized units for matters such as gang prosecutions, commends its use of early disposition programs to resolve routine cases rapidly in the Compton and Van Nuys branch offices, praises many deputy district attorneys for being hard-working and dipping into their own pockets to pay for necessary supplies, and lauds efforts to improve diversity in the ranks.

The hard-core gang unit, which achieved a 91% conviction rate in its trials during the first nine months of 1993, is singled out for praise. “The deputies in this unit are to be commended for how hard they work, particularly given the inherent difficulties of their assignments.”

But overall, the report states that improvements are needed in many areas, including some that may be difficult to achieve because of the county’s financial woes and Civil Service restrictions. Although the report does not make any specific recommendations in this regard, it states that if necessary the office should consider trying to change Civil Service laws.

Among the report’s recommendations to Garcetti:

* Create a new category of “master” trial lawyers who can be used in big cases.

* Beef up the office’s training program considerably.

* Set clear criteria for how lawyers advance and are chosen for major cases.

* Vastly increase the office’s computer capacity.

* Cease the practice of placing highly paid veterans in make-work jobs described as “paid retirement.”

The committee also asserts that it is essential for the 925-lawyer office to change the current attitude “that legal research and preparation of briefs is a luxury, rather than an essential component of a prosecutor’s job.”

Garcetti, who asked the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. to undertake the study in February, received the report Thursday afternoon, and said he had not had time to review it in detail.

However, he strongly disputed its description of a “9 to 5” mentality in the office and challenged its conclusions about how attorneys are selected for major cases. At the same time, he lauded its recommendations on improving training and agreed with proposals to increase staffing and equipment. Carrying out the recommendations is up to Garcetti, although some budgetary matters may be outside his control.

The report did not get personal. Neither Garcetti, who took office in December, 1992, nor any of his predecessors were mentioned by name. Likewise, the report steered clear of citing any particular cases.

However, the report in a polite fashion presents a portrait of an institution that needs basic structural changes, more resources and a dramatic shift in its work culture.

“While many (deputy district attorneys) are conscientious, diligent and enthusiastic, the office has a history and reputation for a ‘9 to 5’ workday,” the report notes.

“The ‘9 to 5’ mentality is largely attributable to poor working conditions, low morale and the perception that hard work is not compensated or even commended. Pay cuts, unpleasant physical working conditions, inadequate research, investigative and secretarial support . . . and the failure of management to create adequate and meaningful incentives to commend exceptional effort all contribute to the understandable unwillingness to work long hours that is typical of many deputies in the office.”

Garcetti countered: “We have a very committed, resilient staff who are truly doing a fabulous job on a daily basis. These are not the cases we see reported on television or read in the newspapers but they affect thousands of lives.”

The report said that poor working conditions hurt the office’s performance and are “exacerbated by the lack of basic office amenities, such as voice mail, printers, word processors, facsimile machines, secretarial support” and other trial preparation aids.

Morale is characterized as “low, countywide,” with a few exceptions in some branch offices and special units.

Many deputy district attorneys believe the office is top heavy, with too many managers handling administrative tasks, according to the study. “They question the expansion of the management base by the appointment of three assistant D.A.s and their assistants, especially given the difficult budgetary times the office faces. Even if one accepts that the assistants perform valuable services for the office, many deputies perceive that their appointment further burdens the already limited resources in the office and establishes another layer of bureaucracy comprised of senior deputies who are unavailable to try cases.”

Garcetti said such perceptions are off-base. “We have conducted a nationwide study comparing our office with the 25 other largest prosecutorial offices in the country and we find that we are ranked third from the bottom in the number of managers to line prosecutors,” the district attorney said.

The D.A.’s office has been widely criticized for its handling of major cases in recent years. Defeats include the “Twilight Zone” and McMartin Pre-School cases, as well as the first trial of the officers who beat Rodney G. King and the trial of the Menendez brothers.

The report said deputies believe that senior managers, including the district attorney, choose lawyers for high-profile cases even though “they may have little basis for making sound judgments as to the adequacy of the trial deputies they do so select.”

The team currently prosecuting O.J. Simpson for murder has drawn little of the criticism that has bedeviled the D.A. in other cases. Garcetti’s choice of Marcia Clark, who successfully prosecuted two major homicide cases in recent years, and of William Hodgman, who secured a conviction of multimillionaire swindler Charles Keating, has been broadly praised in the legal community.

For his part, Garcetti defended his manner of picking lawyers to handle major cases: “I think we have a good system in place. I will stand behind any of the people I have appointed in a high-profile case.”

The lengthy report was prepared by an advisory committee of 15 highly regarded Los Angeles lawyers and two private investigators, who were chosen by Gerald L. Chaleff, a prominent criminal defense lawyer who was county Bar Assn. president when Garcetti asked the organization to undertake the critique.

The advisory committee, chaired by attorneys Patricia E. Benson and Thomas E. Holliday, was specifically asked to study the office’s trial assignment methodology, trial support, use of attorney resources, caseload management and training and to make recommendations for improving the office in those areas.

Committee members spent more than 1,000 hours on the report, including interviews with attorneys in Downtown and branch offices.

Although the report contains numerous criticisms of the office, it also provides Garcetti with ammunition for the next time he goes to the Board of Supervisors asking for an increase in the office’s budget.

The study states unequivocally that the office needs more lawyers, more support staff--including investigators, secretaries and victim-witness coordinators--and vastly enhanced computer capacity.

In that regard, the report echoes findings contained in an audit of the office by a Santa Monica firm at the request of the 1993-94 Los Angeles County Grand Jury. “The single most pervasive and debilitating problem affecting (the office) and the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations is its financial condition,” the audit said.

The audit noted that since the 1991-92 fiscal year the office’s budget has decreased 2.4%, from $122.6 million to $119.6 million, resulting in the loss of 51 positions for lawyers handling criminal cases. Current staffing has left the office with 7.8 prosecutors per 100,000 residents, a mere fraction of the 33.7 prosecutors per 100,000 residents in the New York County district attorney’s office.

The Bar Assn. committee report states unequivocally that additional lawyers are needed in the office, especially in light of past reductions.

Particularly stinging is the report’s section on training. “Apart from an initial training period for brand-new deputies, the office offers little in the way of formal or ongoing training to develop and improve trial skills as deputies become senior.” The report acknowledges that budgetary constraints may play a role in this problem, but recommends the institution of a formal system of mentoring by carefully selected and trained deputies.

The committee also recommends improvements in the office’s written training materials, noting that much of the legal policies manual, the primary guide for deputies, is “completely out-of-date” and does not reflect the most recent laws and cases.

Among the other troubling findings in the report is a description of how the office deals with fraud cases, which are handled by three separate divisions--major frauds, auto insurance fraud and workers’ compensation fraud.

“Based on our interviews, it appears that there are very few instances in which the frauds unit accepts case referrals from branch offices. As a result, a significant number of potential frauds in the county are not investigated or prosecuted.” As one step toward remedying this problem, the report recommends that each of the 21 branch offices add a frauds deputy to its staff.

Panel Members

A committee of prominent attorneys on Thursday issued a critique of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. The following were members of the panel:

James R. Asperger, Patricia H. Benson, Raymond C. Fisher, Michael W. Fitzgerald, Jan Lawrence Handzlik, Laurie Harris, Thomas E. Holliday, Howard A. Jacobson, Sharon E. Jones, Dennis E. Kinnaird, Laurie Levenson, Vincent J. Marella, Mona C. Soo Hoo, John Swenson and Debre Katz Weintraub. Private investigators Bill Ryan and Ron Saranow also served on the committee. Gerald L. Chaleff, a former president of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn., and Richard Walch, the association’s executive director, were ex officio members.