Comments
EXCLUSIVE - Irene Lee is a dedicated public servant seeking to make that transition from Special Assistant to the Los Angeles District Attorney to Los Angeles County Judge.
A graduate of the University of California, San Diego where she earned her BA, Lee received her JD from the Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Lee joined the District Attorney's Office after serving as a Deputy County Counsel from 2021-2025 after previously with the DA's Office from 2008-2021, litigating 49 trials and over 900 preliminary hearings, she has the distinction of conducting a triple jury trial.
Recently endorsed by the Los Angeles Democratic Party, Lee has also secured the endorsement of 98 judges as well as the current DA Nathan Hochman and predecessors Jackie Lacey and Steve Cooley.
Proud of her Korean heritage, Lee is married with one daughter and is relying on a network of supporters to raise the campaign funding to remain politically competitive.
A member of the Korean American Bar Association, she is also a member of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles.
Grounded in strong family values that have transferred to her professional resume and record, Lee is promoting her long public service as a Deputy DA and her commitment that justice be served.
"That robe means a lot to people," noted the candidate.
Below is my interview with Lee on an array of questions regarding judicial character, personality and wisdom.
The election is scheduled for June 2nd and this is a non-partisan office.
How do you interpret and apply recent criminal justice reforms in California when making rulings?
I take the judicial canons seriously. They limit what I can say about specific outcomes or future rulings, and that is appropriate. But I can talk about how I approach the work and what informs my judgment.
Public safety comes first. But fairness still matters. If you’re doing the job right, you don’t have to choose between the two.
On bail, the direction is clear. These decisions should be based on risk to public safety while considering a defendant's ability to pay. That means looking closely at the facts, the safety of the victim, and the safety of the community.
When it comes to sentencing, every case is different. I take the time to look at the full picture and the law allows the courts to apply proportional sentences. The seriousness of the offense, the impact on the victim, and the person standing in front of the court all matter.
My background in dependency work shapes how I see this. I’ve worked with families dealing with trauma, instability, and displacement. Those experiences don’t disappear. They often show up later in the criminal system. You see it again and again.
I’ve also seen what real rehabilitation looks like. I’ve been part of lifer hearings where you see both the lasting harm and the effort someone has made to change. That stays with you. It’s a reminder that a judge’s job is to apply the law carefully, with a clear understanding of both accountability and the reality of people’s lives.
What is your position on cash bail, and how should judges weigh public safety against the risk of pretrial detention for low-income defendants?
To maintain the integrity of our legal system, the law is clear that bail must be calculated based on a defendant’s actual ability to pay, ensuring that the right to pretrial liberty is determined by a person's risk to the community rather than the size of their bank account.
So the question becomes simple. Is this person a danger? Are they likely to come back to court?
If someone is a real threat, they should be detained. But if they are not, we should not be putting people in a position where they lose their job or their housing just because they cannot afford bail. That does more harm than good.
When decisions are based on facts instead of finances, people trust the system more. That trust matters for a healthy justice system.
How should courts handle cases involving mental health and substance use disorders, and what role should diversion programs play in your courtroom?
I won’t speak to how I would rule in any specific case, but I can say this from experience. Accountability and rehabilitation have to work together in the right cases.
The law gives us tools for that. Mental health diversion, drug court, Veterans court exist for a reason.
I’ve handled cases where punishment alone would not fix the problem. One case involved a mother struggling with addiction whose child was found wandering near a freeway onramp. Of course there had to be accountability. But if the goal is to protect that child going forward, treatment and stability for the parent have to be part of the solution.
These types of situations are frequently before the courts. If you ignore the underlying issue, you are going to see that person again. The justice system has to weigh and consider each case carefully. Used the right way, diversion programs are not a break. They are a way to stop the cycle and make communities safer.
What practices would you support to reduce case backlogs and improve efficiency without compromising due process?
This is something people feel every day in the system. Delays are frustrating for all parties involved.
Part of the answer is using what we already have more effectively. Early disposition courts and specialty courts can move the right cases more quickly and free up trial courts for the matters that really need that time.
I’m also open to using technology in a careful way. Tools that help with research or drafting can be useful, but they are just that. Tools. The responsibility always stays with the judge.
At the end of the day, efficiency is not about rushing. It’s about being prepared, making decisions, and keeping cases moving in a way that is fair to everyone.
How do you view prosecutorial discretion, and what is a judge’s role in checking potential overcharging or inequitable plea deals?
Everyone has a role. Prosecutors make charging decisions. Judges make sure those decisions hold up.
A judge is not there to second-guess everything, but they are there as a check. That matters.
At a preliminary hearing, the court has to decide if there is enough evidence to move forward. With plea agreements, a judge has to review and approve them. If something does not line up with the facts or feels off, the judge has the authority to say no.
This isn’t theoretical. It happens in courtrooms every day. The goal is to make sure the outcome is grounded in the evidence and consistent with the law.
What is your approach to enforcing laws that disproportionately impact marginalized communities, such as quality-of-life offenses or minor infractions?
These cases are complicated because they often sit on top of bigger issues like homelessness, mental health, and poverty.
A judge still has to apply the law. That part does not change. But how you apply it matters.
If someone is in court for a low-level offense tied to a larger issue, the goal should be to resolve what is in front of you while also reducing the chance they come back through the system again.
That means using the options the law allows and focusing on outcomes that actually make sense in the real world. One-size-fits-all approaches don’t work.
How should judges incorporate victims’ rights while ensuring a fair trial for defendants?
Both matter. It’s that simple.
When people are truly heard and respected by the court, even if they disagree with the outcome, they have more confidence in the judicial system. Ensuring the rights of victims and the accused, in addition to instilling confidence in the courts are the fundamental values that will guide me as a bench officer.
(Nick Antonicello is a resident of Venice and is covering the numerous judicial races that will appear on the June 2nd Primary ballot. Have a take or a tip? Contact him via e-mail at [email protected])
