District Attorneys Warned on Spending in Drive Against Bird

SAN FRANCISCO —  A Los Angeles law firm has warned district attorneys that they could face felony charges if they use public resources in the campaign to oust Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, prompting sharp and sarcastic replies from several prosecutors.

“The prohibition against the expenditure of public funds for partisan political purposes is clear and unequivocal,” lawyers Mark E. Overland and Robert Berke told the prosecutors in an Aug. 26 letter.

“Moreover, one who knowingly authorizes such improper expenditure is personally liable for the repayment of such funds. . . . This criminal sanction applies even to the use of public stationery for political purposes.”

The letter marked the latest round in the campaign over the 1986 elections in which six Supreme Court justices will face voters.

The California District Attorneys Assn. announced earlier this year that it is opposing Bird and Justices Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso, claiming they are lenient on criminals. The prosecutors’ group had never before taken a stand on a judicial election.

The Los Angeles lawyers previously called on Controller Ken Cory and the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether the district attorneys’ association should lose its tax-exempt status for opposing Bird. Nonprofit organizations like the prosecutors group generally cannot take political stands and remain exempt from paying income tax.

Concerned for its tax status, the prosecutors’ organization subsequently gave up its public role in the anti-Bird campaign, but its efforts were continued by what critics say is a virtually identical group.

Berke is president of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, a nonprofit organization of defense lawyers. He said the organization has not taken a stand and did not authorize him to send the letter.

In response to the letter, Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury wrote that “unauthorized expenditure of clients’ funds by private lawyers in connection with the effort to retain the justices may subject the individuals involved in this activity to both civil and criminal liability.”

Tulare County Dist. Atty. William A. Richmond wrote, “(Out) here in the tules, foothills and forests, we don’t often receive attention from Los Angeles law firms, much less unsolicited legal advice. I especially like the part where you threaten to sue us, if prosecutors should provide to the public a truth that they are particularly situated to know. . . .

“You were pretending to be my friend when you were really just trying to prevent me from blowing the whistle on your friends on the California Supreme Court.”