Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Page 7
PERSPECTIVES (Column)
Howard Broadman to Portray TV Judge; Is Patrick Murphy Next?
By ROGER M. GRACE
ATTENTION TV PRODUCERS: if you’re looking for a retired Los Angeles Superior Court judge to preside over simulated court proceedings, I’ve got the guy for you.
He’s Patrick B. Murphy.
He’s been censured for misconduct, just like retired Tulare Superior Court Judge Howard Broadman.
Broadman is going to be playing a judge on three of the eight episodes of the NBC mini-series, “The Law Firm.” The series starts tomorrow at 9 p.m., airing locally on KNBC, Channel 4. On the first episode, Broadman will adjudicate a dispute involving a dog attack and retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Martha Goldin will try a traffic case. (Cases become heavier as the series progresses.)
Broadman fits in—as Murphy would—with the new approach in hiring.
That approach was manifested when Shelby County (Tenn.) Criminal Court Judge Joe Brown was given the job of portraying a judge on a syndicated Monday-through-Friday courtroom show that started in 1998. Four years earlier, the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld one of two public reprimands of Brown by the state’s Judiciary Court. As to the count it scrapped, the court criticized Brown for use of “harsh language” and it lectured that use of “language that is lacking in civility could exacerbate the recent tendency of lawyers to be discourteous, combative and rude.”
Brown—who retired from his actual Memphis judgeship after his absenteeism from the bench to tape the TV show in Los Angeles created the prospect of forcible removal—comports himself on the TV show in a loud and boorish manner. His conduct is calculated not to enhance public respect for the judiciary but to draw ratings.
And that, TV producers, is what you’re after, right?
Your fellow producers who are responsible for “The Law Firm” did hire four other retired judges for the series, all whom sat on the Los Angeles Superior Court. In addition to Goldin, they are Larry Crispo, Dion Morrow, and Burton Katz.
But it’s the hiring of Broadman that represents a fulfillment of contemporary criteria for the selection of TV judges.
Look, producers, if you want “bad boys” to portray TV judges, you couldn’t do better than to sign up Pat Murphy. While both he and Broadman drew censures, what the Commission on Judicial Performance really wanted to do was to yank Murphy from office for malingering, as it purported to do on May 10, 2001. But the sly Murphy beat the commission to it by resigning just before the removal order was signed. So, all the panel could do was to censure him.
Murphy’s near-removal surely trumps Broadman’s censure.
And, Murphy still faces the prospect (a prospect dimming with passage of time but still alive) of a federal indictment in connection with a money-laundering scheme.
What are Broadman’s qualifications for a TV judgeship?
In 1998, the California Supreme Court censured Broadman, finding that he…
•“[H]ad indeed ‘tricked’ counsel into agreeing to [a] continuance” of two months in a criminal case;
•Had publicly commented on two cases—one of which involved his controversial order that a female defendant be implanted with a birth control device—after the commission had directed his attention to the rule that prohibited public discussion by judges of pending cases; and
•Had attempted to create prejudice toward a lawyer for whom he had animosity by sitting in the audience while the lawyer testified as a defendant in a malpractice case. This gave rise to discussion among jurors (who knew Broadman’s status as a judge). When a court employee asked why he was there, Broadman responded that he was “just being an asshole.”
One year later, the Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished Broadman in connection with other misconduct—ironically, conduct seemingly more egregious than that which triggered the censure:
•In a property case, Broadman informally questioned the parties, not under oath, seemingly off-the-record and as a prelude to the trial, then abruptly took the case under submission, and later rendered a decision. The parties, who expected testimony on the stand and cross-examination, were left to wonder: what happened?
•In a family law matter, Broadman argumentatively questioned a 15-year-old witness who had stated that she would refuse to live with her father. Broadman asked: “Can you tell me why I should believe a single word you say since you clearly do not act like you believe in the rule of law?” He continued to badger the girl, culminating with this exchange: The Court: “…I have problems believing a witness who does not believe in the rule of law because if you don’t believe in the rule of law then why should I believe your testimony? Do you understand?” [¶] The Witness: “I didn’t say I did not believe in the law.” [¶] The Court: “Well, the evidence has been thus far that you haven’t acted as if you believe in the law….I’m asking for – you’re part of the problem, and I’m asking you to help me and figure out the answer. I wouldn’t ask it if somebody wasn’t smart enough to answer, but you appear to be a bright young woman. If you can’t answer it, just say, I can’t answer it.” [¶] The Witness: “What’s your question?” [¶] The Court: “Can you help me to resolve that dilemma?” [¶] The Witness: “How could I help you? What do you want me to do? Do you want me to go with my dad because I said I wasn’t going to and I’m not going to.” [¶] The Court: “Continue – young lady that is probably a direct contempt of this Court. Do you know what the ramifications for that are?” [¶] The Witness: “No.” [¶] The Court: “We’ll be in recess. Call the public defender’s office.”
•In the same case in which he bullied the girl, Broadman found the mother guilty of 13 counts of contempt based on disobedience of the custody order. He sentenced her to 65 days in jail and ordered that she pay substantial sums to the husband. Her attorney filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging numerous acts of judicial misconduct. (It was granted based on procedural error.) After Broadman received a copy of the petition, he disqualified himself from further proceedings, explaining that the allegations caused him to become biased against the attorney. That lawyer subsequently was sent to Broadman’s courtroom in an unrelated case. Broadman did not simply recuse himself. He took the bench and publicly accused the lawyer of being “unethical and dishonest.”
Broadman showed up at closing arguments before the CJP wearing a Mickey Mouse tie. A reporter from the San Francisco Recorder later asked “Why did you choose to be so provocative?” His response was: “That’s Howard Broadman.”
What is Howard Broadman? I posed that question yesterday to the retired jurist. He responded:
“A 55-year-old guy waiting to die.”
In the interim, he hopes to have some fun.
“One of my problems as a judge is that I had had fun,” he reflected.
It’s clear that Broadman has not toned down. He boasts that on the NBC website, there’s a clip of him “bearing down on a lawyer.”
The lawyers on the show, fired one by one, are competing for a $250,000 prize as the “survivor” barrister. They are identified by first name.
“I just nailed this poor bastard, Jason,” Broadman said with delight.
The producers of “The Law Firm” did know about his discipline. Broadman asked rhetorically: “How could you not know about it?” He called the producers “ballsy people.”
The ex-jurist remains bitter about his experience with the CJP, commenting:
“They investigated me for nine years—nine f—king years. Maybe they didn’t have anything else to do.”
The show is produced by Renegade 83, Inc. in conjunction with David E. Kelley Productions and 20th Century Fox Television. Broadman said that Renegade 83 has a possible interest in developing a series for him.
“I should know a lot more by the 29th,” he said.
That will be Friday, the day after his television debut.
So, TV producers, if Renegade 83 doesn’t develop a series for Broadman, he is, you lucky dogs, available.
But don’t overlook Pat Murphy. Of course, if you did sign him up for a TV gig, he might flit off to an island in the West Indies or develop a phobia about being on a TV set, but you’ve got to take risks.
DISABILITY PENSIONS: Broadman and Katz both received disability retirements.
Broadman, who retired in 1999, is a private judge. Katz, who left in 1987, is a mediator, and has been an analyst and anchor on MSNBC, as well as a talk show host on KABC radio. But, no, they have not been receiving full benefits while also drawing salaries.
Under Government Code §75080, if a judge who’s on disability retirement has an income that’s more than 75 percent of what a sitting judge makes, the benefits are to be reduced accordingly. Broadman said he received permission of the Judges Retirement System to open up shop as a private judge, that he reports his income by the eighth of each month, and receives pared benefits when he’s had a lucrative month.
Katz, 66, said yesterday he is now receiving a normal pension, by virtue of age, and that he turned back disability retirement payments while working at MSNBC.
Under the statute, if a judge who retired based on a disability later acquires fulltime employment doing the kind of work a judge does, the benefits are completely terminated.
CORRECTION: In a recent column, I mentioned that retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas C. Yager was president of the Trusteeship for the Betterment of Women. That’s wrong. That information, from the “public records” section on Westlaw, was furnished by Dun & Bradstreet. Yager is not connected with that organization. He is, however, president of Community Betterment Service, which Yager purports to be a religion and which owns the house in which he lives and has no activities that can be ascertained, as reported.
Copyright 2005, Metropolitan News Company