Accused Priest Learns the Court Works in Mysterious Ways

Do you know who Lawrence Baird is?

Unless you’re plugged in to Catholic Church circles in Orange County, you probably don’t. Baird, 60, is the spokesman for the Diocese of Orange and pastor at a Balboa Island parish.

That makes him well-known to a lot of people but not the kind of person I’d consider a public figure. He’s neither an elected official nor a celebrity whose face or name most people would recognize.

Yet a San Francisco Superior Court judge last week ruled that Msgr. Baird is a public figure, using a line of logic that sounded as arcane as certain medieval catechisms. The judge’s thinking carried much weight, because it means that Baird now might not be able to pursue a slander suit against a woman who claimed that Baird made inappropriate sexual advances toward her 20 years ago when she was a teenager.

That Baird may be forced to drop his lawsuit against Lori Haigh is good news. Her allegations against him seem to fall in the he said/she said category, with the truth likely hard to divine by outsiders. Considering, however, that Haigh has already received $1.2 million from the Orange and Los Angeles dioceses to settle sexual-abuse charges involving another priest, you’d think a church elder like Baird would leave well enough alone.

But before letting this episode disappear into antiquity, I must squawk about the judge’s rationale in deeming Baird a public figure. The judge said he made the ruling not because of Baird’s job, but because he called a press conference last April to deny Haigh’s allegations.

“I don’t think that if he [Baird] hadn’t made the press conference that I would be finding this,” Judge A. James Robertson was quoted as saying.

In dismissing Baird’s slander suit (filed about 10 days after his press conference), the judge ruled the monsignor likely could not win his case, because he could not meet the tougher legal standard facing public figures in slander cases. That standard requires showing that the person making the allegedly false and harmful statement does so maliciously. For nonpublic targets, an accuser’s malice is not a requirement.

I don’t know if Haigh’s allegation is true or if she made it maliciously. But if I’m reading the judge correctly, he said that because Baird responded publicly to Haigh’s equally public accusation, he became a public figure -- at least in this instance.

I don’t get it. If Baird was the subject of such a serious allegation in public, why shouldn’t he be allowed to answer it in public? Yes, he could have responded publicly without filing a lawsuit. But why should he be elevated to “limited public figure” status -- thereby affecting his burden of proof -- merely because he called a press conference to answer an explosive charge?

I’m not arguing that public officials should not face a tougher standard. Nor should public figures be allowed to file frivolous, unwinnable slander suits simply to frighten their critics into silence. The tougher standard for public figures goes with the territory; it’s why people could call Gray Davis and Bill Simon all sorts of names during their race for the governorship. I wouldn’t be making as big a stink if the judge had ruled that Baird’s job alone made him a public figure.

But the judge seemed to be saying that people -- even those less “famous” than Baird -- become public figures with a single press conference. That may make legal sense, but it doesn’t make common sense. In this day and age, how does an otherwise nonpublic person respond to a serious charge made in public? The answer, I guess, is to fire back publicly, but in the process surrender your right to have your day in court.

Baird hasn’t decided whether to appeal. If I were him, I’d take the judge’s ruling as a sign from God and drop the suit.

The ledger now reflects Haigh’s allegation and Baird’s vehement denial.

Barring a confession from either side, that’s probably as close to the truth as we’ll get.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at The Times’ Orange County edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com.