The June 2 election in Los Angeles County features two veteran prosecutors competing for Superior Court Office 14. Typically, the governor fills a judicial vacancy after review by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation and additional screening by advisory panels. But for an open seat just before an election, the voters do the vetting.
Irene Lee has been a lawyer for 18 years, mainly as a deputy district attorney. She currently is a special assistant to District Attorney Nathan Hochman where, she told me, “I help with our hiring and recruitment process and some budget projects.”
Angie Christides has practiced law for 22 years, mostly also as a deputy DA. She spent the first half of her career trying more than 70 felony cases, about half murder trials. Since then, she said, she has focused on alternative sentencing and mental health diversion programs.
I asked each how she would help regular citizens be more comfortable in a system often mystifying and even terrifying. Lee said it’s important for people to “trust that the legal system is working for them” and for the judge to “bring down the temperature and conflict.” Valuing the time of “attorneys, parties and witnesses” also is essential because “no one’s going to court because it’s fun most of the time. They’re going because they’re either a victim of a crime or a lawsuit litigant.”
Christides said, “The reality is, when people go to court, regardless of if they’re a witness, a victim or a defendant, or in the civil arena or the criminal one, it’s your worst day. No one wants to go to court.” But she would make sure “people understand what the system is about, and everyone trusts that, whatever the outcome is, it’s a fair one, even if they don’t necessarily agree with it.”
I asked how each, as a deputy DA promoted to the bench, would avoid prosecutorial bias. Lee said, while her personal background is important, “My judicial philosophy is to uphold the law without injecting any personal feelings, opinions or agenda.” People should not “feel that the system is biased, or that a judge is deciding things on a whim.”
Christides said the two halves of her career, first as prosecutor, then in alternative sentencing, meant she had “the tools to be a balanced bench officer. And I’ve made an effort during my career, to always fight for what’s right, even if it’s not the most popular thing. I want to build that trust back. I want the public to know that, if they walk into my courtroom, I’m always going to do what’s right.”
Artificial intelligence is everywhere nowadays, but can create “hallucinations,” digital LSD trips in which something false confidently is cited as true. I asked each candidate how she used AI, and how to make sure it wasn’t abused in a courtroom. I cited an April 13 KTLA story, which began, “The State Bar of California is charging two attorneys with submitting false and inaccurate court filings produced using generative artificial intelligence without proper review.”
“I personally have not used it, but I know it’s a tool that is available,” Lee said. “It can help you get through certain types of evidence more quickly. But we have to make sure it’s accurate.” She mentioned some prosecutors use AI quickly to move through “tens of hours” of video testimony, by doing word searches of automated transcripts.
Christides also said she hadn’t used AI. But it “requires the same kind of patience that would be required before AI. If somebody submits a briefing, I’m going to read it and check the citations, just like I would have 10 years ago. I don’t think AI really changes that. I tend to be the kind of person that likes to look at my books anyway.” Like many lawyers, she said, she uses LexisNexis and Westlaw, the two main online legal databases.
I liked how both candidates look to translate two decades of courtroom experience into fairness from the bench. Voters could not go wrong with either.
John Seiler is on the SCNG Editorial Board
