Claim of Judicial Bias Latest Twist in Conflict of Interest Saga Implicating Balfour Beatty and TUSD
A claim of judicial bias is the latest twist in an arduous five year legal battle between Torrance resident James McGee and school construction behemoth Balfour Beatty. Attorney Kevin Carlin, who represents McGee, filed a motion in late September seeking that the presiding Judge Stuart M. Rice either recuse himself or be disqualified from hearing the case due to judicial bias. A hearing to settle the matter is scheduled for this Monday.
Carlin’s claim of bias stems from the fact that the Judge’s current Law Clerk Emily Little has previously worked as an attorney for the law firm representing Balfour Beatty on the very same cases in question. That Little previously represented Balfour is not in dispute. A sworn declaration provided by representatives of Finch, Thornton, & Baird, LLP provided to the court states that Little worked at the firm from December 2014 to September 2016. During that time, Little worked directly on all three of the Balfour Beatty cases filed by McGee that are now pending before Judge Rice.
Carlin argued in his motion that:
“Members of the public when presented with the foregoing facts … that the Judge’s law clerk/research attorney has actively worked as an attorney for the defendant on the same three cases that are now before the judge might reasonable entertain doubt that the judge could remain impartial.”
The three cases were assigned to Judge Rice in mid-August. Judge Rice could have opted to voluntarily recuse himself from hearing the cases at anytime, but has so far chosen not to do so. Under California law a judge is supposed to disqualify themselves if “[a disinterested] person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.” Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).
McGee initially filed a public interest lawsuit on behalf of Torrance taxpayers in 2013. He later filed two similar suits. The suits sought to recover to TUSD $109 million that Balfour Beatty was paid via no bid lease leaseback construction contracts to build 6 schools. The suits alleged the contracts were illegal due to a conflict of interest because TUSD had previously contracted with Balfour Beatty since 2008 to serve as the District’s Construction Bond Program Manager. In that role, Balfour acted as a consultant for the District and developed the schedule, scope and budgets for TUSD’s $500+ million in school construction projects funded by Measures Y, Z, T and U.
Thus far McGee’s efforts have been upheld in two different appeals before the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles. The government consultant conflict of interest legal theory they are relying on was also recently upheld by the California Supreme Court in People v. Sahlolbei (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 230 (See synopsis here).
TUSD previously refused to comply with a public records request seeking to ascertain how much TUSD has spent in legal fees fighting this lawsuit that could return millions of dollars to the District.
The public records request sought copies of all invoices received from and/or payments made to the law office of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud, & Romo for legal costs associated with cases involving plaintiff Jim McGee and the District’s construction consultant Balfour Beatty. In response to the request, the District claimed that legal invoices are exempt from disclosure as they are privileged attorney-client communications. The District did not provide the reasoning behind not providing payment documents such as checks written to the law firm.
Balfour’s performance has recently come under fire due to mismanagement and construction delays at Anza Elementary and other local school sites. In response to the those challenges, School Board President Michael Wermers recently praised Balfour Beatty, “I want to thank Don Rondeau [Balfour Beatty Superintendent] for the work that was recently completed at Anza. It was a bit of a challenge, but I wanted to congratulate you … Balfour Beatty will make mistakes but they invariably hit homeruns, so thank you very much.”
The Solano County Taxpayers Association demand that Judge Rice recuse himself. Let’s get back some integrity in our Judicial system.
Recuse yourself Judge Stuart M. Rice. An honest Judge would have recused himself without been asked to do so. I live in Northern California and I have dealt with Judges like Judge Rice.
Just remember Judge Aaron Persky. This judge was recalled by voters, after his sentencing of Brock Turner in 2016, making him the first California judge recalled since 1932. If Judge Rice doesn’t recuse himself he may be the second judge recalled since 1932.
What good reason would the judge have NOT to recuse himself? His law clerk worked on this very matter for the defense counsel for YEARS, how could that not influence what information is filtered to him about the case? Even if there is somehow minimal influence, the optics of this are shocking, and the fact that the judge would expose himself to this criticism is troubling.
Judge Rice, where is your integrity?????? RECUSE, RECUSE, RECUSE.
Judge Rice must recuse himself. Under the circumstances, there is a perception of conflict. It’s unreasonable to expect he can act impartially in this case.
As ethicist Michael Josephson reminds us, “Character is not only doing the right thing when no one is looking, it’s doing the right thing when everyone is looking. It’s being willing to do the right thing even when it costs more than you want to pay.”
Judge Rice, your duty is clear. Recuse yourself.
George Guynn Jr, Past President of the Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group, Past President of the Solano County Taxpayers Association and current member, and taxpayer advocate
Judge Stuart M. Rice, RECUSE yourself immediately! You can not credibly defend having a law clerk that has worked for the defendant for so long a period!
I know Attorney Kevin Carlin to be a person that cares about the public and know that he would not be involved in these cases unless the public was being ill treated!!! Thank you Kevin for all your great work!!!!!!
Recuse yourself Judge Stuart Rice.
Perhaps the Judge should go through AB 1234 Ethics Training as other elected and appointed officials are required to do. Even the appearance of bias can taint the process.
Good news! The motion was granted today, seeking Judge Rice to either recuse himself or be disqualified from hearing the case, due to judicial bias.
That’s very good news. Maybe there is home for some integrity in our Judicial system.
Congratulations Kevin – you are giving the little guy a big voice!
I’m consistently amazed that some folks make comments in social media that seem to indicate they think the target of their comments read every social media channel and will be affected by their posting a comment in social media. In this case, several people have made a comment directed to Judge Rice suggesting he recuse himself. Did any of you attempt to locate an address for the Judge such that you might be able to communicate with him directly? It’s fairly easy to deduce he probably doesn’t read this WordPress site.
A search on his name indicates he works at the Torrance Courthouse of the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles, which means he might be reachable at:
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Torrance Courthouse
Department B
825 Maple Ave.
Torrance, CA 90503
I would not “directly communicate with the Judge.” In today’s world I may be accused of some wrong doing. Social media is fine and I don’t care if the judge reads it or not.
Then I ask what particular value does your particular post, “Judge Rice, where is your integrity?????? RECUSE, RECUSE, RECUSE.” adds to the discussion of the issue?
Patrick, more people pay attention to social media and blogs like this one than people might think sometimes. Maybe the Judge did read these comments. Who knows? What we do know is that he did end up being disqualified from hearing the case when it didn’t appear that he was going to prior to the hearing. Was it because of this article? Probably not, but I guess we’ll never know.
Maybe Patrick could communicate with the Judge directly to learn why he was disqualified from hearing the case. After all Patrick has the Judge’s address!
Clint, are you implying this article could have been a factor in the success of Attorney Kevin Carlin’s motion?
If the courts are searching social media for comments that are relative to a motion to make a decision, we have a bigger problem than one school district’s contracts.
Patrick, one of the legal standards upon which the disqualification request was based was Code of Civil Procedure §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) which states that a judge is disqualified if “[a] person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.” “ Impartiality’ entails the absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind.” Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 389. The applicable disqualification standard is an objective one: if a fully informed, reasonable member of the public would fairly entertain doubts that the judge is impartial, the judge should be disqualified. Flier v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 165, 170. Based on the social media comments and the results of the above web poll it seems the public entertained doubts that “the judge would be able to be impartial.” Civil engagement and discourse on social media or otherwise is what our Country needs more of right now….emphasis on the word civil. PLEASE DON’T DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM PARTICIPATING IN CIVIL DISCOURSE EVEN IF THOSE DECIDING THE ISSUE AT HAND ARE NOT PRIVY TO IT. It is only when the voices of reasonable members of the public are silenced that the voices of the fringes (on both sides) take over the discourse and right now their volume is deafening. Definition of civility: formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech.