Legal News

It?s Recusal Week at the Law Blog!

By Peter Lattman

On Monday, we highlighted a juicy recusal controversy arising out of the mountains of West Virginia. Yesterday, we posted on the Ninth Circuit tossing the fraud conviction and 15-year sentence of a former dot-com executive because it said the trial-court judge should have disqualified himself because of stock holdings in a firm linked to the case. And this morning, let’s take a trip to the California Supreme Court for another wild and wacky recusal case.

A man who says he became ill while working at a Lockheed plant sued for injuries he suffered as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals. He appealed the case to California’s high court, which refused to hear it. Why? Because four of the seven justices cited a conflict of interest because they controlled stock in oil companies that provided some of the solvents at issue in the case. “It’s unfair and I am very disgusted with the courts,” said Braxton Berkley, the plaintiff.

Chief Justice Ron George said the remaining justices decided to dismiss the case because they were concerned that a Supreme Court ruling made with a majority of temporary justices wouldn’t hold the same weight as an opinion of the permanent court. Said George: “This is a very unusual situation and I hope it doesn’t recur.”

On its blog, the NYT editorial board calls it “crazy — and unacceptable”:

The justices should be required to put their financial holdings in a blind trust. Instead, California requires judges to follow their investments so they can recuse themselves in cases where there is a conflict. California needs to change its rules about judges’ investments. But as long as they are in place, we would like to see the justices put their money in Treasury bills or certificates of deposit.

There would be a lot fewer cases in which they would need to recuse themselves. And if the rate of return is lower than with stocks, it might just give them a little more in common with little-guy plaintiffs like Mr. Berkley who come before them seeking justice.

O Beloved Law Blog readers, do you agree?

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on January 17, 2008 (boomark / email).