Brad Pitt asks state high court to reverse disqualification of private judge

Actor Brad Pitt has asked the California Supreme Court to take another look at a 2nd District Court of Appeal ruling that disqualified a private judge who oversaw a child custody dispute between Pitt and his ex-wife, Angelina Jolie.

"The Court of Appeal's ruling -- which disqualified a temporary judge based on an administrative error that delayed disclosures regarding his professional history with counsel after he had already disclosed such information ... throws open the door to disqualification challenges at any point during a case, even if the party raising the motion has long been on notice about the alleged grounds for disqualification," wrote Pitt's attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Jolie v. Superior Court, S270666 (S. Sup. Ct., filed Aug. 31, 2021).

In a unanimous decision in July, a panel of the 2nd District sided with Jolie in her effort to remove John W. Ouderkirk, a retired superior court judge who was serving as a temporary judge in the couple's custody case, years after he performed the couple's wedding. Ouderkirk is a neutral with Alternative Resolution Center in Los Angeles.

Jolie said Ouderkirk failed to disclose two matters he handled involving another firm working for Pitt -- Young, Spiegel & Lee in Beverly Hills. She also said Ouderkirk misrepresented the amount and type of work when he finally disclosed it about three years into the case.

In a sometimes scathing concurring opinion, Justice John L. Segal noted Ouderkirk received direct compensation from the parties but wielded powers comparable to a sitting judge. "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," Segal wrote.

Jolie's counsel, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP partner Richard A. Olson, did not respond to an email seeking comment Wednesday.

Boutrous wrote in his writ to the Supreme Court that the court of appeal ruling would affect far more than whether five children would spend more time with their famous father.

"In a published opinion that is likely to be widely cited and relied upon, the Court of Appeal effectively upended the constitutionally authorized temporary judging system in California and generated widespread confusion, uncertainty, and instability for judges, litigants, and the California judicial system as a whole," he wrote.

In a Tuesday news release, Boutrous connected the ruling to Ouderkirk's decision earlier this year granting Pitt greater custody of the couple's five children.

"The lower court's ruling will reward parties who are losing child custody cases, and condone their gamesmanship, by allowing them to wait and see about the likely direction of the case before seeking the disqualification of the judge," Boutrous said. "Condoning the use of this type of strategic 'lie in wait' disqualification challenge will cause irreparable harm to both the children and families."

The appellate court's ruling is "effectively holding temporary judges to the same 'strict and unforgiving' disclosure standard applicable to arbitrators ... even though neither the Legislature nor the Judicial Council has ever extended that standard to temporary judges," Boutrous wrote in his petition for review to the Supreme Court.

Allowing the decision to stand, Boutrous argued, would "generate a torrent of disqualification challenges based on the inadvertent administrative errors" and "an increased workload for California's already overburdened permanent judges."