[X] Irene Lee

Thursday, March 19, 2026

Page 8

Irene Lee

Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 14

rene Lee had become a star player in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office where she worked for nearly 14 years. She skedaddled shortly after George Gascón—whose approach to prosecuting was unconventional if not outrageous—became district attorney in December 2020. Lee went over to the County Counsel’s Office.

Gascón lost his 2024 bid for reelection and Lee is now a special assistant to District Attorney Nathan Hochman, a high-level post.

In light of her intelligence, productivity, and temperament, she warrants election to the Los Angeles Superior Court.

n her last two annual performance evaluations before her departure from the D.A.’s Office, Lee was rated “Exceeded Expectations (Very Good).” Comments include these:

•“Ms. Lee demonstrated exceptional knowledge and skill in all areas of her duties. She handled multiple serious and complex cases, and utilized her knowledge to successfully prepare and present them for trial. Her extensive knowledge allowed her to provide multiple trainings to groups and organizations both inside and outside the District Attorney’s Office.”

• “Ms. Lee was an extremely productive deputy. At any given time she was preparing multiple serious domestic violence and physical child abuse cases. All of these cases were extensively prepared, including writing multiple memos, motions, and responses to motions. Even though she was constantly working on her assigned cases, she consistently volunteered for other work, such as filing duties or assisting her colleagues with court appearances.”

• “Ms. Lee’s dedication, trial skills, and the kind and respectful manner in which she always treated others made her a shining example for other Complex Litigation trial deputies to follow.”

• “Ms. Lee is a talented deputy who brought skill, experience and vast legal knowledge to her handling of cases. One of her greatest strengths was her ability to go above and beyond in her preparation, including developing creative methods to investigate her cases and present them for trial. During this assignment evaluation period, it is noteworthy that Ms. Lee was recognized for her extraordinary efforts.”

A judge remarks:

“DDA Irene Lee appeared before me on multiple occasions. She is competent and well learned on Criminal Law and Procedure. She is pleasant and did a good job in her hearings and trials before me.”

er opponent is Angie Christides, also a seasoned prosecutor. One judge terms her a “well-respected 20-year veteran of the DA’s Office.” Another judge comments: “Angie and I were in the DAs office together. I worked with her for about four years. She is hard working, diligent, ethical and fair. I believe she would make a fine judge because she has an exceptional temperament. She is also a yoga instructor which perhaps explains the calm demeanor.”

An upper echelon prosecutor says Christides is “motivated, energetic, and pleasant to be around,” carries herself “with confidence,” and seems to know what she’s doing.

In her last eight performance evaluations, she received the rating of “Exceeded Expectations (Very Good),” drawing accolades such as “dependable deputy” who “exhibited strong organizational and multi-tasking skills,” “evidenced adaptability” and displayed “loyalty to her colleagues.”

Her work product is said to be “always thorough, accurate, and well written.”

hristides does, however, have detractors. A long-term prosecutor alleges that she has a “reputation for dishonesty and unethical behavior.” That impression is founded primarily on incidents in 2017 and 2018 that are largely matters of public record. However, perceptions vary as to events surrounding a May 15, 2017 pretrial hearing before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Judith L. Meyer in a murder case.

The short version is that Christides contended that two Long Beach police detectives had concealed from her—and she consequently had not disclosed to the defense—that one of three witnesses to the slaying in question had been in custody, following an arrest on suspicion of robbery, at the time he identified defendant Daniel Delatorre as a slayer. That witness, she also revealed, made a photographic identification of Delatorre based on being shown a photograph only of him, rather than a “six pack”—that is, photos of six persons on a single sheet.

Another witness was allegedly guided by a detective into identifying Delatorre from a six-pack.

Meyer barred testimony by two of the witnesses; the prosecution declared it could not proceed; there was a dismissal. It later emerged that certain matters Christides said had been concealed by the detectives actually had come out at the preliminary hearing, at which Christides had represented the People.

A longer account appears in a column on the adjacent page.

andidates may file declarations of intent to run for more than one office but may only file nominating papers for a single post. Christides filed a declaration for Office No. 14 and Office No. 39. An administrative law judge filed declarations for five seats, including Office No. 14. In deciding to run for another office, he said on Feb. 25:

“Congrats to Mrs. Lee, who I think will be uncontested, as I assume Christides will ultimately be in 39.

An astute political observer on Feb. 11 commented that “DDA Irene Lee is in an ideal position to prevail as it is logical that DDA Angie Christides drop out of this race and run in Office 39.”

Why that assumption? Lee is highly regarded and a formidable candidate.

Seeking Office No. 39 was Los Angeles Deputy Public Defender Binh Dang who mustarded only 25.5% of the ballots in a March 5, 2024 contest for an Orange Superior Court seat in a two-person contest. He ballyhooed his close ties to Orange County and identified himself as a deputy public defender, impliedly representing himself as being a member of the Orange County Public Defender’s Office.

He is described by a knowledgeable person in the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office as an “average at best PD.”

As it turned out, Christides opted to run against Lee, leaving Dang unopposed. She has done a disservice to the court she seeks to join.

n March 6, at 5 p.m.—closing time for the county Registrar-Recorder’s Office—it appeared that Lee had won Office No. 14, without opposition. Nominating papers had not been filed by Christides for either Office No. 14 or Office No. 39.

As it turned out, the Registrar-Recorder’s Office accepted papers after 5 p.m. from persons who were already in line; an agent was there with Christides’s papers in hand; they were filed.

Can you imagine how Lee must have felt having seemingly won, then finding out an election battle will take place, after all?

She recounts: “When I learned that Ms. Christides was also in the race, my reaction was simply that the campaign process was continuing to unfold.” That’s gracious.

Christides says:

“I have been overseas working with one of the nonprofit organizations I support that focuses on empowering underprivileged youth. I just returned to town, which is…why my nomination papers were filed closer to the deadline…

“After careful thought and consultation, I ultimately decided to file for Seat 14. Both Mr. Dang and Ms. Lee are respected colleagues, and this was not an easy decision, as I have great regard for the people I work with. However, after thoughtful consideration of where my experience and background would best serve the bench, I determined that Seat 14 was the appropriate race for me to enter.”

Given that Christides’s personal presence was not required at the Registrar-Recorder’s Office—and, in fact, an agent filed the papers for her—her having been out of town until recently was an irrelevancy.

The nature of her initial assignment as a new judge would be the same whether she won Office 14 or Office 39. The presiding judge would hardly be apt to say, “Well, if Angie had won Office 39, I would have put her in criminal, but since she was elected to Office 14, I’ll send her to family law.” Her statement that she made her choice based on where her “experience and background would best serve the bench” is nonsensical.

We don’t know whether her delay in filing was a matter of indecisiveness or was a display of dramatics. Either way, it does not reflect well on Christides, and the explanation she provides reflects disingenuousness.

While Christides has definite strengths, the better choice for Office No. 14, in our view, is Lee.