[X] Leslie Gutierrez

Wednesday, January 17, 2024

Page 8

EDITORIAL

Leslie Gutierrez

Los Angeles Superior Court Office No 130

hristopher Darden, a candidate for the Los Angeles Superior Court, was once a celebrity—more than that, he was an international luminary, in the news day after day. To those who were around when the O.J. Simpson murder trial was in progress in 1994, televised worldwide, with Darden as the Number Two prosecutor, he’s still no doubt remembered.

Younger voters also might well recognize him as someone who, more recently, has been a commentator on trials on various TV outlets.

Will his fame assure him of victory? Or has that fame, gleaming in 1994, faded over the past three decades to the point of barely flickering now? Will the status of his only serious rival, Deputy District Attorney Leslie Guterrez, as a prosecutor, coupled with her gender and apparent ethnicity as a Latina—actually, “Gutierrez” is her married name and she was born in France—quell his chances?

That calls for political analysis. Our inquiry here is simply: Who’s better qualified to be a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Darden or Gutierrez?

Our conclusion is that while Darden has some highly admirable qualities—he’s articulate, mature, congenial and knowledgeable—Gutierrez would be the better choice.

udges express widely varying views on Darden. Here are some of their comments (one also referencing Gutierrez):

•“Mr. Darden has appeared before me. He seems lifeless and dull, so perhaps that will make him a great judge in certain assignments.”

•“Criminal Defense Attorney Christopher Darden is a great trial attorney and will make a great judge. He has complex trial experience both as a Deputy District Attorney and as a Criminal defense attorney. He has integrity, is respectful to court and counsel. Mr. Darden has integrity, compassion, patience, intellect, and a strong work ethic. He would be an excellent judge.”

•“Darden always had a chip on his shoulder. Haven’t seen him in a while, so that might have changed. When he did appear, I recall that he continued cases and was ill-prepared.”

•“He has exactly the type of experience we should want in a judge. He has prosecuted criminal cases at the highest level, and since then has been a very successful criminal defense attorney handling very difficult cases. He understands the challenges facing both sides of a criminal case, he is mature and has a grounded, rational head on his shoulders.”

•“I met Chris Darden when I was in law school at Southwestern. He taught a trial advocacy class. For some reason he got a lot of bad reviews from other students, but I really enjoyed his class. Sometimes he was a bit hard to hear because he spoke at a very low volume. Years later, we had a few cases together when I was a Deputy DA and he was a private defense attorney. He was always very nice, professional and easy to work with.”

•“I knew Chris in the District Attorney’s office downtown in the early 90s. Chris had a reputation as a fine trial lawyer with downtown juries…(OJ Simpson’s trial was the exception). I knew Leslie when we worked together in Compton. I never saw her in court but she is kind, personable and even keeled.”

criminal defense lawyer of note says:

“[H]e’s a mediocre defense attorney at best. I have not heard of him being unethical. Yet, I have come across many folks who have collectively opined that he’s not the hardest working nor the brightest attorney.”

Another criminal defense lawyer shares these thoughts:

“This particular lineup is personally disappointing. I know both candidates. They are both imminently qualified. I have had co-defendant clients with Chris and am impressed with his knowledge and experience. He will make a great judge.

“Leslie Gutierrez (née Bouvier) worked for [me] as a law clerk and brand new attorney. Later on when she joined the District Attorney’s Office, I had the great pleasure of working on cases against her. She is astoundingly astute. She will make a great judge.

“I only wish these two towering people had pursued different seats.”

Also in the race—though not campaigning—is Osman M. Taher, who has a law degree from Trinity Law School in Bannockburn, Illinois, a school that is not accredited by the American Bar Association. He’s an obscure Orange County criminal defense lawyer.

peaking of Orange County, that’s where Darden has his law office—in Fountain Valley. Orange County abuts Los Angeles County (and long ago was a part of this county). A lawyer with an Orange County address is not necessarily a stranger to Los Angeles courts, and in a Los Angeles Superior Court race, it’s simply not a big deal. Nonetheless, Darden is touchy about references to him as an Orange County lawyer, insisting that the courts in which he appears with frequency are in Los Angeles County.

We don’t question that he well knows where the courthouses in this county are and has practiced in them through the decades with frequency. We do find discomfort in his pathetic effort to create the illusion that his office is other than in Fountain Valley.

If you go to the website of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s Office, you’ll find that he lists his address as “9909 N TOPANGA BLVD #227 CHATSWORTH CA 91313.”

And what’s at 9909 N. Topanga Blvd. in Chatsworth? An outfit called PostNet. It offers various services including renting the use of its address. You can send letters to Darden there, if you’re so inclined, but you won’t find Darden on the premises. “#227” is a box number, not a suite.

Yet, in signing emails with his name and address, he uses “Ste. 227.”

Sly lawyers are not apt to be trustworthy judges.

Depicted above is a small shop at 9909 N. Topanga Blvd. Darden purports to have a law office there in “Ste. 227.” There’s no second floor; “227” is a box number.

artendale Hubbell lists Darden’s primary address as 5850 Canoga Ave, Ste 400, Woodland Hills, 91367-6554. That address, used by the “Justice Firm,” identifies Darden as being “of counsel” to it.

Darden specifies: “I am not a partner in the Justice Firm and I have no financial interest in the Justice Firm.” However, he doesn’t dispute the representation that he’s “of counsel” to it.

Many outfits share that Woodland Hills mailing address. The lessor advertises that it offers, for a fee, “[u]se of address for business cards, licensing, website, etc.,” proclaiming that it provides customers with “the benefits of a physical office location without any of the headaches of managing or maintaining an actual office space.”

Martindale Hubbell tells of three other addresses for Darden, all used by the Justice Firm. One is 9465 Wilshire Blvd. #300, Beverly Hills, 90212—the firm’s primary address, according to its website. A Google search brings up a plethora of links to companies using that address; according to one online source, 93 businesses do so.

The website has a profile, with photo, of Darden, that of a “supervising attorney” who has provided the Canoga Avenue address to the State Bar, and an “attorney” who has reported a residence address.

Also featured, with photograph and mini-biography of each, are four persons identified as “staff members,” including an “interpreter.” That supposed staff interpreter (who speaks Russian and Ukrainian) has her own practice in Encino as a hypnotherapist.

There are photos on the website of nine unidentified persons, impliedly members of the law firm.

Despite the appearance of stability that is manufactured, “Justice Firm” is not a full-fledged law firm with four offices. For Darden to be linked to such a smoke-and-mirrors operation is to his discredit.

arden’s chosen ballot designation is “Attorney/Professor.” Yes, he’s an attorney. However, he does not hold the title of “Professor.” He’s an “adjunct professor” at Santa Monica College.

An “adjunct professor,” is someone outside the fulltime faculty of an educational institution who typically lectures once a week.

A chief of detectives in a police force cannot truthfully claim on ballot to be “Police Chief”; a “lieutenant colonel” is not a “Colonel”; a court commissioner, though serving as a “judge pro tem,” is not a “Judge.”

Darden, undoubtedly, knows the difference between being an actual professor and holding a lesser academic rank. His campaign website says: “He has…been teaching for more than a decade, serving as an adjunct professor of law, an assistant professor of law and professor.”

He taught criminal law part-time at California State University, Los Angeles, in 1995—“I cannot recall what my title was at the time,” he tells us—and was on the faculty of Southwestern Law School from 1995-99, first as an adjunct professor, then as an associate professor. There’s no indication, despite what the website says, that he has ever held a professorship.

What counts for ballot designation purposes is that under Business & Professions Code §13107(b)(2)(B), the word “Attorney” may be used “in combination with one other current principal profession, vocation, or occupation of the candidate, or the principal profession, vocation” or one such pursuit in the past calendar year. Darden was not a “Professor” in 2023 and isn’t one now.

arden protests: “In my classes I am referred to as Professor Darden.” We don’t doubt that. But the matter of how someone is addressed is distinguishable from what title a candidate may lawfully use as a ballot designation.

By way of an example, there are educators who are addressed on campuses as “Dr. So-and-So” based on holding a PhD or other academic doctorate. But the holding of a doctorate is merely a status. If someone with such a degree sought a ballot designation of “Doctor,” it could not lawfully be permitted given that would imply that the candidate is, by profession, a “doctor,” that is, someone who practices medicine.

Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are commonly addressed as “Governor.” None of them could run for office using a ballot designation of “Governor.”

In labeling himself a “Professor,” Darden is pretending to be something he isn’t. That does not inspire confidence.

e endorse Gutierrez not merely by default, but with enthusiasm. She’s energetic, intelligent, and highly competent.

She consistently receives the rating of “Exceeded Expectations (Very Good)” on her office performance evaluations. (Although she advised the county in 2019 that her married name is now “Gutierrez,” her maiden name is still used on the evaluations.)

Here are some comments:

•“Ms. Bouvier stays on top of current legal issues and is adept at conducting legal research. Her legal writing is persuasive, logical and concise….Ms. Bouvier also readily shares her legal research and writing with her colleagues as she is often the first to respond when her colleagues request sample motions.”

•“Ms. Bouvier carries a caseload of primarily serious and violent felonies that includes a special circumstance murder, murders, and multiple victim sexual assaults Many of her cases require review of voluminous medical documents and/of documents from the Department of Children and Family Services.”

•“[D]etectives often consult with Ms. Bouvier prior to presenting their case for filing, and she is skilled at explaining to law enforcement the nuances in the law and what is required to strengthen a case during the investigative stage.”

•“In any situation, foreseen and unforeseen, Ms. Bouvier is capable of handling challenges in a calm, professional manner.”

•“Ms. Bouvier is the model of a dependable employee with a positive attitude, and she is a team player.”

•“Ms. Bouvier exercises the highest degree of prosecutorial ethics while representing the People.”

Christopher Darden is capable of serving as a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Leslie Gutierrez is, in our view, the worthier candidate.