March 5, 2013
Dear Members and Friends,
We are delighted to report that the Alliance of California Judges Inaugural Judicial Education Conference, held on March 1-3 in Palo Alto, was a resounding success. We extend our thanks to the more than 100 jurists who attended the event, including appellate justices, presiding and assistant presiding judges, and sitting and retired judges from every part of California. An article about the event by Courthouse News reporter Maria Dinzeo is reprinted below. Many of the inspired comments from conference attendees and presenters are quoted there, including a call to action from Alliance President Judge Steve White.
Our dinner speaker Friday evening was Robert Glennon, the Morris K. Udall Professor of Law & Public Policy at the University of Arizona, who delivered an informative and sobering assessment of America’s looming water crisis. Saturday’s outstanding lectures, panels and presentations on environmental economics, mass tort litigation and scientific evidence were fascinating, even for those who seldom address those issues on the bench. Our keynote address on Saturday evening, which was delivered by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Carlos Bea, provided useful and timely guidance to trial court judges for creating what he called a “bulletproof” record for appellate court jurisprudence.
On Sunday we received inspired guidance on judicial ethics from Justice Tom Hollenhorst and Judges Julie Conger and Dodie Harmon, focusing on recent changes to the Canons of Judicial Ethics. This was followed by a riveting panel of attorneys who specialize in representing judges and justices before the Commission on Judicial Performance — Kathleen Ewins, Paul Meyer and Heather Rosing — who discussed the process of responding to a CJP investigation or staff inquiry. They highlighted recent developments at the CJP, including the replacement of long time commissioners Justice Judith McConnell and Judge Frederick Horn. Our conference concluded with Judge Mark Forcum and Dave Gilliard – a top judicial elections strategist – discussing the do’s and don’ts of judicial elections.
For the benefit of our members who could not attend, some of Sunday’s conference materials are attached. We urge you to review these insightful Powerpoint presentations that contain a wealth of information critical to all jurists. We hope to have additional materials and contact information for some of the presenters which we will distribute shortly. Please feel free to forward this email and the attachments to your colleagues.
We wish to extend our deepest gratitude to the George Mason University School of Law’s Judicial Education Program for hosting this remarkable event. We also wish to extend our heartfelt thanks to Dr. Henry Butler and his staff members, Karen Czarnecki and Jennifer Gregg, all of whom traveled across the country and worked tirelessly to ensure an excellent educational program. All of the written materials for Saturday’s conference can be accessed and downloaded through the George Mason website.
George Mason University School of Law and Dr. Butler have a reputation for delivering the finest judicial education in the nation. Their well-deserved reputations were burnished by the outstanding professors and lawyers who traveled from distant parts of the nation to share their knowledge and insight with us on Saturday.
Sincerely,
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Ethics Powerpoint for March 3, 2013
Judicial Elections Presentation
____________________________________________________
Alliance Judges Conference Ends With Call to Action on Governance
By MARIA DINZEO
PALO ALTO (CN) – A call to action closed the first conference of the Alliance of California Judges with a rousing speech by Judge Steve White on Sunday calling for greater democracy in governing the courts.
The conference, co-sponsored by the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University School of Law, included a well-attended ethics panel that focused on the practice of law’s devolution towards the barnyard, and on changes to the judicial canons of conduct that could be used to discipline trial judges who don’t take instruction suggested by the central bureaucrats of California’s judicial system.
“The design is at fault,” White inveighed at the close. “When you have a design that provides for no accountability except to one person, not to the other branches of government, the public or the judges that are the judiciary, it’s got to be changed.”
The Alliance has battled the Administrative Office of the Courts on a range of fronts, from the half-billion dollars spent on a defunct software system to the bureaucracy’s size, pay and efforts to influence policy.
“When you have a situation when the people who are responsible for the malfeasance, or just plain sloppiness of administration, and when the governance doesn’t repudiate it and doesn’t take strong steps to make sure it doesn’t occur,” said White, “it’s a strong indication that the governance structure has got to be changed.”
The current structure for governing the courts is that the chief justice appoints judges to the Judicial Council which then votes on policy issues.
White pressed for change in that structure either through a constitutional amendment that would allows judges to vote for council members or through legislation that would limit the council’s power to advising the chief justice and passing on court rules.
“We must lead the way to achieve one or the other,” he concluded. “This is a call to action.”
The Alliance counts roughly 400 members, but does not disclose the membership list. A hand count of those attending an ethics panel on Sunday came to more than 100 judges, an estimate was confirmed by conference organizers. Despite the heavy subject matter, the brightly-lit conference room at the Sheraton Hotel in Palo Alto was leavened with camaraderie and humor.
Sunday’s ethics panel was a hot ticket for the conference. According to judges involved in judicial politics, former chief justice Ron George would use ethics charges to punish judges who spoke against policies enforced by his administrative office.
George retired in 2010, and Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye took office in January 2011.
The ethics rules have now been changed by the California Supreme Court with the changes coming into effect at the beginning of the year. Violation of the rules, or canons, subject a judge to discipline before a judicial commission.One new canon says that judges should not make any comments, public or private, that could be construed as having formed a premature opinion on a pending case. “They’re going to fall back on this rationale that judges must be bound to accept more restrictions,” said retired Judge Julie Conger. “Don’t like more restrictions on your free speech? Fine, then don’t take the bench.” She presented the changes to the conference alongside Judge Dodie Harman of San Luis Obispo and Justice Tom Hollenhorst of the 4th District. Conger and Hollenhorst have been educating fellow judges on ethics for 30 years, and started the ethics committee for the California Judges Association. Conger warned that non-public comments “governs even comments made within the privacy of your own home,” to friends, family members or even spouses.”In the confines of your home with your best friend, we are now exposing ourselves if we make any kind of statement,” said Judge Robert Dukes of Los Angeles from the audience. “It would seem to me those provisions suffer a real potential constitutional weakness,” added Judge Andy Banks from Orange County. “I’d love to agree with you,” Conger said.
Another change adds the words “competently” to one of the judicial ethics canons, adopting the words, “A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.”This seemed even more troublesome to the judges, as the word competently may directly relate to mandatory judicial education courses through the California Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER). These courses used to be voluntary and taught by judges, but are now mostly directed by staff at the courts’ central bureaucracy, the group the Alliance has been trying to cut down to size.
“You now have to be not only impartial and diligent, you have to be competent. At first you may say that doesn’t seem to be a big deal, but the question is what is competence,” Harman said. “To me they are saying we can now discipline you if you do not participate in judicial education.”
The judicial practices commission cannot discipline judges based on legal error alone, more is required. Harman said she is concerned that the California Judicial Practices Commission will see a judge’s non-participation in education classes as additional grounds for investigation.”I have some real concerns about putting in this word competency and letting us know it’s about judicial education. I can see CJP using your lack of judicial education as the ‘more,'” said Harman. “I’m just concerned about how they’re proceeding at this point,” she said.
“I would hope that if you make a ruling different from what is taught in a CJER guide that the court of appeal would uphold you,” she added, “I still believe we’re here to rule on the laws, what the law says.”Another significant change to the canon demands that judges “take corrective action whenever a lawyer has committed misconduct or has violated the rules of professional misconduct.” Hollenhorst said that while judges should protect themselves by making an official record when they reprimand judges, the rule is not a bad idea. “The practice of law has gotten a little bit out of control with lawyers being indifferent to rules and professional conduct. It’s become basically like a barnyard,” he said. “As a young kid out of law school, we were always afraid of what the courts might say.”He added that one judge once described an attorney colleague as “a thug with a tire iron.” “You never wanted that said about you,” Hollenhorst said. “But things have slipped quite a bit in terms of how lawyers behave.” Hollenhorst joined in the alarm raised by Conger and Harman.
“In my 32 years in the business, I’ve seen a lot of changes in the way CJP operates. It was once a compliance agency. It’s a lot different today,” he said. “I know they are somewhat sensitive to criticism. California Judges Association has been criticizing them for a year. Maybe there’s been some loosening of the way they operate. But there’s just no doubt that they’ve become far more punitive. Everything is much worse than it’s been in the past, so you have to protect yourself.”
Wendy Darling
March 5, 2013
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 5, 2013
Published today, Tuesday, March 5, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner. As usual from Girdner, well worth the read:
End of the Line
By BILL GIRDNER
The speakers represented a full array of constituencies among California’s judges.
The head of the longstanding California Judges Association was opposed. Leaders of the newer Alliance of California Judges were opposed.
The head of the presiding judges committee, representing judges at the head of their courthouses throughout the 58 counties, was opposed. The head of a committee of judges that spent a year investigating the central bureaucracy of California’s courts was opposed.
They all took the same position. There were no little nuances. They spoke with one voice.
They said the highly paid employees at the Administrative Office of the Courts must show up for work at the office. The bureaucrats should work in the bureau.
So, with all that firepower, with that unified voice from leaders of groups that, taken together, represent pretty much every trial judge in the state, how far did they get. How persuasive were they in opposing the central office administrators who want to hang on to their telecommuting privilege, who wanted keep working from home one day a week.
The judges won not a single vote. Not one.
Every voting member of the Judicial Council, all of whom are appointed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, voted in favor of allowing the administrators to continue telecomuting.
Bureaucrats – 17, Judges – 0.
At an enrobing ceremony last month in San Diego, I talked with a trial lawyer and mentioned the telecommuting issue. He knew immediately what I was talking about.
“Yeah, I would like to work from Switzerland,” was his comment.
Telecommuting had been abused by the bureaucrats. It was pervasive, with 40% of one department telecommuting, and indeed, with one staff member working from Switzerland.
The revelation of how the privilege had been indulged was just one in a series of black eyes for Administrative Office of the Courts.
Just as the new chief justice was coming into office, the office staff gave themselves a retroactive 3-5% pay hike when court budgets were already under stress. They had also set up a taxpayer-supported 22% pension contribution with no employee match for the top bureaucrats, a scheme not allowed under federal law.
The top-loaded pension was stopped only under pressure from the Legislature.
More fundamentally, the bureaucracy’s effort to take over the fiscal and policy affairs of the trial courts had brought anger and opposition from a great number of trial judges. That pressure resulted in the year-long investigation by the judges’ Strategic Evaluation Committee that resulted in a long list of recommended reforms.
Lest there was any doubt that the reforms were supported by the state’s judges, a whopping 90 percent answering of California judges answering an online poll said they favored the reform committee’s proposals that included radically downsizing the central bureaucracy and taking away its role in setting policy.
At the Judicial Council last week, the head of that reform committee, Judge Charles Wachob, answered the administrators’ argument that telecommuting was necessary for employee retention, or, in translation, we might quit.
“Right now in this market,” said Wachob, “I think that the retention of employees is not difficult. I’m sure there are a lot of laid off trial court employees who would love to apply for jobs here.”
Another argument in favor of telecommuting came from a council member who said, “We can’t get involved in the day-to-day operation of AOC. The next argument would be, should AOC buy blue pens or black pens?”
Leading judges whose constituencies covered just about every judge in the state were lined up on one side making strong arguments. Administrators and their backers were lined up on the other side making weak arguments.
And in the end, it was no contest.
It was as though the judges were playing out of their league and never had a chance.
From the vantage point of time and distance, it looked to me like the reform train came to a halt right there in that meeting.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/05/55450.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 5, 2013
Oh I can’t wait! Get me a bucket!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/7554.htm
Chief Justice Speeches
Mar 11, 2013: State of the Judiciary Save the Date
Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye is scheduled to deliver the State of the Judiciary Address in Sacramento on Mar 11. The address will be broadcast on the California Channel. http://www.calchannel.com/
Lando
March 5, 2013
Thanks Wendy for posting Bill Girdner’s excellent analysis of the JC’s actions regarding the AOC telecommuting policy. The fact that the JC didn’t put an end to this leaves every one I know shaking their heads. It also undermines the JC’s claims that they were going to adopt the SEC’s recommendations. Pretty much everyone here knew that would never happen. One thing is for sure, I guess the guy telecommuting from Europe will either have to show up at 455 Golden Gate every day or log a lot of flying hours to get back to Switzerland every Friday . You can ‘t make this stuff up. Really.
Wendy Darling
March 5, 2013
You’re welcome, Lando. Girdner’s article puts into words what so many here at JCW already know . . . the more things “change” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, the more things just really stay the same.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 5, 2013
The Ministry of Truth is taking a survey…
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/R9RG5T6
unionman575
March 6, 2013
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=58b0f86a-e481-4581-b56b-0cdb0873b465
Los Angeles Superior Court faces dire budget cuts
• Wilson Elser
• Ian A. Stewart and Spencer Davidson
• USA
•
• March 4 2013
•
At a conference of Los Angeles attorneys on February 21, 2013, presiding Superior Court Judge Buckley announced various changes that may be implemented in the Los Angeles court system within the next several months. These changes will significantly impact the amount of time it takes to bring matters before the court, as well as the accessibility of the court system to litigants. The changes are in response to anticipated budget cuts totaling between $56 million and $85 million. Because the exact amount of the budget reduction is not yet known, the proposed plan set forth by Judge Buckley remains subject to change.
Details of the Proposed Plan
Under the proposed plan, ten courthouses in Los Angeles County will close, resulting in a greater number of cases at each remaining location. Court staff will also be significantly reduced. To best accommodate the higher caseloads, judges will be dedicated to particular types of civil cases. Certain courthouses will also be designated as “hubs” for certain case types to centralize matters into as few courtrooms as possible. For some types of cases, a master calendar system will be employed, under which cases are not assigned to a particular judge but instead heard at one of the designated hubs for pretrial motions and hearings, and then transferred to a trial-ready courtroom.
For unlimited civil matters (case value exceeds $25,000) that fall under the “personal injury” designation, including but not limited to product liability, medical malpractice, premises liability and wrongful death matters, numerous changes will take place. All future personal injury matters will be initially heard in one of three departments of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. Five judges will preside over these departments, cycling through on an as-yet unidentified schedule. It is anticipated that these five judges will handle approximately 20,000 cases.
When an unlimited personal injury case is filed, a trial date will be assigned within roughly 18 months of filing. It is anticipated that periodic case management conferences will no longer be held. To file a motion based on disputes occurring in discovery, an informal conference between the attorneys will first be required. Pretrial motions will be heard within one of the three departments, and when the case is ready for trial, it will be assigned to one of 31 trial courtrooms in Los Angeles. Ten of these trial courtrooms are located downtown, with the rest located in districts around the county. The location where the injury took place will not be considered in assigning the case to a trial courtroom, with the sole criteria being which location is prepared to accept the trial.
Certain cases will be exempted from these altered rules and will continue to be heard in front of a particular judge for all purposes. This includes cases that the court determines are “complicated” due to (1) the type of injury, (2) the length of trial, (3) the number of parties, (4) the number of documents and witnesses involved, (4) the number of hearings and motions necessary or (5) the complexity of the legal issues. These cases will be heard under the traditional system in the courthouse serving the area where the injury or loss occurred.
The proposed changes are similar for limited civil matters (case value is less than $25,000), which will be consolidated in only one department within Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Only two judges will be responsible for hearing all limited cases. These cases will be transferred to a trial-ready courtroom without regard for the location where the injury occurred.
The court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution programs will be closed, with no referrals accepted after March 1, 2013. Only the Civil Settlement Courts will remain open.
Transition to the Proposed Plan
The changes described above are set to begin on March 18, 2013. Beginning on that date, all personal injury and limited civil filings must be made at the downtown Stanley Mosk Courthouse. For those matters already pending, the parties will be notified of their transfer to Stanley Mosk between March 11 and March 18, 2013. However, transfer will not occur for those unlimited civil personal injury matters that are deemed “complicated.”
It remains to be seen whether all of these changes will be implemented, or if greater reductions will be required in light of the impending budget cuts. It is certain, however, that the changes will cause marked delays as fewer judges and staff attempt to manage greatly increased caseloads. Anticipating trial results will be less predictable, as there will be more uncertainty as to the judge and jury that will hear the trial, given the potential for random trial assignment at any of 31 locations within the county.
😉
Guest
March 6, 2013
Let’s not leave out another message the cj and JC are sending out that they just don’t care about the message they are sending. The newly hired director of the AOC is getting a salary and retirement on top of his judges retirement. We all know how the public loves bureaucrats who double dip. Showing all of California that we are the third branch and we don’t care what you think.
unionman575
March 6, 2013
😉
MaxRebo5
March 6, 2013
The State of the Judiciary should be fun. I would love hear more on these topics:
#1. Can you talk about why you named the Judicial Council conference center in San Francisco after Bill Vickrey? Recall how you did that right after the Legislature sent you a letter demanding his resignation for the hundreds of millions wasted on CCMS and other failures as Director of the AOC. Also, I recall your reaction to the press was to say the letter was “a serious attempt to interfere with the judicial branch.” Perhaps you can also discuss why you decided to create an award in Vickrey’s name that you continue to give out for excellence in judicial administration. Seems a little bit like a middle finger to the other branches of government every time you give that award out.
#2. Talk about the Long Beach Courthouse and how well that went in terms of the cost and long term liabilities for the state. I am sure the other branches will be giving you kudos for that fine piece of work. Please don’t think a $160 million dollar cost overrun (according to the Legislative Analyst) is too trivial a matter to discuss with your sister branches. They want to know your take on it.
#3. Talk about implementing the SEC Report. Let’s see, you accepted Bill Vickrey’s resignation nine months after the legislature demanded it. Ron Overholt left as well because he was too tainted politically for the job. Two good changes that you dragged your feet on in implementing as long as possible. Then you put a judge in charge of the AOC with no admin experience at all. You then gave Jodi Patel an award named after Bill Vickrey for excellence in Judicial Administration for having to pass her over (for political reasons) when you really wanted her for the top job. Still you have managed to keep Jodi and the other Team George members (Curt Soderlund and Curt Child) in the top admin jobs to implement the SEC Report. As far as I can tell all that has come out of that report is a few less committees for developing rules but not even a change in the telecommute policy could be made as that’d be too harsh. Kudos again Chief!
#4. Talk about how you are most interested in preserving the public’s “access to justice” and how having 800+ staff at the AOC is critical to for achieving this goal. Please tell us how 800+ employees, many making well over $100,000 a year, are more vital than the 500+ staff in LA Superior Court who actually process cases and help resolve the disputes for the public. Why can’t those 800+ AOC admin jobs be cut to help keep open the most underfunded courts like San Joaquin Superior Court? Wouldn’t that preserve access to justice more than having a large staff agency for the Judicial Council?
5. Talk about how the branch deserves more funding when the same people who gave us the scandals for CCMS, the Long Beach Courthouse, and the telecommuting from Switzerland are all there on Team George in your inner circle leading the branch. Why should the legislature trust you with additional taxpayer dollar to manage? Any big successes to counter the big failures of late?
6. Talk about recent editorials around saying electronic recording is needed. Stand up to the legislators who are supported by the court reporters union and the clerks unions and tell them how it is the court employees who are to blame for the fiscal problems in the branch. That’s what your people at the AOC are feeding to the press right? Why not be honest and express your view to the legislature and governor directly?
7. Talk about why the Judicial Council should continue to remain a body selected solely by the Chief Justice to make policy for the branch. How it is best for critics, including judges, to speak in the public comment section. How CA is well served by no dissenting votes or debates on issues of public policy and why the Judicial Council should not be democratized as the ACJ is calling for.
That’s the speech I want to hear. I am pretty sure none of those topics will be touched on. Instead we’ll hear how unfair it has been for CA Courts to be cut and that funding must be restored.
unionman575
March 6, 2013
“Why should the legislature trust you with additional taxpayer dollar to manage?”
Don’t worry we are shit outta luck on the legislative money train…
😉
unionman575
March 6, 2013
“…tell them how it is the court employees who are to blame for the fiscal problems in the branch. ”
Grabbing my ankles and coughing…I plead “guilty”…
It’s all my fault…
😉
positivethinker
March 6, 2013
8. add- Tell us why you felt it was necessary to lay off 29 employees as a “cost savings measure” then you turned around and added 32 temporary employees giving them full-time status….
MaxRebo5
March 6, 2013
This story today in the Sac Bee is about business in CA but at the end it makes reference to the failure of CCMS in the CA Courts. That failure creates distrust for all of CA government.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/05/5239022/new-california-businesses-face.html
This is why the Chief needs to reform the AOC. The branch’s scandals are not just hurting itself but the reputation of all of CA government. Checks and balances on the Chief are well deserved when her failures make the public question the states ability to develop an online computer application for the public to get a business licence.
courtflea
March 6, 2013
Max: hahahahhahahahaha! In your dreams. But lets get to the important stuff. What will Tani wear? Will she wear a business like suit or some no sleeved barbie doll number? I mean come on Max that is where Tani’s head is at! The budget gives her a headache and the questions you propose well NYB buddy. A girl has gotta have some secrets! 🙂 Lately Tani has been seen pouring over catalogs looking for a mini length sleeveless robe with a Peter Pan collar for day wear. Now that is real news!
wearyant
March 6, 2013
Shoes, CourtFlea. Don’t forget the shoes. Very important. 😉
courtflea
March 6, 2013
thank you wearyant. Tani is a big fan of the Jessica Simpson line of shoes. 4 inch heels with platforms and metal studs prefered. Since she is forced to wear black (so dull) her shoes must make a statement. Faux croc and leather in electric bright colors are hot for our CJ cause they are cheaper and no one will ever guess they only cost $29.99 on QVC available in 3 easy flex payments, and they look just like Jimmy Choos! Now don’t bother Tani with the budget, she is watching celebrity apprentice. She loves the Donald.
unionman575
March 7, 2013
Donald? Did I hear Donald Trump?
😉
Here you go Tani: