California, DUI / DWI, Legal Ethics, Lindsay Lohan, State Judges, State Judges Are Clowns

Judges Presiding Over Lindsay Lohan's DUI Case Get Slapped on the Wrist by California Judicial Oversight Panel

The judges presiding over Lindsay Lohan's DUI case have been reprimanded by a judicial oversight board...

By  
on

When it comes to celebrities’ run-ins with the law, their every step is scrutinized, and Lindsay Lohan was perhaps one of the most popular criminal defendants in recent times. All of Lohan’s transgressions were especially well-documented by the media, from transforming the courthouse into her own fashion runway to her questionable choices in nail art.

But when it came to allegations of wrongdoing committed by the judges presiding over Lohan’s DUI case, those went virtually ignored by the press — that is, until now. The Los Angeles Times has uncovered summaries of private discipline from the California Commission on Judicial Performance that very closely mirror the activities of two of Lohan’s judges — activities that aren’t very complimentary to the Beverly Hills judiciary….

The two judges we’re talking about are L. A. County Superior Court Judges Marsha Revel and Elden Fox. (You may remember from our previous coverage that Lohan once referred to Revel as a “f**king bitch.”)

In January 2011, a complaint was lodged against both judges by Allan Parachini, the former Los Angeles County court spokesman, relating to impropriety that he claims was “due, in part, to the reality that many judges get caught up in celebrity litigation and part company with their experience and common sense.” Ouch, that’s pretty harsh coming from a guy who was fired for allegedly leaking case information to TMZ the media.

The L.A. Times has more information on the alleged disciplinary actions taken against Revel and Fox:

The commission acted on accusations that Revel improperly met alone with an attorney who wanted to take over Lohan’s defense, and that Fox erred in denying the actress bail on a relatively minor charge and refusing to hear her attorney’s arguments. Both incidents occurred during a period of intense media attention in 2010 culminating in the star’s two-week term behind bars.

One judicial expert compared the commission’s action to a “wrist-slap” but said the judges’ conduct involved “fairly basic” legal mistakes.

Sponsored

In short, the judges’ mistakes involved “fairly basic” legal analysis — 1L stuff, really.

Here are the short summaries of private discipline included in the Commission’s annual report that seem to echo the handling of Lohan’s case by Judges Revel and Fox, respectively (you can read more about how these summaries relate to the Lohan case at the Los Angeles Times):

Revel declined requests for comment, and Fox would not confirm whether he’d been disciplined, instead suggesting that the Times’s reporter could “read about it in the commission’s report.” That sounds like an ass-backwards way of confirming the truth, no? In the meantime, Parachini was assured by the Commission that it had “taken an appropriate corrective action” — tabloid vindication at its finest.

By all accounts, it seems that the L.A. Times was spot-on in its assessment of this disciplinary drama. It almost makes the court look as bad as Lohan did in her latest nip slip.

Oversight panel disciplines judges in Lindsay Lohan case [Los Angeles Times]

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , ,