Courts Monitor launching national edition

The California Courts Monitor, “your daily ration of civil justice rationing,” is launching a national edition. The National Courts Monitor will bring the same focus to the crisis in United State’s civil courts as it has to California courts, according to Publisher Sara Warner.  

The announcement was made in San Francisco Friday and timed to accompany a national asbestos litigation conference. The CCM also released an “update” of its Special Report on the California civil courts funding crisis, a newspaper-styled print edition that was distributed in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The publisher also announced that the website will begin producing similar print editions that focus on specific events, including state budget hearings and legal conferences.
 
“We’ve evolved into an online community resource for the civil courts community and our goal is to build on that,” said Warner. “And part of that is the combination of online and print.”
 
The national edition, she added, will also produce print editions focused on specific civil justice events or issues, especially when they involve funding the justice system.

She said the NCM will begin publishing online in the first quarter of 2014, quipping “is that vague enough for you?” The California website began publishing with a more general courts focus in 2012, but shifted to civil courts funding issues as a spate of budget cuts slashed through the judicial system. In addition to daily aggregation updates and occasional original reporting, the CCM has produced two newsprint products fashioned as “special reports” on courts issues.

Already? For 2014 Courts Face A Zinger

 
Apparently it’s not too early to begin fearing at least one aspect of California court spending next year. As of the 2014-15 fiscal year starting July 1, 2014, trial courts will no longer be able to maintain reserves greater than one percent of annual appropriations, reports Rachel Stine in The Coast News, who quotes a court official explaining that “… these reserve funds have previously been used to finance large projects, including technology upgrades, as well as expenditures during low revenue years…”
 
In other words, it allowed a particular court to squirrel away some cash. And that goes away next year. The newspaper report also outlines the increasing difficulty facing San Diego civil courts, and notes the closing of yet another juvenile justice facility. Court officials explained to Stine that “… there is a lack of community outreach to legislators and politicians about the funding for the judiciary branch” and added that their efforts lobbying with other bar associations and encouraging their clients to campaign for more court funding has only gone so far.
 
“There is no constituency that is banging on the door and saying, ‘We need our courts to be funded,’” said one official. Read the report here
 

Sacramento Superior Court “stuck” with sheriff’s budget shortfall

According to a report by the Sacramento Bee, the Sheriff’s Department had notified Sacramento Superior Court in July that they expected a combination of funding shortfall and added costs totaling $2.2 million.  Sheriff’s officials had told Superior Court managers that they’d have to pull as many as 15 deputies off the security detail to offset the shortfall.

According to the report, “Some judges reacted to the notification with zinging emails that forecast danger to themselves and the public if a reduction of that size became a reality. Chris Volkers, the court’s executive officer, threatened to sue if Sheriff Scott Jones went ahead with the cut.”

Court officials and the Sheriff’s Department came to a resolution… including $600,000 in increased funding from the state. 
 
While the issue is resolved for now, the bailiff’s budget may continue to be a drain on the court system. According to the report, “Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl said she expects a repeat of the security funding face-off with the Sheriff’s Department next year.” Earl also points out that “there’s no real audit procedures in place” to assure the funding is spent appropriately.
 
“We don’t have any leverage obviously because we don’t hold the money,” Earl said. “We’re stuck being an unintended victim of this, I think.”
 

Courts Praised For Decisions On Prop. 65 Cases

It’s not every day you get a significant insurance recovery firm singing the praises of California’s justice system. Yet firms like Proskauer Rose LLP are doing just that in the wake of some judicial decisions. In a web-posted story headlined “California Judiciary, Not Governor, Leading Effort To Reign In Proposition 65 Abuse,” the firm established that “… Governor Brown had called for sweeping changes to the Proposition 65 regime to reduce the potential for ‘frivolous shake-down lawsuits’ under the statute.”
 
However, the report added, “facing pressure from the plaintiffs’ bar, the Governor’s office recently released a much more modest proposal to amend Proposition 65. The proposal would expand slightly the statute’s exemption for small businesses; permit the relevant state agency greater flexibility in determining safe-exposure levels; and subject payments made in lieu of civil penalties to greater scrutiny.” But then the firm outlined leadership from the civil judiciary, including decisions on real-world testing for lead content in common foods.
 
Wait. Are we not told that the California courts are anti-business? Well, for an example of California civil decisions being pro-business check out the post here.

Next Battle For Court Workers: Outsourcing

Now that the dreaded courthouse layoffs have become the new reality, another issue is inching toward center stage for the justice system: outsourcing. The legislature seems ready to limit trial court outsourcing, but opposition is mounting against legislation that would require court managers to actually show promised savings. Lorn Kaye of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education laid out the pro-outsourcing argument at foxandhoundsdaily.com recently, noting that the courts are already outsourcing work ranging from child custody evaluations to security officers.

The new bill would “require specified standards to be met if a trial court intends to enter into a new contract” or extend existing contracts for “any services that are currently or customarily performed by that trial courts employees as of July 1, 2012.” Among other things, the court will have to “clearly demonstrate” actual overall cost savings. See the bill here.

The bill, says Kaye, has already passed the house and is headed for the California Senate. That means it could rumble about as the legislature passes last-minute bills in front of ending its current session this Friday (Sept. 13). Stay tuned. Read the argument that’s being made here. 

 

Gov. Brown Hires For Superior Court Positions

A few new people will be coming to work for the state’s superior court system soon, but as regular readers have no doubt realized it’s not support staff. Announced is another round of judicial hires for the state-mandated $178,789-per-year jobs. Notable among this round of appointments is Sunil R. Kulkarni, who the South Asian Bar Association identifies as the first South Asian American judge ever appointed in Northern California, and an actual Republican for the San Diego Superior Court bench (most Brown-selected judges are Democrats).
 
California actually elects its judges. But typical judicial careers begin with an appointment by the governor to fill an open bench. Those chosen rarely face election challenges. The Republican judge in the San Diego court has served as a deputy public defender at the San Diego County Public Defender’s Office, Office of the Primary Public Defender since 1994 and has been an adjunct professor at the University of San Diego School of Law since 2003.
 
Details and background from the new judges abounds at the California Newswire.

HuffPo Blogger Hits L.A. Courts Pretty Hard

Editor’s Note: The CCM will not be updated Monday due to the Labor Day holiday. See you Tuesday!
 
Writer Steve Bevilacqua is not too happy with the L.A. courts and much prefers the no-frills justice handed out by Judge Judy. In a Huffington Post blog, he first wonders “… is a Hollywood soundstage the best place to find true justice in Los Angeles? Based on my legal experience, both real and televised, the answer is a resounding yes.” Then he writes that “… our court system is in the hands of self-serving clowns who care about nothing more than their own performance record. Looking at history, I suppose this isn’t anything new, but in this age of access and information, maybe it’s time the courts tried a little harder to fulfill their original purpose of setting things right.”
 
After outlining his ongoing legal battles stemming from getting hit by a car, he adds that “amazingly enough, in one extremely loud afternoon, my fiasco was set right by the modern-day Solomon known as Judge Judy. The actual court system spent months squeezing every technicality in their agonized efforts to send me to prison at the expense of the obvious truth. Judge Judy was direct and ferociously sensible.”
 
It’s a compelling story, but you wonder if he knows the small claims court in Santa Monica, which was the basis for all those People’s Court shows,  actually just closed?
 

Placer County Seeks Input On Next Cuts

 
Here’s a novel idea: A county Superior Court facing dramatic budget cuts actually asks for public input in what it should do. That is what’s happening in Placer County, according to a report by Kathy Robertson in the Sacramento Business Journal. That will offer another example for critics of the Los Angeles Superior Court who lament a lack of public input into recent cuts there.
 
The Business Journal says that the Placer County Superior Court faces a $1.8 million deficit in its 2013-14 budget. The newspaper says the “… the proposed baseline budget includes expenses of more than $17 million, almost $13 million in salaries, wages and benefits. This reflects a more than 40 percent reduction in filled positions since 2009, changes in employee compensation and discontinuation of some programs.” The report also notes that “new money” added to the courts budget in last-minute budget moves hardly makes up for long-term cuts. 
 
Read the story here

Admin Raises Amid Worker Layoffs Riles A Writer

Wow. We can add Lois Henry to the list of columnists who are less than thrilled with how California’s civil courts are being administered. The regular columnist for The Bakersfield Californian newspaper took exception to a decision to grant raises for some administrative staff while courtrooms and even entire courthouses are being closed. 
 
Noting that court budgets have taken “hit after hit” the writer adds “… but even worse, the courts’ own administrator, aptly known as the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), seems hell bent on spending what little money the Legislature has carved out for local courts on, well, administrative claptrap … it’s been a years-long problem that only recently received a withering eye from the Legislature as reports have uncovered unbelievable waste within the AOC. Still, California’s Chief Justice recently approved 3.5 percent raises for hundreds of AOC, appellate and Supreme Court employees.”
 
She also quotes Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe, who is also executive director of the Alliance of California Judges, a group she notes “… has struggled to shed light on how the AOC’s spending has affected the public’s right to access its court system.” Judge Lampe tells her that “… we’ve lost 2,500 jobs and had to close 80 courtrooms throughout the state, yet the oversight staff in San Francisco gets a pay raise. It sends the wrong message.”
 

Inmate Release Offering Lessons For Civil Courts?

For those seeking court reform, whether civil or criminal, the ongoing issue of releasing some 10,000 California inmates offers some potential lessons. For one thing, it suggests that the only real reason this issue is being addressed is that a federal court has ordered the release, prompting a shift in attitude. Exhibit I in this discussion has become a Los Angeles Times editorial that even blamed poor news coverage for part of the problem.
 
And the Times did not hesitate to say that the “… [court]’s] population reduction order, and the courts’ hard line on enforcing it, has moved the state and counties, reluctantly, to set priorities for prison space and consider alternative community-based sentencing. There is little evidence to suggest that state officials will move faster or smarter if the order is softened.” 
 
In effect, the newspaper is saying that the only reason the issues of addiction and repeat crimes are being addressed is that a court order eliminated a “headline-by-headline” political approach that ignored core challenges. That’s not only quite an indictment, but it suggests that any reform movement on the civil side of the courts equation will face a long road before obtaining improvements. It also suggests that only federal court pressure, say from problems with ADA compliance, will force the state to move.
 
Check out the Times take here.