The Brief

Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do, one of the county’s most powerful elected officials, has voted to fund millions of dollars to an organization led by his daughter without publicly disclosing his close family connection, an LAist investigation has found.

Do voted twice to award contracts that, according to county agenda records, included subcontracts to Warner Wellness Center, his daughter Rhiannon Do’s group. Warner Wellness is the DBA of the nonprofit Viet America Society. (A DBA is the name an organization uses to operate that’s different from its legal name.)

During public discussion of one of those votes, Do said he had two years of conversations with the top county health official leading up to the vote.

Both of Do’s votes to fund the subcontracts happened with no public mention that his daughter was working as Warner Wellness’ president.

Do, his daughter, and Do’s chief of staff Van Tran haven’t returned multiple phone and email requests for comment.

A group of community nonprofit leaders were so concerned about the handling of the subcontracts that they held a meeting about it with Connie Chung Joe, the leader of L.A.’s top Asian American civil rights group.

Joe, who is CEO of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, told LAist she followed up by contacting the FBI.

When asked about this, FBI spokesperson Laura Eimiller told LAist her agency doesn’t confirm or deny the existence of investigations.

Conflicts of interest have previously emerged during Do’s time as a supervisor. Last year, Do paid the largest conflict of interest fine in California since 2019, according to state records.

Part of the fine was for Do not disclosing his role in fundraising that ultimately paid for work done by the founder of Viet America Society.

A nonprofit 'not in good standing'  

Over a two-and-a-half-year span, Do was involved in directing $3.1 million to Warner Wellness, as well as an earlier $4.2 million to Viet America Society before it took on the Warner Wellness name as a DBA.

Viet America Society was incorporated in 2020 by Peter Pham, who previously worked on a high-profile statue project led by Do.

In budget records, Do took credit for Viet America Society’s county funding. And in a recent video touting Pham’s work, Do said he came up with the idea of expanding Viet America Society’s meal distribution.

“I approached Peter and said ‘Look, why don’t we blow this up, make it bigger and we can help more seniors,’ and that’s how we started working with him,” Do said in the video.

By the end of 2020, Viet America Society started receiving its first of several county contracts. By April 2022, it had received $4.2 million in contracts to prep and deliver hot meals to seniors, people with disabilities and others facing food insecurity in Do’s district.

Throughout those years, Viet America Society was not a legally registered nonprofit with the state — despite state law requiring registration within 30 days of receiving funds. Even after it registered in January 2023, the state warned the group in April that it was out of compliance. The AG’s office wrote that Viet America Society was “not in good standing and is prohibited from engaging in conduct for which registration is required, including soliciting or disbursing charitable funds.”

All along, county records show Viet America Society received funding approvals from the county anyway. It ultimately filed the required financial disclosures in June 2023.

County spokespeople have not answered whether the supervisors and county staff knew the county was approving millions in funding to a group the state had declared was unable to legally seek or spend funds .

“If they’re not registered and they’re operating, that’s illegal,” said Sean McMorris, the transparency, ethics and accountability program manager at California Common Cause.

Pham, the founder and president of Viet America Society, initially told LAist he would be available for an interview, but has not returned multiple follow-up calls to schedule it.

A family connection

O.C. Supervisors Vicente Sarmiento and Katrina Foley, who participated in a key vote on the center’s funding this May, told LAist they were not aware of Do’s family connection until LAist contacted them this month. Sarmiento said such family connections should be disclosed before votes.

The May vote approved an expansion of the county’s hotline contract with the local chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI OC) to add services in Spanish and Vietnamese.

That expansion included a $2.5 million subcontract for Warner Wellness — outlined in county agenda documents for the vote — to provide Vietnamese language services for the WarmLine, the county’s emotional support hotline for people struggling with mental health challenges.

When that item came up for a vote, Do discussed being involved in conversations to expand the WarmLine’s services.

“I want to thank Dr. Chau,” Do said. He was speaking of Clayton Chau, attending the meeting in his role as the county’s top public health official. Chau’s department recommended the item for supervisors’ approval.

“To see this coming, now, after you and I have talked about it for over two years,” Do said to Chau. Do then voted with the other supervisors to approve the item, without disclosing his family relationship to the subcontractor.

It was not the first time Warner Wellness received funding through a county subcontract Do voted to fund.

County supervisors previously approved funding for a $625,000 subcontract with Warner Wellness in November 2022. Do, who voted for it, made no mention of his family connection. The funding was part of a contract with Orange County Asian and Pacific Islander Community Alliance (OCAPICA), one of Orange County's best-known Asian American community organizations, to provide mental health outreach in local communities.

Offices marked for Warner Wellness and Viet America Society are located on the same floor of the same office building as Do’s private law office in Huntington Beach. Until LAist contacted her this month, his youngest daughter Rhiannon Do listed herself on LinkedIn as president of Warner Wellness since July 2021.

After LAist contacted Rhiannon Do for comment, her title was updated to vice president. A week later, the person who answered the phone at Warner Wellness told LAist that Rhiannon Do was still the organization’s leader. The center’s website says it’s “a nonprofit, outpatient mental health center” but does not name anyone involved in the organization, including its leadership.

Do’s daughter is a law student at U.C. Irvine. She graduated from high school four years ago and then earned a bachelor’s degree in economics from U.C. Davis in December 2021. While at U.C. Davis, she interned at the Steinberg Institute, which advocates for statewide mental health policy changes. Her LinkedIn resume lists another internship at a law firm and no other work experience.

Rhiannon Do in a YouTube video posted in August 2021 by the Steinberg Institute where she was an intern.

(

Screenshot via YouTube

)

How Warner Wellness became a subcontractor

NAMI OC President Steve Pitman oversees Warner Wellness’ $2.5 million WarmLine subcontract. In written responses to LAist’s questions, he described Warner Wellness as a natural partner choice that was suggested to them as “county-vetted.”

OCAPICA’s executive director, Mary Anne Foo, told LAist that Warner Wellness was not part of her organization’s proposal to the county. Instead, the center was later suggested to her group during negotiations with the county after OCAPICA won the main contract. OCAPICA added Warner Wellness as a subcontractor before supervisors voted to approve the contract.

Chau, who no longer works at the county, didn’t return phone calls and text messages for comment to his cell phone or messages left with his new boss. Orange County CEO Frank Kim also didn’t return phone calls and text messages.

OC’s ethics code

County staff have not answered whether the handling of the Warner Wellness subcontracts complied with Orange County’s ethics policies, which state:

The code of ethics also says that county officials cannot participate in any activities that “would tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of official duties.”

The code itself doesn’t describe consequences for any violations of these provisions, and county staff haven’t answered questions about whether any consequences exist.

Orange County has a five-member ethics commission, appointed by the five county supervisors. It has jurisdiction over some ethics code provisions, but not the ones listed above.

Tracy Westen, a government ethics expert, said the votes by Do raise ethical questions about why he didn’t publicly disclose his close family connection and recuse himself. Those factors, he said, lead to questions that should now be answered: How was the group was chosen? How is it performing? Was it given preferential treatment?

“I think it’s always a mistake for a public official to vote on something that can affect him, her or their family,” said Westen, who previously ran the L.A.-based Center for Governmental Studies.

“It’s one thing to vote on things that affect his family if it’s disclosed openly, candidly,” Westen said. “But it’s another to vote on something that affects your family positively, without disclosing it.”

Spokespeople for the county Health Care Agency have yet to answer questions submitted nearly two weeks ago about whether Do had a role in the selections of his daughter’s group as a subcontractor, whether county ethics policies were followed, and how Warner Wellness has been performing.

Instead, a spokesperson for the agency responded that responsibility for overseeing Warner Wellness’ work under the subcontracts lies with the contractors, NAMI OC and the Orange County Asian and Pacific Islander Community Alliance (OCAPICA).

Is it legal to steer government contracts to your child? 

State law currently limits elected officials from approving contracts that benefit the official’s spouse — or child if they’re under 18 and can be claimed as a dependent.

But those conflict of interest rules do not apply when officials’ children are over 18.

Back in 2016, the Legislature had a lot of momentum to change that.

Then-Senator Tony Mendoza introduced a bill that year to expand the conflict definition to officials’ adult children, parents and siblings. Violations would result in “disqualification from ever holding any office in California in addition to prison time and/or a fine” of up to $1,000, he said in a news release at a time.

That ban would have applied only when officials were aware of a conflict.

It had major momentum — winning unanimous approval in the State Senate followed by unanimous yes votes by two Assembly committees. But it died before reaching a full Assembly vote, state records show.

The bill was inspired in part by a City of Industry audit that found more than $300 million in contracts with its former mayor’s family.

There’s a strong argument that conflict of interest laws should include officials’ adult children — as well as siblings and parents — said McMorris, the ethics advocate at Common Cause.

“I mean, you’re still blood relatives,” he said.

“The natural inclination of mothers and fathers is to want to assist their sons and daughters. So I’m not sure that exempting sons and daughters once they turn 18 years old necessarily passes the smell test when it comes to things like this.”

The NAMI OC subcontract

The NAMI OC subcontract with Do’s daughter’s group for $2.5 million — to provide Vietnamese language services for the WarmLine — was the larger of the two county-funded subcontracts with Warner Wellness.

NAMI OC is one of the best-known mental health organizations in Orange County.

Pitman, the NAMI chapter’s president, initially agreed to an interview through the group’s executive director but later provided written answers to questions from LAist instead.

Pitman wrote that it was the county that suggested expanding the WarmLine, and that county officials suggested Warner Wellness as a subcontractor for Vietnamese-language services.

Warner Wellness Center’s office in Huntington Beach on Nov. 8, 2023. It’s a few doors down from O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do’s private law office in the same building.

(

Nick Gerda

/

LAist

)

“We were provided a short list of community-driven, county-vetted organizations to provide NAMI OC WarmLine sub-contract services,” Pitman wrote.

“Warner Wellness is a natural partner choice because we have bilingual volunteers who previously helped with Vietnamese community outreach efforts for the WarmLine now connected to Warner Wellness. Those volunteers are well versed in NAMI OC WarmLine functions.”

He did not directly answer whether Do’s daughter has been paid under the county-funded subcontract or specifically how her group has been performing over the six months since the county funding was approved.

“NAMI OC works closely with Warner Wellness and [Spanish-services provider] Abrazar to ensure quality interactions to best serve the community,” Pitman wrote.

“We review and process payments for services laid out in the sub-contract agreement. Subcontractors must provide appropriate documentation to support invoices .”

The OCAPICA subcontract

On Nov. 29 of last year, Do was among the five supervisors who voted for a contract with Orange County Asian and Pacific Islander Community Alliance (OCAPICA), which included a $625,000 subcontract to Warner Wellness Center for mental health outreach. Warner Wellness was named in the county agenda documents as receiving the subcontract funding, though Do did not publicly disclose his immediate family relationship to the group.

OCAPICA, a well-respected group run by Foo, oversees 16 subcontractors to perform outreach to Asian communities under the county contract.

Do’s daughter’s group was one of two groups to receive the largest subcontracts given, for $625,000. Most of the other 16 subcontractors received $100,000 or less, according to the county’s summary of the OCAPICA contract, which was attached to the agenda for the supervisors’ vote.

Foo declined to say who recommended Do’s daughter’s group during county negotiations, saying she doesn’t want to get that person in trouble.

“In any subcontracting case, we do really strong monitoring to make sure they’re successful,” she said, speaking generally.

“And if there’s any issues, we would definitely do corrective actions and make sure that everyone’s doing what they’re supposed to be doing.”

A pay-to-play fine

Last year, Do paid a $12,000 fine for violating the state’s “pay-to-play” laws on government contracts and for failing to disclose his role in nonprofit fundraising by required deadlines. That fine is the largest conflict of interest fine statewide since 2019, according to online records of the Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces these laws.

The fine was based on two distinct issues.

One had to do with Do’s fundraising for the high-profile statue project at Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley. The project placed statues of President Ronald Reagan, Vietnamese General Trần Hưng Đạo and Spanish priest Miguel Hidalgo in 2015 and 2016.

Pham led construction work at the park for two of the statutes in 2015 and 2016, before founding Viet America Society in 2020 and creating Warner Wellness Center in 2021. His partner on the statue work was Le Dan Hua, who also later was a board officer at Viet America Society and Warner Wellness.

Do filed a required disclosure about his role requesting $40,000 in donations for the statues over two years late, after investigators contacted him, according to a report by state investigators.

During their probe, state investigators also determined that Do falsely told them — under penalty of perjury — that he never directly asked for donations into the nonprofit he was using to fund the statues.

“Do submitted false information to [FPPC] Enforcement under penalty of perjury — casting serious doubt on his credibility, such that any denials by him may be disbelieved, entirely,” the state enforcement agency wrote in a report last year.

State investigators found that the nonprofit that collected donations and paid for the statues — including Pham’s work — was being used as “a money holding company” controlled by Do and one of his top county aides.

Peter Pham was paid $20,800 for construction work at Do’s behest, according to a state investigation report. Pham was not accused of any wrongdoing.

The second type of violation cited in the fine was issued for votes he made as a county-appointed board member of the public health insurance plan CalOptima, to award lobbying contracts to two of his campaign donors.

“Do made, participated in making, and attempted to use his official position to influence governmental contracting decisions involving a participant who contributed to his campaign,” read the findings from the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

At the time, Do blamed agency staff for not notifying him about the potential conflicts of interest. But state investigators noted Do has extensive experience in law and government office.

Do is married to Cheri Pham, one of Orange County's highest ranking judges. Before being elected to the O.C. Board of Supervisors in a special election in 2015, Do served on the Garden Grove city council and worked as a prosecutor with the O.C. District Attorney’s office.

“In light of this background, it is fair to say that Do is a sophisticated public official who had ample reason to know and understand the requirements of the Act,” FPPC investigators wrote in their description of the fine.

As part of his $12,000 settlement, Do agreed that he violated the pay-to-play law and failed to file donation disclosures on time about his role in the statue fundraising.

He did not admit to making false statements, which were not part of the ultimate fine.

Mailings by Do prompted a change to state law

A few years before the $12,000 ethics fine, state law was changed in response to Do’s use of taxpayer money to send mailers from his supervisorial office during the 2016 re-election campaign.

Do sent out 1.2 million mailers to voters in his supervisorial district — many of which prominently showed his name and photo — shortly before Election Day. Do’s taxpayer-funded mass mailings helped prompt the state Legislature to ban county supervisors from sending out county-funded mailers featuring themselves within 60 days of elections where they’re on the ballot.

“There’s been some abuse by some elected officials who use public funds to mail what seems to be and look like political mailers,” Mendoza, the then-state senator who sponsored the bill, said when the new law was passed in 2017, citing Do in particular.

Response from O.C. supervisors

LAist called all five current county supervisors for this story, and spoke with the three who responded. Two said they weren’t aware of Do’s family connection to the subcontractor.

“This is the first I’m hearing about this,” said Supervisor Foley, who voted to fund both of the Warner Wellness subcontracts. She said she would be following up with her staff to look into it.

“That is news to me,” said Supervisor Sarmiento, who voted in favor of the WarmLine expansion that included the Warner Wellness subcontract after he joined the board this year. He said supervisors should disclose their family relationships with vendors, even if it’s not legally required.

O.C. Supervisor Don Wagner said he sees nothing wrong with what Do did, because there’s no legal requirement for officials to disclose or recuse themselves when their votes would financially benefit their adult children.

“I don’t find any fault with Supervisor Do’s conduct,” he told LAist. Wagner did not respond to questions from LAist about whether he knew about Do’s daughter’s involvement prior to his vote for the contracts.

Supervisor Doug Chaffee, who also voted for the contracts, didn’t return LAist’s requests for comment.

Do’s outside income

The outside of O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do’s law office in Huntington Beach, a few suites away from Warner Wellness Center and Viet America Society’s offices.

(

Nick Gerda / LAist

)

Among the county supervisors, Do is an outlier in how much money he’s received from undisclosed sources for outside work, according to an LAist review of public disclosures for recent years.

As a supervisor, Do made $231,000 last year in pay and benefits, according to public records posted by Transparent California. As one of five supervisors in a county of 3.1 million residents, he helps to oversee billions in government programs.

Starting in 2020, state-mandated disclosures show, Do began receiving outside income through a new law office he created.

On the disclosures for 2021 and 2022, Do selected a box on the forms stating that he received between $100,000 and $1 million per year in income for "law services.”

State law requires local elected officials to disclose all outside income sources of $500 or more per year, which would include specific clients if they pay the official directly. But if the official creates a company — like a law firm — that they control and receive money through, disclosure is only required for clients who paid $10,000 or more.

Do did not disclose in his filings where any of the money paid to his law office came from.

That’s in contrast to other elected officials. For example: When Michelle Steel was a county supervisor, each year she disclosed the names of dozens of clients who paid her husband’s law firm more than $10,000.

Do is the only O.C. supervisor making more than $100,000 per year in outside income who did not make more detailed disclosures about who was paying their company, according to LAist’s review of disclosures.

What’s next 

Orange County supervisors are currently in the midst of updating the county’s rules around contracting, including what kinds of conflicts of interest to ban. They’re scheduled to vote on the new contract policy manual on Tuesday, Nov. 28, at their regular Board of Supervisors meeting.

Right now, the county’s conflict of interest rules adhere to the state law definition of “immediate family,” which restricts officials from being involved in steering taxpayer money to their own children who are under 18.

It doesn’t apply when they’re adults.

Do was one of the two county supervisors who oversaw the drafting of the contract policy updates, as an ad-hoc committee member.

The proposed changes to the manual keep the current definition of “immediate family” in place.

Last year, Do ran unsuccessfully for statewide office, seeking to become California’s treasurer who oversees $3 trillion in annual banking transactions and manages over the state’s $100-billion-plus investment pool.

He later opened a campaign fundraising committee for the next state treasurer election, in 2026.

Immigration courts inside the Justice Department are drastically accelerating immigrants' hearings and bunching them together with the goal of issuing more deportation orders.

The new and unprecedented tactic was shared with NPR by immigration attorneys and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade association that tracks trends in these courts.

Immigrants are now being scheduled for massive master calendar hearings — or "mega masters" — that include 100 or more people at a time. That's up from two or three dozen people at a time, which had been typical before for a first hearing. For many immigrants, this is their first appearance in court to try to make their case to be able to stay in the U.S.

Attorneys say these new hearings largely target people without lawyers representing them. Those who show up late, or not at all, are receiving removal orders, further truncating the already-limited due process available to immigrants.

"The major concern is that [since] this is going to be a group of people without attorneys, that they're not going to have gotten proper notice," said Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, practicing policy counsel at AILA, adding that courts often lack enough seats for hearings with so many people at once. "So it's almost like they are being designed to increase" how many people get deportation orders automatically, she said.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency that runs the immigration courts at the DOJ, did not respond to a request for comment on this new strategy.

Lawyers said the practice had started in the Chicago, Boston and Chelmsford, Mass., courts and is soon to start in the Dallas Immigration Court.

The effort comes as President Donald Trump seeks to deport a million people a year — much higher than the 600,000 people the administration deported in 2025. Trump has also complained about the backlogs of millions of cases inside immigration courts, pointing to courts as an obstacle to rapid deportation.

No notice, overwhelmed courthouses

When someone does not appear for their scheduled hearing, even by mistake, the judge can issue an official removal order that allows immigration officers to detain and deport the person. That's been happening a lot more often under this Trump administration, an NPR analysis found last year, with fewer people showing up in court for fear of being detained.

Dojaquez-Torres and other immigration attorneys who spoke to NPR worry that immigrants, especially those without a lawyer, may not know that their hearing dates had been rescheduled for a sooner date, leaving them vulnerable to deportation.

She added that in some cases, little to no notice is being issued by the government by mail or electronically to immigrants or their lawyers, meaning those not regularly checking their online accounts could miss any changes.

These "mega masters" are made up of people whose original hearings were scheduled for 2027, 2028 or 2029.

"They're anticipating that the majority will not show up and they'll just be able to say that they completed X number of cases because they'll be in absentia orders of removal," said one Texas-based immigration attorney. The attorney spoke to NPR on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals for their ability to practice in Texas courts.

The attorney noted that if people do show up to the massive hearings, it could overwhelm court staff and judges and overcrowd courtrooms.

In some cases, attorneys said their clients may benefit from cases getting scheduled sooner, even if it increases pressure and creates sudden legal filing deadlines. However, most people in immigration court do not have a lawyer and are unlikely to see these benefits.

DOJ begins to staff up to take on cases

This is not the first time the agency has pushed to streamline cases under Trump's second term.

EOIR has also moved to quickly prioritize cases of people from specific nationalities, including Somalis, Syrians and Iranians. And, cases of juvenile immigrants are also being pushed up, their lawyers say.

The strategy of hosting mega masters comes as the DOJ announced its largest-ever class of new immigration judges. Last week, the agency onboarded 77 judges and five temporary military lawyers serving as judges. The agency has boasted hiring 153 immigration judges this fiscal year, the most in any year.

"The Trump administration is committed to reestablishing an immigration judge corps that is dedicated to restoring the rule to the law in our nation's immigration system," Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement.

The rapid hirings come after EOIR lost about a quarter of its immigration judges last year, with more than 100 of them fired. And even as more judges were hired last week, several more were fired the same day, including in courts in New York and California.

An NPR analysis last year found that judges with backgrounds in representing immigrant clients were more likely to be fired compared to those who only had prior experience working at the Department of Homeland Security.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Two of California’s largest courts are testing an AI tool that can draft orders and produce research memos.

Judges so far are using it primarily for civil cases, but documents obtained by CalMatters indicate the possibility of expanded applications in criminal cases, where people’s freedom and access to justice are on the line.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court began a pilot program in February to test a tool created by the company Learned Hand. Other courts may follow, according to Learned Hand founder and chief executive officer Shlomo Klapper.

Learned Hand uses a combination of language models from Anthropic, OpenAI and Google to act as an AI clerk for judges. The company says it tests for bias and accuracy, but it has not yet published results.

In Riverside County, which has a $10,000 agreement with the company to test the program, civil and probate attorneys are primarily using the tool to draft research memos that help judges reach their decisions. It’s typical for research attorneys to assist judges as they review cases.

Los Angeles County Superior Court has a roughly $314,000 contract that includes a roadmap to test the tool’s use in criminal, family and probate divisions. Officials would not describe in detail to CalMatters the criteria they’re using to evaluate whether use of the tool can safely expand to criminal and family courts, where the stakes are often much higher than in civil cases.

One judge who spoke to CalMatters on condition of anonymity due to judicial rules of conduct was alarmed when their colleagues at a recent luncheon said the technology could be used one day to evaluate appeals from people who believe their conviction or sentence was tainted by racial bias. California courts are handling a wave of those claims after lawmakers passed the Racial Justice Act in 2020.

“I think it is outrageous,” said the Los Angeles County Superior Court judge. “AI cannot and never will be able to replace human judgment in evaluating complex social dynamics. Ultimately, that will erode the public’s confidence in the competence and fairness of the judiciary.”

A majority of California's superior courts now have generative AI use policies, according to documents obtained by CalMatters via public records requests, which they were required to create by the state Judicial Council before using the technology. Roughly a dozen of the 51 courts that have responded to CalMatters’ requests said they are using AI-powered tools from LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, and Microsoft’s Copilot.

Use of AI in courts has been controversial because of the propensity of AI models to cite falsehoods and to produce sycophantic text. Models from major companies like Google and Anthropic can reduce critical thinking and brain activity, according to a 2025 MIT study.

Language model hallucinations have already made it into the judicial system. Researcher Damien Charlotin has documented hundreds of instances of litigants, lawyers, and judges making mistakes when using AI to do their jobs including nearly 90 cases in state or federal courts based in California since August 2024.

Last fall, a Los Angeles-based lawyer received a historic $10,000 fine for citing cases that don’t exist, and earlier this month the Sacramento Bee reported that use of AI led to errors in four cases handled by prosecutors in Nevada County. Most of these cases involve lawyers or people who are representing themselves in court, but UCLA Law School professors predict that more judges will make AI-fueled mistakes in the future. In recent months, the U.S. Senate investigated federal judges in Mississippi and New Jersey for drafting decisions with generative AI that had serious factual errors.

Klapper, who previously worked as a clerk for a federal appeals court and for surveillance technology company Palantir, said the judiciary needs AI in order to reduce backlogs and increase efficiency.

“Could we hire more people?” he told CalMatters. “Maybe, but it’s not going to keep pace with the exponential increase that’s coming, nor is it going to be able to adequately solve the crisis of today. I think the only solution is to give every single judge and staff attorney their own AI clerk.”

Klapper said he’s aiming to combine the best parts of what human judges can do with the best parts of what machines bring to bear.

“I’m not saying all machines aren’t biased,” he said. “I’m not saying my machine isn’t even biased. I’m saying we can test it and people have tested it. And that is the benefit over humans.”

Generative AI use policies for the Los Angeles and Riverside County superior courts only require disclosure if a motion, decision, or other document is written entirely with generative AI.

Both courts refused to say whether plaintiffs are aware that the tool is being tested on their cases. In a statement to CalMatters, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Superior Court said testing is done on motions that have already been decided, separate from live case environments. However, the contract allows for testing on live cases.

“It is important to note that even with successful evaluation and thorough testing, the Court remains several months, if not years, away from implementing this type of tool,” said the spokesperson.

The contract allows the tool to be used for two critical motions in the criminal division: A motion to suppress, which is designed to determine what type of evidence the prosecution is allowed to present at trial, and motions for post conviction relief, which are filed by people who have already been convicted and want another shot at freedom.

That’s the “greatest concern” for Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman. When he reviewed the contract, he referred to the motions as “two incredibly important motions in the criminal justice system.”

“When you’re dealing with someone’s liberty — as opposed to in the civil setting, which is everything other than liberty — the stakes couldn’t be higher,” said Hochman. “I don’t want to take the chance, particularly in a criminal case, that AI happens to get it wrong. And now someone’s constitutional rights have been infringed. Someone has gone to prison who shouldn’t have, or on the flip side, that somehow someone gets off.”

'An extremely perilous road'

In Los Angeles, some judges first heard about the new Learned Hand contract during a March presentation by Superior Court Judges Yvette Verastegui and Olivia Rosales. They lead the criminal branch and visit courthouses throughout the county as part of an annual roadshow, where they update judges on court operations, discuss workload and field questions. During a luncheon, Verastegui and Rosales said the tool could be used to assist with Racial Justice Act petitions in the future.

California’s Racial Justice Act allows people to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence that they believe was based upon racial bias. Petitions are filed directly to the court from people in state prison. If a case is found to have merit, the process includes appointing legal counsel, filing briefs and setting evidentiary hearings before a judge would decide whether to grant the petition.

That process could look different with a tool like Learned Hand. Verastegui and Rosales explained that, following an incarcerated person’s petition, the tool could generate tentative decisions for judges to consider in denying or advancing cases to the next stages, according to one judge who attended the luncheon.

“The concern, of course, that I have is that the courts will utilize that as a reference point and then get stuck to that initial analysis,” said the judge. “It’s an extremely perilous road to go down. Putting aside the inaccuracy, which will be a significant concern, it dehumanizes the whole process. It does not treat people as individuals with lived experiences. It essentially reimposes a one-size-fits-all style of justice.”

A second Los Angeles Superior Court judge who spoke with CalMatters on the condition of anonymity remembered the presentation and said they would not trust nor use the tool to summarize a Racial Justice Act petition.

AI can replicate or intensify patterns contained in the data used to make a model, including human biases. Large language models have a history of demonstrating race and gender bias, an analysis of predictive policing tech used by LAPD found racial bias, and an analysis of the risk assessment algorithm COMPAS found that it is more likely to label Black people as at risk of committing crimes after incarceration than white people with a similar record.

Public defenders who spoke with CalMatters echoed those concerns.

Elizabeth Lashley-Haynes, a deputy public defender at the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, said it would be “highly problematic and bordering on unethical” for a judge to use the tool to review Racial Justice Act petitions, which she described as “incredibly nuanced.”

“They’re like nothing else in the legal system that has ever really been done,” said Lashley-Haynes, who specializes in Racial Justice Act cases. “Words that are used in these cases that have racial undertones or racial meanings are way beyond the realm of anything that artificial intelligence could do.”

In interviews with CalMatters, Klapper and Los Angeles County Superior Court Executive Officer, David Slayton, denied that the court has any plans to use the tool for Racial Justice Act petitions. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles Superior Court later confirmed in an email to CalMatters that the contract permits the tool to be used in such a way “but that possibility has not commenced in any way.”

Klapper said if they were to build out a Racial Justice Act module, the tool would need to be evaluated for bias and co-developed with the court.

“The timing very fortuitous, right?” he said. “It’s a very fraught decision, I’m not going to lie…extremely high stakes — a scenario where I understand people might be very concerned. Especially with criminal, I have even more hesitancy, even more guardrails than normal about, because there are liberty interests at stake.”

Extending beyond civil cases

In Los Angeles, six superior court judges and their research attorneys are primarily using the Learned Hand tool to conduct research, summarize motions and assist in drafting tentative rulings, according to Slayton. He says the tool won’t move beyond the civil division “until the court leadership is comfortable.”

“The court is being very deliberate and careful about how we use technology like this,” he said. “So until we evaluate it and determine that it is effective in those areas, we will not extend it to other areas.”

Los Angeles County Superior Court's Hollywood Courthouse, in Los Angeles, on March 12, 2025. Photo by Jules Hotz for CalMatters The tool will be evaluated on a quarterly basis to determine its future application, Slayton said, but he did not specify what kind of evaluation that entails. In an email to CalMatters, a spokesperson later said that Learned Hand is evaluated “against the same substantive expectations applied to law clerks and research attorneys: accurate legal research, sound analysis, neutral and judge-ready writing, and reliable work product that supports judicial decision-making.”

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Samantha Jessner, who chairs the Judicial Technology Advisory Committee, said she was unaware of the possibility that the tool could eventually be used outside of the civil division until recently. Judges are not privy to contract negotiations due to certain ethical limitations, she said.

“I think we have a duty and obligation to explore whether or not there is a place for artificial intelligence in what we do as a judicial branch and that’s exactly what this pilot is intended to afford us the opportunity to do,” said Jessner.

Riverside County Superior Court signed an agreement with Learned Hand in February. In emails obtained by CalMatters, Klapper proposed to two Riverside County Superior Court executives, Jason Galkin and Sarah Hodgson, that the court use the tool for a common civil court motion and “then expand quickly once we earn our stripes.” He suggested that Hodgson assemble a list of motions and workflows “that generate the most pain,” citing examples that included the Racial Justice Act.

Roughly two weeks later, Hodgson described the most laborious motions “that want to drive us into retirement,” including discovery motions and attorney fee motions. For criminal cases, the court suggested that Klapper focus on “things with the largest paper records,” citing death penalty habeas petitions and parole revocation.

Since the pilot started, seven civil and probate attorneys have been granted access to the tool. Galkin, the chief executive officer of the Riverside County Superior Court, said they are “kicking the tires on the product” to see what tasks it can do. The tool is not being used to draft tentative rulings, he said.

“We don’t even know if expansion is likely so there is no set criteria for what expansion might look like or thresholds for that because right now, the core question is: Does this help staff and does it advance what they’re trying to do in their roles?” said Galkin.

As testing is underway, attorneys like Hochman say that use of AI is inevitable, but would be better suited for low-level, repetitive and routine tasks.

“It’s the analysis of the case itself, coupled with the conclusions that will be reached, that I’m very hesitant to trust AI at this point — in large part, because I don’t know all of the inputs that AI is using to make its decision. The only thing I’m 100% sure of is that AI didn’t go to law school,” said Hochman.

Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

California’s Board of Equalization is a coveted spot once again for state lawmakers looking for a new gig almost a decade after then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law gutting the organization of any serious governing responsibility.

This year, three current state lawmakers are competing for seats on the nation’s only elected tax board. They’re among some two dozen candidates on the ballot for its four elected positions, which are divided by geographic districts.

The board has long been a launching pad to higher offices in California politics — Fiona Ma served on it before becoming state treasurer, as did Betty Yee and Malia Cohen before each being elected state controller.

The agency itself is a throwback to the 19th Century. It’s rooted in an 1879 constitutional amendment that created it and charged it with “equalizing” county property tax assessments statewide.

From that narrow mandate, it swelled to become a juggernaut that collected a third of the state’s tax revenue and provided a venue for people and businesses to contest their tax bills in front of the elected board. It survived numerous efforts by governors to kill it outright, including attempts by Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That is until 2017, when a cascade of allegations about board members misusing the office to promote themselves led to an authoritative state audit that lawmakers could not ignore.

Brown signed a law stripping the agency of any powers beyond what voters gave it in 1879 and created two new departments that report to the governor instead of the elected board: one to collect sales and use taxes and another to hear taxpayer appeals.

After that, Board of Equalization elections tended to be lower profile contests. Ted Gaines, a former Republican state lawmaker from the Sacramento area, won a seat. Former Democratic Assemblymember Sally Lieber is up for reelection on the board this year. The other members had experience in local politics instead of inside the Capitol.

“We’re lean but we’re not mean,” said Lieber, the incumbent for District 2, which includes 19 counties centered on the Bay Area. “I think the Board of Equalization is the right size in the system right now…I do really believe that the board has a role to play in being a forum for taxpayers to come forward to.”

This year voters will see more contentious elections for the tax board:

• In District 1 representing inland California, Republican state Sen. Shannon Grove of Bakersfield has more than $900,000 in a campaign account and name recognition from her representing the San Joaquin Valley in the Legislature since 2010. Democrats are putting up a fight for the district. Fresno City Councilmember Nelson Esparza is running with the party’s support.
• In District 2 representing coastal California north of Los Angeles, incumbent Lieber faces San Mateo Community College District Trustee John Pimentel. Lieber has the Democratic Party’s endorsement, but a number of Bay Area Democratic leaders are backing Pimentel, including state Treasurer Ma and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan.
• In District 3 representing the Los Angeles area, former Monterey Park City Councilmember Yvonne Yiu put up $760,000 of her own money and has about $1 million on hand. The race has another heavyweight in Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Democrat from Gardena who has served in the Legislature since 2014. 
• District 4 representing the San Diego area has an especially crowded race with Democratic state Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana, San Ysidro school board member Martín Arias, San Diego Unified School District board member Cody Peterson, and Denis Bilodeau, a Republican supported by San Diego Assemblymember Carl DeMaio’s Reform California organization.

A forum for California taxpayers

The board was always popular among taxpayer advocacy groups, who liked that it provided a forum to focus on tax issues in a capital where debates often center on labor and business.

“It’s a very useful elected body that answers to the voters,” said Susan Shelley, vice president of communications for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Some of this year’s candidates are thinking of ways to make the most of the agency.

Arias believes the board could do more to assist homeowners and potential homeowners. As a taxpayer advocate in the San Diego County Assessor’s Office, he says he works with the Board of Equalization every day and has a front seat to how the system works.

“I think there’s a bigger opportunity here to make the Board of Equalization the constitutional office that it is — that it should be,” he said. “There’s a clear opportunity here for us to start advocating at the state level for all of our taxpayers, including those that don’t speak English.”

Umberg said he’d like the board to have more investigative power and resources. Citing instances in which San Bernardino and Los Angeles assessors have been arrested on felony charges, he said he’s most interested in the board’s oversight of property tax assessors.

“Although it’s not a high-profile job, it’s a critically important job, especially when we’ve got so many revenue challenges in California,” Umberg said in an interview with CalMatters.

Questioning BOE’s relevance

Advocating for the board’s expansion has drawn criticism from former board members and employees. Yee, a board member from 2004 to 2014, has been vocal about abolishing the board entirely because she believes that its limited responsibilities could be easily transferred to another department or agency.

“I just really do question how this board continues to have relevance,” she told CalMatters. “I sometimes feel like the board is really doing a lot of work in search of finding problems to solve. …I know with each of the board members, they feel very strongly about being a taxpayer advocate. But frankly, every public official should be a taxpayer advocate. ”

Democrats stopped short of killing the agency entirely because they would have had to put that question to voters.

“They should have just chopped the head of the snake off and done away with the Board of Equalization altogether,” said Mark DeSio, a former communications director for the board. “They didn’t do that. They left enough of the cancer to grow back.”

He cooperated with the audit that revealed misspending at the agency that appeared intended to promote its elected members as well as another that showed widespread nepotism in its hiring practices. He then lost his job in the reorganization and filed a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against the state.

DeSio believes lawmakers want seats on the Board of Equalization because it allows them to maintain a high profile until they can run for office again.

“That was the recipe for disaster a few years back,” he said. “Somebody better watch these guys. They’re not there for the policy. It’s for the exposure.”

Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.