State Bar President’s Governance Reform Proposal Draws Fire
Monday, February 14th 2011
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A proposal by State Bar President William N. Hebert to change the way members of the Board of Governors is selected has drawn sharp criticism from local attorneys.
Los Angeles Deputy Public Defender Luis J. Rodriguez, who last year was elected to a three-year term on the board to represent Los Angeles County, said Friday that he had not yet decided whether he supported Herbert’s proposal that potential governors be appointed by the California Supreme Court, but he objected to the manner in which it was made.
He explained that members of the State Bar Governance Task Force—a 10-member panel which was created pursuant to a provision in last year’s dues bill—have been meeting since September and engaging in “free-flowing” discussion as to “what changes should or should not be made,” so he was “completely shocked” to be presented last Tuesday with Hebert’s detailed, 50-page proposal.
“I was disappointed because my understanding throughout the whole process was we were going to work together in an open forum and discuss ideas,” but the proposal “gave me the impression that minds have been made up,” Rodriguez said. He called it “frustrating” and “disconcerting” that Hebert “has obviously made up his mind” before the proposal has been “truly vetted out.”
_______________________________________________________________
Wouldn’t this be a swell proposal. The Judicial Council first proposes a rule of the court to strip state constitutional officers of the ability to manage their courts for a bunch of highly paid ‘court executive officer’ lackeys that are accountable to no one but the AOC.
Then the Bar President comes up with a brilliant strategy to permit the Supreme Court to appoint the board of governors to CalBar – apparently like it’s already a done deal. The state bar has suffered enough from poor governance and plain bad management, and someone is proposing that the Supreme Court appoint people to the Board of Governors?
This is a subset of the same people that created that giant sucking sound in San Francisco. It appears that the Judicial Council/AOC has figured it has not rolled up the sidewalks completely in a manner that would permit them to continue to operate unquestioned and that these latest two proposals are to ensure the sidewalks of redress are all rolled up and unavailable to attorneys, judges, justices or the common citizen. I would hope that others oppose this idea as much as I do.
Judicial Council Watcher 
JusticeCalifornia
February 14, 2011
Well JCW, what we are seeing is top leadership’s intense desire to handpick people who will do their bidding– Court Executive Officers, bar members, members who sit on the CJP, members who sit on their Judicial Council “committees”, judges who review CCP 170.1’s— and now state bar leadership. And this — rounding up top bar members to defend judges and support the judicial agenda, was one of Big Ron’s favorite projects.
So now I am going to show the public how this particular “bench/bar” project works in real life, and what is in it for lawyers who tow the party line for bench members. We aren’t just talking plum “assignments”, we are talking judges picking new judges– we are talking you support the bench, you get a job on the bench. Screw the voters, judges will pick judges (BTW, this is already going on with the assigned judges program. Retired judges approved by the CJ are getting “temporary” bench assignments that last YEARS– and that provide these retired judges with their hefty retirement packages, a bench assignment AND a hefty judge’s salary.)
I am going to be posting, in parts, my JusticeCalifornia bulletin sent to certain members of the legislature in March of 2009 (JCW, this bulletin has links so the legislators could easily navigate what was being said. Sorry. I will wait until one segment clears, before another is posted). One takeaway from this is related to the concern that certain lawyers JusticeCalifornia may like have been sucked onto the Highway to Hell bullet train, and their names therefore will find their way onto blogs like these. (R and R, you sleep with dogs, you get fleas. . .)
So here is how it is done. . . .
JusticeCalifornia
February 14, 2011
[Part One of JusticeCalifornia Bulletin number 3]
For Immediate Release: March 24, 2009
California Judges Reward Political/Financial Cronies
With Judicial Appointments
Judge Accused of Cronyism Appointed to CA Commission for Impartial Courts
This bulletin is being delivered to all members of the California Legislature who occupy a leadership position or sit on a legislative committee that will or may consider bills during this legislative session addressing serious problems in California’s courts.
This is the third in a series of bulletins about problems in our State and local (Marin County) judiciary. This four-page bulletin is about the danger of allowing local judges to appoint lawyers who are political and/or financial supporters of the local bench to serve as Court Commissioners. These lawyers-turned-commissioners are then allowed to act as de facto judges with immense judicial powers. This bulletin closely follows JusticeCalifornia Bulletin #2, because both bulletins address the appearance of impropriety created by the judiciary’s use of lawyers to defend judges and further judicial interests. We invite our local Assemblymember Jared Huffman to a) investigate, and b) confirm or deny, the facts supporting our claims about the State and/or Marin Judiciary. We extend this invitation to other lawmakers, the Judicial Council and members of the judiciary involved in the claims.
JC 2009 JUDICIAL CLAIM # 3
JusticeCalifornia Claim: The Marin County Judiciary has rewarded judicial defenders/financial supporters with appointment as Court Commissioners. The Marin Court then gives these Commissioners the power to perform virtually all of the duties of a Judge in cases to which they are assigned. In this manner, Judges are selecting Judges. This circumvents the California Constitution and compromises the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Supporting Facts: Under Article VI, Section 16, of the California Constitution, Judges are required either to be elected or appointed by the Governor. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_6. Section 21 of Article VI provides that litigants may stipulate to have their matter heard by a Temporary Judge who is a member of the State Bar, and Section 22 of Article VI provides that “The Legislature may provide for the appointment by trial courts of record of officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate judicial duties.” The Legislature did provide for the appointment of Court Commissioners, by enacting California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 259.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=259
In theory, under CCP Section 259, Court Commissioners have limited powers and make findings that are reviewed by a Judge. In practice in Marin County, lawyers who are selected by the Marin Court to serve as Court Commissioners are often assigned complicated cases upon which they are allowed to rule, without oversight or approval by any Judge. As such, they wield enormous power over the lives of those who appear before them.
The Marin Family Court has long been criticized for corruption and cronyism, see http://www.sfweekly.com/2000-10-18/news/odor-odor-in-the-court .
In late 2005, Beverly Wood and Roy Chernus were chosen by the Marin bench from a field of approximately 60 applicants for employment as Marin Court Commissioners.
At that time, Judge Lynn Duryee was the Presiding Judge of the Marin Superior Court and Family Law Division.
JusticeCalifornia
February 14, 2011
[Part Two of JusticeCalifornia Bulletin number 3–For Immediate Release: March 24, 2009–“California Judges Reward Political/Financial Cronies With Judicial Appointments–Judge Accused of Cronyism Appointed to CA Commission for Impartial Courts”]
“A. Beverly Wood
Beverly Wood is Judge Lynn Duryee’s friend and their respective husbands work together. Judge Duryee is married to civil litigator Neil Moran, who is a partner at “Freitas, McCarthy, MacMahon and Keating,” a firm in Marin County that practices in almost every major area of law ( http://www.lawyers.com/California/San-Rafael/Freitas,-McCarthy,-MacMahon-and-Keating,-LLP-256312-f.html ). Beverly Wood is married to Peter Kleinbrodt, who is one of Mr. Moran’s law partners at the Freitas MacCarthy law firm. Mr. Moran served as Campaign Treasurer for the re-election efforts of Marin bench officers Judge John Sutro, Judge Michael Dufficy and Judge Verna Adams, and all campaign disclosure documents for the re-election committee for the three judges list the Freitas McCarthy law firm address as the campaign address. The Freitas McCarthy law firm was the top donor to the 2004 Dufficy and 2006 Sutro campaigns. The “representative clients” of Freitas McCarthy currently listed on the Lawyers.com website include the County of Marin, City of San Rafael, Marin Municipal Water District; Town of Tiburon; City of Belvedere; and Tamalpais Union High School District.
In her November 9, 2005 Statement of Economic Interests on file at the Marin Civic Center, Beverly Wood reported an interest of $10,000-$100,000 in the Freitas McCarthy law firm. She also reported that she worked as an attorney at the Freitas McCarthy law firm just prior to her employment as a Marin Court Commissioner. According to her February 2009 Statement of Economic Interests, Beverly Wood’s interest in Freitas McCarthy has grown to $100,000-$1,000,000.
Judge Duryee also reports an interest of $100,000-$1,000,000 in the Freitas McCarthy law firm in her 2009 Statement of Economic Interests.
[Interesting Note: Marin lawyer Ali Quam was recently selected for employment in 2009 as a Marin Family Court Facilitator. Prior to her selection, she worked as a family law attorney at Freitas McCarthy.)
After Wood’s selection as Marin Court Commissioner, Judge Duryee served as the sole Marin Family Court judge, and her friend Beverly Wood served with her as the Family Court Commissioner. Commissioner Wood was, and continues to be, routinely assigned full responsibility for performing all judicial duties in complicated family law cases. When litigants arrive in her courtroom for the first time, her clerk hands them a piece of paper they are instructed to sign – without oral explanation by Commissioner Wood– which purports to allow Wood to hear and decide their cases. This is a particular problem for “pro per” litigants representing themselves, since they do not understand the difference between a Commissioner and a Judge.
B. Roy Chernus
Roy Chernus is the husband of Renee Chernus, a Marin family law attorney and former co-chair of the Family Law Section of the Marin County Bar Association (“MCBA”). Roy’s selection as a Court Commissioner immediately followed an unusual and very public solicitation of support for Judge Lynn Duryee by his wife Renee. This solicitation took place on September 29, 2005, on the day that the Marin Independent Journal published an article called “Family Court Targeted.” The article covered a rally that had taken place at the courthouse and began as follows:
“Family law court critics are again targeting the Marin Superior Court, renewing allegations of favoritism and cronyism that erupted five years ago. About 20 people -who said they were advocates for parents whose children have been taken away from them and forced to live with abusive former spouses- rallied in front of the Marin County courthouse in San Rafael yesterday.”
The article included comments about a high-profile child custody case in which Renee Chernus was a lawyer for the father and Judge Duryee was the judge.
Renee Chernus responded to the newspaper article by sending a mass e-mail to hundreds of members of the Marin bar, and staff and members of the Marin bench (including Judge Duryee) allegedly seeking support for “an independent judiciary.” Ms. Chernus did not reveal in her mass e-mail that her husband Roy had an application to be appointed as a Court Commissioner pending before the Marin judiciary at that time. Renee Chernus’ efforts to support Judge Duryee and an “independent judiciary” resulted in the immediate creation and dissemination of a September 30, 2005 letter to the Marin Independent Journal by the 2005 MCBA President Len Rifkind. The letter defended Judge Duryee and the Marin bench, and according to the letter, the information in it was “accurate and unbiased.” Mr. Rifkind later admitted that the information in the MCBA letter was actually based only on a five-minute conversation between himself and Renee Chernus –who was one of the lawyers for the father in the case addressed in this letter that was pending before Judge Duryee . The MCBA letter sent out in Judge Duryee’s defense was apparently e-mailed by Mr. Rifkind to Roy Chernus, and it was copied to Renee Chernus, who then sent the letter out via another mass e-mail to members of the MCBA and staff and members of the Marin Bench. A few weeks later, Mr. Chernus was appointed as Court Commissioner. “
JusticeCalifornia
February 14, 2011
[Part Three of JusticeCalifornia Bulletin number 3–For Immediate Release: March 24, 2009–“California Judges Reward Political/Financial Cronies With Judicial Appointments–Judge Accused of Cronyism Appointed to CA Commission for Impartial Courts”]
“Thereafter, Judge Lynn Duryee was selected by the California Judicial Council to serve on the Commission for Impartial Courts. (See: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/CCR_07Fall-08Winter.pdf, page 12, for an explanation of the Commission’s work.) She currently serves on the Commission’s Task Force on Public Information and Education. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/documents/cic_roster_pieTaskForce.pdf.
The focus of that particular task force is explained on the California Courts website http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/commimpart_tf-pie.htm:
“As the task force develops public information and education strategies, it should focus on ways to prevent or respond to unfair criticism, personal attacks on judges, institutional attacks on the judiciary, inappropriate judicial campaign conduct, or other challenges to judicial impartiality arising from unpopular judicial decisions. In forming strategies, the task force should consider all available avenues to develop and strengthen partnerships with other organizations, such as state and local bar associations, educational institutions, and the California Judges Association, which has a program for responding to criticism of judges. (Bold emphasis added.)
The Judicial Council and Chief Justice Ron George had been notified of most of the facts stated in this bulletin, and about many other problems in the Marin Court, before Judge Duryee was selected to sit on the Commission for Impartial Courts by the Judicial Council. [*Note: In referring to the Judicial Council, JusticeCalifornia acknowledges that not all individual members of the Council are given access to all facts and information provided to the Judicial Council as a whole.]
ASSEMBLYMEMBER JARED HUFFMAN: Please confirm or deny these “supporting facts” as they relate to your District.
‘The law commands allegiance only if it commands respect.
It commands respect only if the public thinks the judges are neutral.’ —Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ”
[the end of JusticeCalifornia Bulletin #3]
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 14, 2011
As a citizen and a taxpayer I find this piece particularly alarming, mostly because I’m observing it being played out in a rather sinister way. Rather than earn the public’s respect and to deflect criticisms with good governance, being transparent and holding people accountable it appears that the commission on impartial courts is advocating a broad expansion of the ‘black robe of silence’ to silence critics.
___________________________________________________________
“As the task force develops public information and education strategies, it should focus on ways to prevent or respond to unfair criticism, personal attacks on judges, institutional attacks on the judiciary, inappropriate judicial campaign conduct, or other challenges to judicial impartiality arising from unpopular judicial decisions. In forming strategies, the task force should consider all available avenues to develop and strengthen partnerships with other organizations, such as state and local bar associations, educational institutions, and the California Judges Association, which has a program for responding to criticism of judges.”
JusticeCalifornia
February 14, 2011
You are correct. And Judge Duryee was hand-picked for the “Commission on Impartial Courts” by the Judicial Council to teach others how to do it.
Judge Duryee was ranked at the very bottom of the a 2004 judicial poll commissioned by the Marin Women Lawyers Association. Judge Duryee received the most votes for exhibiting “extreme bias” in favor of personal or political colleagues or friends. Judge Duryee’s negative ratings with respect to the categories of “Does not prejudge issues or cases”; “Makes fair and objective rulings”; “conducts trials fairly” were almost equally as dismal.
SF Whistle
February 14, 2011
This is really shocking stuff—-particularly in light of the FACT that the CJP is such a total joke—
Something tells me that any “criticism” is “unfair criticism”…
We need to take a lesson from this—Judges are organized and already have an orchestrated response to any —any opposition—-creating systems prepared to put down any “criticism”….intent upon maintaining their reign of terror
There is little or no organization—or attempts to organize among those being brutalized by bullies and criminals wearing robes in court—
JusticeCalifornia
February 14, 2011
JusticeCalifornia note: Many believe that between them, Lynn Duryee, Verna Adams and Beverly Wood handed down some of the most cruel, destructive, politically-motivated child custody decisions of those made in long and troubled history of the Marin family courts. The Marin family court mediation files related to their assigned custody cases were part of the mass document destruction that took place WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE AOC commencing September 2009, in the 8-month period of time that the Marin court (Verna Adams, Court Executive Officer/Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner, Family Court Services supervisor Leo Terbieten) and the AOC were blocking the state auditor’s access to Marin Family Court information.
In fairness to Roy Chernus, he is well-liked by many, and ran unopposed to become a Marin court judge.
JusticeCalifornia
February 14, 2011
I would like you all out there to understand the actual and potential horrific personal cost to the public– including children– of Ron George’s pet “bench/bar” project of having top bar officials defend the branch on demand.
Above, JusticeCalifornia recounted this story:
“Roy’s selection as a Court Commissioner immediately followed an unusual and very public solicitation of support for Judge Lynn Duryee by his wife Renee. This solicitation took place on September 29, 2005, on the day that the Marin Independent Journal published an article called “Family Court Targeted.” The article covered a rally that had taken place at the courthouse and began as follows:
“Family law court critics are again targeting the Marin Superior Court, renewing allegations of favoritism and cronyism that erupted five years ago. About 20 people -who said they were advocates for parents whose children have been taken away from them and forced to live with abusive former spouses- rallied in front of the Marin County courthouse in San Rafael yesterday.”
The article included comments about a high-profile child custody case in which Renee Chernus was a lawyer for the father and Judge Duryee was the judge.”
“Renee Chernus’ efforts to support Judge Duryee and an “independent judiciary” resulted in the immediate creation and dissemination of a September 30, 2005 letter to the Marin Independent Journal by the 2005 MCBA President Len Rifkind. The letter defended Judge Duryee and the Marin bench, and according to the letter, the information in it was “accurate and unbiased.” Mr. Rifkind later admitted that the information in the MCBA letter was actually based only on a five-minute conversation between himself and Renee Chernus –who was one of the lawyers for the father in the case addressed in this letter that was pending before Judge Duryee .”
JusticeCalifornia would like you all to contrast that information ( about a hasty 2005 defense of a judge in a high-profile custody case involving concerns of neglect and sexual abuse) with an excerpt from an e-mail authored by former Marin County Bar Association President Matt White, a good friend of Judge Duryee’s, posted just now on this blog under the Marin JLAC/BSA audit thread.
“The Bar is not an investigative agency and doesn’t have the resources to investigate the complaints of disgruntled litigants and their lawyers. Really, if you have evidence of laws being broken, that’s way beyond what the bar could do. It’s exactly up the alley of the police and the DA. If you really have transcripts proving illegalities, I would think the DA would be very interested. If not, well, maybe there are other remedies, or maybe you should move on to other issues.”
In other, Mr. White is admitting that top bar members are NOT— let me repeat—NOT— equipped to act as surrogates speaking for allegedly wayward judges. They have NO ability to investigate or assess allegations made against judges in specific cases that may end up being covered by the press.
And when state bar members jump in (to defend judges) where angels fear to tread– they better consider the consequences– to themselves, and to the public– of what they do, when they are admittedly and patently unqualified to do it.
DyingTruth
February 16, 2011
The Bar is a Criminal Enterprise opperating RICO out the yinyang. They’re not even actively registered with the Secretary of State and haven’t been for God knows how long. Here’s the 2 registrations of it from the SOS website.
Entity Name: CALIFORNIA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
Entity Number: C0033212
Date Filed: 05/18/1901
Status: INACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Name: CALIFORNIA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
Entity Number: C0017482
Date Filed: 05/18/1901
Status: TERM EXPIRED
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
They’re the BIGGEST unlicensed LawFirm of Extortionists in the Country
JusticeCalifornia
July 20, 2013
http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_23652315/governor-elevates-marin-court-commissioner-judgeship
Woo hoo. This new judge is off to a blazing start. LOL.
daniel zamora
July 21, 2013
Do you know more about her? Let us know,