Retired judge shouldn’t have decided Jolie v. Pitt case, panel says

Retired judge shouldn't have decided Jolie v. Pitt case, appeals panel says

An appellate panel has given a retired judge a bad review in a dispute involving two movie stars. One justice also panned the system that allowed John W. Ouderkirk to accept compensation from the parties in the case, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

Overruling the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the 2nd District Court of Appeal Division 7 panel on Friday found Ouderkirk should have been disqualified as a privately compensated temporary judge in a family law matter between the actors. Ouderkirk failed to disclose "several matters involving Pitt's counsel," according to Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss.

"Judge Ouderkirk's ethical breach, when considered with the information disclosed concerning his recent professional relationships with Pitt's counsel, might cause an objective person, aware of all the facts, reasonably to entertain a doubt as to Judge Ouderkirk's ability to be impartial," Perluss wrote in Jolie v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, B308958 (Cal. App. 2nd, filed Nov. 23, 2020).

Ouderkirk, a retired Los Angeles County judge, officiated at Jolie's and Pitt's 2014 wedding in France. He's a member of the neutral panel with Alternative Resolution Centers. Jolie filed for a divorce in 2016, and received one in 2019. Pitt v. Pitt, BD646058 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 19, 2016).

That case led to the court approving a stipulation from the parties for Ouderkirk to serve as a private judge to determine the custody of the couple's five minor children. Earlier this year, he ordered a greater share of custody for Pitt.

Ouderkirk and Alternative Resolution Centers disclosed several "privately compensated matters" involving attorneys on both sides of the case. These included one case involving one of Jolie's attorneys, Laura A. Wasser, and her firm, Wasser Cooperman Mandles PC. He also noted seven completed and one pending matter involving one of Pitt's lawyers, Lance S. Spiegel, or his firm, Young Spiegel & Lee LLP. He said he would "continue to consider accepting other cases" that might involve a party in their case.

But Jolie's attorneys later said a disclosure letter from Alternative Resolution Centers failed to disclose two other completed matters involving Young Spiegel & Lee. This letter and subsequent disclosure letters also allegedly misstated the type of work and level of involvement Ouderkirk had in several of the cases with Pitt's team, Jolie's attorneys said.

Last August, Jolie's counsel petitioned the trial court to disqualify Ouderkirk for "undisclosed ongoing professional relationships with Pitt's counsel," Perluss wrote. Pitt's attorneys opposed the move, calling the motion "a thinly veiled attempt by Jolie to delay the adjudication of long-pending custody issues."

In November, Orange County Superior Court Judge Erick L. Larsh, sitting by assignment, ruled Jolie's petition was not timely. He wrote, "By August 2018, petitioner was aware of facts that might cause her to reasonably entertain a doubt that Judge Ouderkirk would be able to be impartial," but still stipulated to him twice. Jolie appealed and requested a stay.

Perluss began his analysis with a review of the relevant sections of the Code of Judicial Ethics and the California Rules of Court. He found Ouderkirk "failed to comply with his continuing ethical obligations" and Jolie's appeal was timely based on when her counsel discovered the undisclosed information.

Justices John L. Segal and Gail Ruderman Feuer joined the opinion. Segal filed a concurring opinion attacking the concept of private compensation for temporary judges.

"Unlike arbitrators and referees, '[t]emporary judges have broad powers substantially comparable to those of ... sitting judges,'" Segal wrote, citing Hayward v. Superior Court, 2016 DJDAR 7939. California reversed its prohibition on private compensation for temporary judges in 1993 when the Judicial Council changed its rules of court. Gov. Pete Wilson then signed SB 15 by Sen. Bill Lockyer -- who would go on to serve two terms as California attorney general -- codifying the change.

A full-time judge would be guilty of a misdemeanor if they accepted payment from parties, Segal wrote, "Yet the California Rules of Court currently allow temporary judges to receive compensation from parties who appear before them, even though temporary judges are, well, judges. ... But just because it is no longer criminal for a temporary judge to receive compensation from private parties doesn't mean it's a good idea."

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, represented Pitt at the oral argument on July 9. Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland partner Richard A. Olson LLP argued for Jolie. Neither firm commented on the record when contacted on Friday.