LAW FROM THE CENTER

Steve Yagman, of Yagman & Yagman civil rights lawyering fame, has drawn fire from quite a few conservatives in the past, and on the CenterMeter, he stands well left of middle. There's just something disconcerting to many rightists and centrists alike about the sheer number of excessive force claims his firm has filed against the likes of the LAPD, and the sheer amount of money that firm has made off them. Of course, the victims should get money when their rights are violated, but why should he get rich off it? There's just something sleazy about driving around a Jaguar after leaching the city coffers of millions of dollars.

But I digress. Today, he gets kudos from the Centrist in a tale of what goes around, comes around. In today's LA Times, click here (may need to log in), Judge Real of the Federal District Court in Los Angeles is reported to have been sanctioned by the 9th Circuit Judicial Panel in a secret, unpublished opinion for using his powers to help out a friend improperly. You can read to get the details, but the skinny on it is that he used his power to wrestle away a bankruptcy case from Bankruptcy Judge Katz to ensure that a probationer under his personal watch did not get evicted from her ex-father-in-law's rental property, resulting in a loss of $35,000 in potential rental income.

Where does Yagman come in? Apparently, Judge Real has gathered some enemies along the way, Yagman being the most ominous. Years ago, he fined Yagman $250,000 for supposedly filing a frivolous libel suit, a fine that was successfully appealed later. While us in blog land can safely accuse the likes of Yagman in the court of public opinion, if you're going to do it in real (no pun intended) court you better have the evidence. Judge Real didn't. The antagonism didn't stop there. Apparently, many attorneys felt he reigned over a "court of terror," using his favorite line, "This isn't Burger King, You can't have it your way." Many times, when asked for reasons behind his odd rulings, Real simply replied, "Because I said it."

After Yagman caught wind of the situation, he filed a complaint with the judicial counsel. Judge Schroeder initially dismissed the complaint, but Yagman persisted, resulting in the ruling described in the article. Instead of raiding the coffers in yet another contingency case, Yagman worked completely pro bono to ensure our judges follow the same rules of ethics the rest of the profession must follow. As much as I hate to quote a Trojan, Edwin Chemerinsky said it best: "I think it is important for the 9th Circuit to say a judge should not behave this way." You can't take a case with the purpose of affecting the outcome.

KUDOS to Yagman. If you're reading this, gimme some of your last judgment. Daddy needs a new Jaguar.