News
Judges and Judiciary
Feb. 27, 2002
Critique or Diatribe?
Forum Column - Editor's Note: Every once in a while one of the Daily Journal's Opinion pieces provokes an especially strong reaction. Here are some responses to a Feb. 12 piece by Stephan Yagman.
Forum Column
Editor's Note: Every once in a while one of the Daily Journal's Opinion pieces provokes an especially strong reaction. Here are some responses to a Feb. 12 piece by Stephan Yagman.
The First Amendment protects voices of dissension, recognizing their fundamental role in vitalizing our democracy. But the pen is not always mighty, and the vitriol in Stephen Yagman's article falls far short of a dissenting viewpoint that illuminates the larger discussion. "Longtime Cycle of Bench Bullying" (Forum, Feb. 12). Yagman's hyperbole contributes nothing productive to discourse on the federal judiciary.
He begins by stating that it is useful to understand what makes bench bullies, now that this "era" of "lunatic and abusive" judges is ending. He then comments upon the Los Angeles federal bench by relaying sensational anecdotes, tabloid-style, about a handful of judges, according to his version of the purported events (knowing that the judges will not respond in kind).
He completes his denunciation by applying a "homicidal behavior theory" to the conduct of three judges. Yagman attacks their personal lives and insinuates that religious and family issues have made these judges and others unfit.
Ironically, Yagman admonishes attorneys to end what he characterizes as a process of bullying by showing "no respect" to the court. Yagman would do well to remember his own professionalism while criticizing that of the federal bench. As officers of the court, attorneys must honor their professional duties, and chief among those under California law is the duty to "maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers." Lawful obligations aside, it is ill advised to expect that the acidic contempt that Yagman displays will breed anything else in response.
The federal judiciary in Los Angeles has always enjoyed a well-deserved reputation as one of the leading District Courts in the country. Indeed, those of us who have practiced regularly before the federal bench believe very strongly that it is the finest bench in the country, and we dispute vigorously the innuendo of one disgruntled attorney to the contrary.
There are appropriate ways to voice dissent about the decisions that emanate from any court. But the discussion will only be as constructive as the viewpoints that we air. I invite all members of the profession to carry this dialogue forward in the spirit of respect due to all of us, attorneys and judges alike.
Richard Marmaro
Los Angeles
The author is the president of the Los Angeles County Federal Bar Association.
Yagman, in his bitter diatribe against some members of the federal bench, reveals himself to be a bigot. Ah, but taking pot shots against the Catholic Church is oh so politically correct.
My Catholic upbringing and that of about a third of the members of my bench left me and my colleagues with these enduring values, expressed in both the Old and New Testaments:
"You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great; with justice you shall judge your neighbor." Leviticus 19:15.
"Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." John 7:24.
My Catholic brothers and sisters on the bench have been at the forefront of implementing and running drug and domestic-violence courts. They render countless hours of service to the legal community and to the community at large. They have been named trial judges of the year by trial lawyers' associations. They give generously to charity.
In other words, they take their faith seriously and live it. Too bad narrow-minded people like Yagman still feel it is acceptable to disparage the Catholic Church and its members.
Mary Fingal Erickson
Santa Ana
The author is supervising judge of the West Justice Center of the Orange County Superior Court.
Yagman's article on bullying judges was an enjoyable diversion. While I do not subscribe to Yagman's religious profiling, he did make salient points regarding the nature of judicial bullies.
As a civil rights lawyer, I've been abused by three judges in the rogues' gallery cited by Yagman in his editorial and have administered to the wounds of colleagues gored by the other bully judges mentioned. However, Yagman's inclusion of A. Howard Matz in his cast of bullies was unfair.
The other judges named by Yagman have long rap sheets that justify his scorn and their deserved reputations. Perhaps Yagman is vengeful because of Matz's actions in a recent and laudable case brought by Yagman. But my impression, based upon trying a case in front of Matz, is that he is courteous, thoughtful and generally a pleasure to work with. Similarly, no colleague has voiced any criticism of Matz that would justify Yagman's scathing attack on Matz's personality.
James Simmons Muller
Los Angeles
I often have wondered why the Daily Journal tarnishes itself by regularly providing Yagman a platform for his personal whining. His latest tantrum against some of our federal judges does nothing to damage their reputations; however, it does leave your readers questioning the quality of the judgment of your staff.
Jeremiah J. Flanigan
Los Angeles
Yagman's critique on judicial bullying was well-written, accurate and compelling. I reveled in its sting and found it on the mark. His courage and unyielding resistance to judicial arrogance puts a smile on my face and joy in my heart. As a sometime victim, I thank him, regretting that I did not have the doughtiness to take up those cudgels.
Hugh R. Manes
Los Angeles
Surely this will not be the only letter supporting and praising two of the federal judges so unfairly demonized by Yagman.
Am I the only criminal-defense attorney that thinks, "Thank heaven!" when the computer spits out Judge Manuel L. Real at the post-indictment arraignment in criminal matters? No judge is more knowledgeable, interested and careful about the "facts" and law on a motion-to-suppress-evidence ruling than is Real.
Real also has the courage (as a handful of other judges do) to state and act in accordance with his distaste for the rigid guidelines in criminal case sentencing. Real can excoriate a lawyer on occasion for poor preparedness, poor lawyering, slipshod ethics and tardiness. This "bullying" is administered equally to both sides of the controversy.
I can only recall one matter out of the ordinary I had with Judge A. Andrew Hauk. Briefly summarized: In connection with a drug arrest, a couple of energetic officers deliberately displayed weapons, causing the family dog to run away. This was brought to the attention of Hauk, who ordered the officers, "Go find that dog and return it to the family." Some bully!
Stephen, your childish and churlish article is not informative and serves little purpose. The psychological mush does not support your glib conclusions about two dedicated and hardworking judges.
Howard E. Becker
Hollywood
The editorial apology was appreciated. Just how many Catholic lawyers and judges did Yagman manage to offend?
Rosa Cumare
Pasadena
Your published "apology" about Yagman's recent editorial piece (of dung) was woefully inadequate. How dare you publish something that essentially consists of: "I am a malcontent with a chip on my shoulder. I hate certain judges because they were not very nice to me. Therefore, they are mentally defective and disturbed in the same way that rapists and murderers are. Their being Catholic had something to do with it. And by the way, I offer no evidence of any kind about their judicial records."
Shame, shame, a thousand times shame on you! This was not some minor editorial oversight. This was dereliction of the greatest magnitude. Did anyone even read the thing before you let it loose?
Your credibility is shot. Your motives are now suspect. You need to publish a complete rebuking of the piece, an apology to the judges who were named and an acknowledgment that you have been swamped with negative reaction about it.
Jeremy Koller
Los Angeles
You shouldn't have apologized for Yagman's recent article on judicial bullies. Your apology for that small portion touching on religion not only is unwarranted but also does a disservice by lending credibility to the "politically correct" silliness that inhibits meaningful communication.
The Catholic Church itself not only admits but also proudly insists that it is authoritarian. Must you be a Catholic, ex-Catholic, sociologist or psychologist before you are allowed to suggest that one's personality can be shaped by the culture in which one is raised?
If Yagman had said that certain judges' religious backgrounds had caused them to be especially careful and thoughtful, you wouldn't have heard a peep from the critics. They probably would have thought that he made a pretty good point.
You upheld journalistic standards by printing his statement. That people have complained does not transform your responsible presentation of opinion into a breach of your duty. Those who disagree are free to speak. By printing Yagman's article as well as the opinions of his critics, you are adhering to the highest standards of journalism.
Another disservice of your apology as to that side issue is that it detracts from Yagman's important primary statements. He has raised an issue that should have been taken up long ago by the organized bar as well as by legal journalists. We have too many judges who are arbitrary, abusive and offensive bullies and who are temperamentally unfit to serve on the bench. (Yes, there are a great many excellent judges who do an outstanding job - blah, blah, blah - Pretend I've said all of that obligatory dreck.)
Yagman's article may encourage the organized bar to fulfill its obligation to the public and the profession by confronting those despotic, childish judges who are an embarrassment to the courts. Where has the Commission on Judicial Performance been all these years? And does the federal judiciary, which has an abominable reputation, ever intend to do anything to bolster its own credibility at least for its own self-interest?
Arthur L. Margolis
Los Angeles
Editor's Note: Every once in a while one of the Daily Journal's Opinion pieces provokes an especially strong reaction. Here are some responses to a Feb. 12 piece by Stephan Yagman.
The First Amendment protects voices of dissension, recognizing their fundamental role in vitalizing our democracy. But the pen is not always mighty, and the vitriol in Stephen Yagman's article falls far short of a dissenting viewpoint that illuminates the larger discussion. "Longtime Cycle of Bench Bullying" (Forum, Feb. 12). Yagman's hyperbole contributes nothing productive to discourse on the federal judiciary.
He begins by stating that it is useful to understand what makes bench bullies, now that this "era" of "lunatic and abusive" judges is ending. He then comments upon the Los Angeles federal bench by relaying sensational anecdotes, tabloid-style, about a handful of judges, according to his version of the purported events (knowing that the judges will not respond in kind).
He completes his denunciation by applying a "homicidal behavior theory" to the conduct of three judges. Yagman attacks their personal lives and insinuates that religious and family issues have made these judges and others unfit.
Ironically, Yagman admonishes attorneys to end what he characterizes as a process of bullying by showing "no respect" to the court. Yagman would do well to remember his own professionalism while criticizing that of the federal bench. As officers of the court, attorneys must honor their professional duties, and chief among those under California law is the duty to "maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers." Lawful obligations aside, it is ill advised to expect that the acidic contempt that Yagman displays will breed anything else in response.
The federal judiciary in Los Angeles has always enjoyed a well-deserved reputation as one of the leading District Courts in the country. Indeed, those of us who have practiced regularly before the federal bench believe very strongly that it is the finest bench in the country, and we dispute vigorously the innuendo of one disgruntled attorney to the contrary.
There are appropriate ways to voice dissent about the decisions that emanate from any court. But the discussion will only be as constructive as the viewpoints that we air. I invite all members of the profession to carry this dialogue forward in the spirit of respect due to all of us, attorneys and judges alike.
Richard Marmaro
Los Angeles
The author is the president of the Los Angeles County Federal Bar Association.
Yagman, in his bitter diatribe against some members of the federal bench, reveals himself to be a bigot. Ah, but taking pot shots against the Catholic Church is oh so politically correct.
My Catholic upbringing and that of about a third of the members of my bench left me and my colleagues with these enduring values, expressed in both the Old and New Testaments:
"You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great; with justice you shall judge your neighbor." Leviticus 19:15.
"Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." John 7:24.
My Catholic brothers and sisters on the bench have been at the forefront of implementing and running drug and domestic-violence courts. They render countless hours of service to the legal community and to the community at large. They have been named trial judges of the year by trial lawyers' associations. They give generously to charity.
In other words, they take their faith seriously and live it. Too bad narrow-minded people like Yagman still feel it is acceptable to disparage the Catholic Church and its members.
Mary Fingal Erickson
Santa Ana
The author is supervising judge of the West Justice Center of the Orange County Superior Court.
Yagman's article on bullying judges was an enjoyable diversion. While I do not subscribe to Yagman's religious profiling, he did make salient points regarding the nature of judicial bullies.
As a civil rights lawyer, I've been abused by three judges in the rogues' gallery cited by Yagman in his editorial and have administered to the wounds of colleagues gored by the other bully judges mentioned. However, Yagman's inclusion of A. Howard Matz in his cast of bullies was unfair.
The other judges named by Yagman have long rap sheets that justify his scorn and their deserved reputations. Perhaps Yagman is vengeful because of Matz's actions in a recent and laudable case brought by Yagman. But my impression, based upon trying a case in front of Matz, is that he is courteous, thoughtful and generally a pleasure to work with. Similarly, no colleague has voiced any criticism of Matz that would justify Yagman's scathing attack on Matz's personality.
James Simmons Muller
Los Angeles
I often have wondered why the Daily Journal tarnishes itself by regularly providing Yagman a platform for his personal whining. His latest tantrum against some of our federal judges does nothing to damage their reputations; however, it does leave your readers questioning the quality of the judgment of your staff.
Jeremiah J. Flanigan
Los Angeles
Yagman's critique on judicial bullying was well-written, accurate and compelling. I reveled in its sting and found it on the mark. His courage and unyielding resistance to judicial arrogance puts a smile on my face and joy in my heart. As a sometime victim, I thank him, regretting that I did not have the doughtiness to take up those cudgels.
Hugh R. Manes
Los Angeles
Surely this will not be the only letter supporting and praising two of the federal judges so unfairly demonized by Yagman.
Am I the only criminal-defense attorney that thinks, "Thank heaven!" when the computer spits out Judge Manuel L. Real at the post-indictment arraignment in criminal matters? No judge is more knowledgeable, interested and careful about the "facts" and law on a motion-to-suppress-evidence ruling than is Real.
Real also has the courage (as a handful of other judges do) to state and act in accordance with his distaste for the rigid guidelines in criminal case sentencing. Real can excoriate a lawyer on occasion for poor preparedness, poor lawyering, slipshod ethics and tardiness. This "bullying" is administered equally to both sides of the controversy.
I can only recall one matter out of the ordinary I had with Judge A. Andrew Hauk. Briefly summarized: In connection with a drug arrest, a couple of energetic officers deliberately displayed weapons, causing the family dog to run away. This was brought to the attention of Hauk, who ordered the officers, "Go find that dog and return it to the family." Some bully!
Stephen, your childish and churlish article is not informative and serves little purpose. The psychological mush does not support your glib conclusions about two dedicated and hardworking judges.
Howard E. Becker
Hollywood
The editorial apology was appreciated. Just how many Catholic lawyers and judges did Yagman manage to offend?
Rosa Cumare
Pasadena
Your published "apology" about Yagman's recent editorial piece (of dung) was woefully inadequate. How dare you publish something that essentially consists of: "I am a malcontent with a chip on my shoulder. I hate certain judges because they were not very nice to me. Therefore, they are mentally defective and disturbed in the same way that rapists and murderers are. Their being Catholic had something to do with it. And by the way, I offer no evidence of any kind about their judicial records."
Shame, shame, a thousand times shame on you! This was not some minor editorial oversight. This was dereliction of the greatest magnitude. Did anyone even read the thing before you let it loose?
Your credibility is shot. Your motives are now suspect. You need to publish a complete rebuking of the piece, an apology to the judges who were named and an acknowledgment that you have been swamped with negative reaction about it.
Jeremy Koller
Los Angeles
You shouldn't have apologized for Yagman's recent article on judicial bullies. Your apology for that small portion touching on religion not only is unwarranted but also does a disservice by lending credibility to the "politically correct" silliness that inhibits meaningful communication.
The Catholic Church itself not only admits but also proudly insists that it is authoritarian. Must you be a Catholic, ex-Catholic, sociologist or psychologist before you are allowed to suggest that one's personality can be shaped by the culture in which one is raised?
If Yagman had said that certain judges' religious backgrounds had caused them to be especially careful and thoughtful, you wouldn't have heard a peep from the critics. They probably would have thought that he made a pretty good point.
You upheld journalistic standards by printing his statement. That people have complained does not transform your responsible presentation of opinion into a breach of your duty. Those who disagree are free to speak. By printing Yagman's article as well as the opinions of his critics, you are adhering to the highest standards of journalism.
Another disservice of your apology as to that side issue is that it detracts from Yagman's important primary statements. He has raised an issue that should have been taken up long ago by the organized bar as well as by legal journalists. We have too many judges who are arbitrary, abusive and offensive bullies and who are temperamentally unfit to serve on the bench. (Yes, there are a great many excellent judges who do an outstanding job - blah, blah, blah - Pretend I've said all of that obligatory dreck.)
Yagman's article may encourage the organized bar to fulfill its obligation to the public and the profession by confronting those despotic, childish judges who are an embarrassment to the courts. Where has the Commission on Judicial Performance been all these years? And does the federal judiciary, which has an abominable reputation, ever intend to do anything to bolster its own credibility at least for its own self-interest?
Arthur L. Margolis
Los Angeles
#337634
Columnist
Daily Journal Staff Writer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com