Keeping a Skeptical Watch on Those in Halls of Justice

Most people accept the maxim that there is no such thing as a free lunch. So, when a judge or a police officer or a journalist accepts a free meal or trip, observers naturally ask, what’s the quid pro quo?

The state Commission on Judicial Performance is investigating whether there were any quid pro quos involved with a few free meals, the loan of a computer and a car, a golf bag, sweaters and a bay cruise for three San Diego County Superior Court judges, which were paid for by a local civil litigation attorney.

To be sure, the gifts from attorney Patrick Frega were small. Judge James A. Malkus reported $450 worth of gifts in 1985, Judge G. Dennis Adams said he received $1,400 worth in 1987 and 1988, and Judge Michael I. Greer reported $1,520 in gifts from 1986 to 1991. All were properly disclosed.

But some attorneys and judges question whether the gifts influenced court assignments or verdicts in multimillion-dollar non-jury civil cases.

The gifts may well be inconsequential. Nothing more than the give-and-take of friends and colleagues.

But the case illustrates the clubbiness of the legal profession. For example, at least one lawyer says he was at a meeting when Frega called Greer about a case, seemingly asking that a case be assigned to a specific judge.

To some extent, friendships between lawyers and judges are unavoidable, since many lawyers eventually become judges. For justice to be blind, however, judges need to create some distance from their former colleagues, if it does not already exist. What may appear innocent to an insider raises the eyebrows of the outsider who has lost a case or those who see the law through the prism of television drama.

The judicial system goes to great lengths and expense to make sure that a person’s day in court is free of bias. That means being skeptical about what goes on outside the courtroom as well.