ORANGE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE : Limo Rides: A Dubious Detour

The disclosure that a lawyer with a lucrative county contract provided a chauffeur-driven limousine for two judges and a county supervisor who can influence the awarding of that contract was troubling. All involved should have recognized the need to steer clear of even the appearance of conflict of interest.

For 15 years William H. Stewart has held a contract to represent Orange County defendants too poor to pay for their own lawyers but ineligible for representation by the public defender’s office. Although the contract has been worth as much as $1 million a year, Stewart was often the only bidder. The county has never satisfactorily explained why it did not more aggressively seek other bids.

Two Superior Court judges, Myron S. Brown and Luis A. Cardenas, acknowledged that they rode in Stewart’s limousine and did not pay the tab or report the rides as gifts, as is required by the state Fair Political Practices Commission. The presiding judge of Superior Court, James L. Smith, concluded last week that the judges did not violate the Judicial Canon of Ethics. Nonetheless, the two should have known better.

The same is true for Gaddi H. Vasquez, who as an Orange County supervisor can vote on Stewart’s contract after a panel of judges recommends who should get it. Vasquez said he used the limo twice, paying the driver once--the driver disputes that--and not paying the other time because he used the vehicle on county business.

Smith said Brown and Cardenas were old friends of Stewart. That might excuse sharing a ride to lunch, but not having a limousine at their disposal. All involved denied any wrongdoing or being influenced in any way. But the incidents can provide grounds for the perception that there was a quid pro quo involved.

Earlier this year Stewart was criticized by some judges for not having enough lawyers on his staff, forcing the judges to wait for an attorney to arrive before starting a case. One panel of judges recommended that Stewart farm out some of his work to other law firms, but he declined, which was his right. In view of all the controversy, the contract demands tough scrutiny when it is up for renewal next year.