Judge to Weigh Ethics of Peers’ Limo Rides : Inquiry: Presiding jurist will examine whether two colleagues’ failure to report trips violates judicial canon. Santa Ana attorney who holds county contract to represent the indigent provided the vehicle.

Presiding Superior Court Judge James L. Smith said Tuesday that he will conduct an inquiry to determine whether two fellow judges breached ethics codes by accepting limousine rides from a local attorney and failing to report the travel as gifts.

“I’d be less than honest if I didn’t tell you that I wish this hadn’t happened,” Smith said. “I feel badly about it. I wish I didn’t have to do this.”

Smith said it was his duty as presiding judge to decide whether the actions of Superior Court Judges Myron S. Brown and Luis A. Cardenas violated the Judicial Canon of Ethics when they took advantage of a limousine service provided by Santa Ana attorney William W. Stewart.

For the past 15 years, Stewart’s law firm has held the largest county contract to provide legal defense of poor people accused of crimes. During that time, both Brown and Cardenas have presided in cases involving Stewart’s firm, and were in a position to influence the renewal or cancellation of his contract.

For a time, Brown served as chairman of the county’s Alternate Defense Committee, which makes recommendations on indigent defense policy for the county. The judge said he accepted use of Stewart’s Las Vegas hotel suite at the end of his tenure on the committee and did not report that as a gift as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Other county officials who used the car have included Orange County Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez. The five-member board has routinely ratified extensions of Stewart’s contract and district attorney’s investigator Rusty Hodges’ contract.

Although the judges and other officials said they have done nothing wrong by using the car to attend private dinners, charity functions or sporting events throughout Southern California, Smith said his inquiry will attempt to determine whether the judges were required to report those trips on their annual financial disclosure statements.

According to the state FPPC, judges and other elected officials are required to report gifts valued at $50 or more, including limousine rides.

The car cost $25 per hour to operate, and the limousine driver has said events typically ran more than two hours.

“There isn’t a whole lot to do,” Smith said. “They have indicated they used the car. The question is whether this is a reportable expense. I’ll be looking at that over the next couple of days.”

If the judge decides his colleagues’ actions were violations of judicial ethics, Smith said he could refer the matter to state Judicial Performance Commission.

“I’m the one who is going to have to make a decision on what to do,” Smith said. “I can tell you, it’s not a good place to be.”

Cardenas said he might have used the limousine more than once, but remembered only one occasion when he attended a charity event in Orange County. Brown said he was a passenger in the car at least three times in the past three years when he accompanied Stewart to football games at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

Both judges, close friends of the attorney, said they did not pay for the limousine’s use nor did they think the car service constituted a gift to them.

“The relationship between an attorney and a judge is always a sensitive interface,” Smith said. “I think you’ve just got to call it what it is. The downside is that if you don’t, you’ve got the problem we’re dealing with now.”

Stewart has contended that his limousine service was never intended to be used as a tool to curry favor with judges or other elected officials. Stewart said his office maintained an “open policy” in providing the car to judges, attorneys and clients of the law firm.

“I think you would find the times judges or other officials used the car were very few,” Stewart said. “That’s not why we had the car.”

Despite the recent disclosures regarding some of the same officials who oversaw contract operations, Superior Court Executive Officer Alan Slater expressed continued confidence in Stewart.

“I have been supervising the contract for a number of years,” Slater said, “and I never felt any influence from any source that resembled influence peddling. I always felt the contract worked very well.”

Other officials, however, have criticized Stewart’s operation in the past year, charging that the attorney has funneled much, if not all, of his caseload to attorneys outside his office, while continuing to keep a large portion of the fees for himself.

Court officials have also confirmed that Stewart occasionally communicated with them by telephone or fax from South America, where he pursued other unrelated business interests.