CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS LAPD JURIST.

Byline: Janet Gilmore Daily News Staff Writer

William D. Keller, the federal court judge who will decide the fate of a consent decree arising from allegations of discrimination in the LAPD, is a controversial jurist who evokes strong feelings among attorneys who practice before him.

Supporters call him a hard-nosed fair man. Detractors call him a biased conservative.

Both agree he is unpredictable.

Which is why no one is quite sure of Keller's intent in pulling back a proposed consent decree that could shape the LAPD's hiring and promotions policies into the next century.

The decree would put into place new goals for hiring and promotion of female officers as well as require the LAPD to begin addressing the complaints of discrimination and sexual harassment in the department.

It would do this through an attitude survey of all officers and a plan to deal with problems as well as through the development of goals for hiring and promotions and conducting an aggressive outreach program.

Keller, 62, is a Los Angeles native who served as the central district's United States Attorney during the 1970s and worked in private law firms before Ronald Reagan appointed him to the bench in 1984.

``I don't think you should be able to predict what a judge is going to do,'' Keller said in a 1985 interview. ``I think the best that can be said for a judge is to follow the law and try to apply it to the facts.''

You never know exactly what Keller will do, some attorneys said, but you can expect that the results will not favor the downtrodden or those furthering civil rights claims.

``He's generally regarded as very hostile to civil rights,'' said defense attorney Stan Greenberg. ``I don't think he's very well respected because he's perceived to bring a lot of biases with him to the bench. He never really left the U.S. Attorney's Office. He just wears a robe now.''

Detractors have likened his courtroom to a wild ride at Disneyland or a mental ward in which the patient wears a black robe: They call him angry, arrogant, slow, a bully.

But others, like federal prosecutor Michael Emmick, said the judge takes a no-nonsense, hard-line approach to the law. He anticipates possible legal challenges that may arise on appeal and requires attorneys to respond to such matters at a moment's notice.

``He tries very hard to anticipate issues that may not have been before both parties,'' Emmick said. ``He tries very hard not only to not have bias but also not exhibit bias.''

Attorneys who think otherwise may be looking at the judge's past prosecutorial background and not his judicial record, Emmick said.

Defense attorney Janet Levine said she has had several significant cases before Keller and always found him fair, taking time to evaluate things impartially and not always following the government's recommendations.

But she's also heard the stories, the complaints, from lots of colleagues including ``people I respect.''

One defense attorney pointed out two cases in recent years in which Keller was reversed on appeal for apparent bias - one case involved an illegal immigrant defendant, and the other involved the judge's refusal to proceed with plans to replace one juror when he learned the replacement was a casually dressed, ponytail-sporting man who seemed to be a nonconformist.

Stephen Yagman, the civil rights attorney who frequently handles cases against LAPD, once proclaimed Keller ``one of the worst judges in the United States.''

The words drew Yagman a suspension from practicing in federal court but the matter was overturned on appeal. Yagman has apologized for the remark but remains no fan of Keller's rulings.

``My experience with him is he is an exceptionally reactive, results-oriented judge who is not receptive to notions of civil rights or democratic government.

``I can't think of another federal judge in Los Angeles who would be less receptive to signing a consent decree that mandates affirmative action than this judge.''

Other attorneys, noting Keller's reputation for unpredictability, would hazard no guess as to why the judge decided to step in and review a seemingly done deal.

``It's not unheard of,'' Greenberg said of the judge's action. ``I would not draw any adverse conclusions.''