Judicial Reporter Offers Stark 2013 Recap

December 31, 2013 By

For anyone dealing with rationed justice in 2013, it felt like a nearly constant barrage of bad news. Now Bill Girdner at The Courthouse News offers a year-in-review piece that quickly reminds us why – because it was a barrage of bad news. The story begins with “… it was a news-filled year for the courts in California, as they survived huge budget cuts and walked backwards on transparency and slightly forward on reform as the Legislature told them to open a warren of closed committees.”

He notes the budget cutting and that it was considered a “reprieve” when the governor decided not to cut the budget even more. He even recalls when In “… an old scandal returned as the council over-rode objections from judges and allowed telecommutingby the highly paid mandarins of the Administrative Office of the Courts… in a companion decision, the council voted to take a look at the salaries of those same bureaucrats but later decided that the inquiry should be conducted by the bureaucrats themselves. As the year winds down, the inquiry seems to have stalled.”

And maybe this slipped by in the holiday rush, but Girdner recalls that “… in December, the council elevated its technology committee to the status of internal committee, igniting a blast from judges who said the leaders of the tech committee and its task force had “proven themselves incompetent” and should be replaced.”

In terms of the legal community, it reads less like the summary of a year-in-review and more like an indictment. See the story here.

(Program Note: The CCM will not update tomorrow as we observe the New Year’s holiday)

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Top Hellhole’ Ranking Sparks Some Debate

December 27, 2013 By
There’s not much balance in most online coverage of California’s latest “Judicial Hellhole” ranking, but there’s a good exception at the Law360 website. Their report notes that the ranking by the American Tort Reform Association doesn’t tell “the whole story,” but offers strong comments from people on both sides of the debate.
 
For example, Law360 writes that “… the report focuses too heavily on a minority of abusive cases, according to Brian Kabateck,” who is identified as a former president of the Consumer Attorneys of California. The quote continues that “… this report is coming from a coalition of corporations and big businesses and insurance companies. They are taking a very small number of clearly abusive lawsuits, and they are trying to use that as a smoke screen to shield themselves from liability for their bad actions and their injurious conduct directed at Californians.”
 
But other experts point out that other states have taken measures to clear up clogged court systems and California could learn a thing or two from their experiences. William Oxley, a partner at one of the state’s larger firms who is identified as an attorney “… who defends companies in asbestos cases and other product liability and mass tort cases” said he agreed that California is a more plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction, and thought the Legislature and the California Supreme Court need to take action to balance the playing field.
 
We do not typically link to paid websites, but this one offers free access for seven days with registration. So here’s the link.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Democrat Budget Blueprint Ignores Court Crisis

December 26, 2013 By
We’ve been noting that the early plans for our next state budget do not exactly place civil courts funding in the “crisis” category. Indeed, the courts in general are, at best, being placed on the back-burner – even the criminal courts which have a higher political profile than civil justice. The latest example is the recently released “budget blueprint” released by the Democratic Caucus of the state assembly.
 
In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times described the document thus: “Top Assembly Democrats have revealed what they’d like to do with billions of dollars in extra tax revenue that the state is projected to receive, and their top priorities were reassuring: expanding the reserve fund and paying down the debts that Sacramento accumulated over the last decade. Their budget blueprint also calls for a lot of new spending on education and anti-poverty programs, however.”
 
The most passionate appeal for any justice-related funding in the “blueprint” comes amid plans to reduce spending on prison housing. There, the “collaborative justice” efforts get some attention, but that’s hardly noting a billion dollars of court cuts over the past five years. Certainly, most of the issues getting attention are worthy – yet you have to wonder how long we can expect courthouse-related labor unions and others to sit by while the Democrats ignore their concerns. 
 
Read the Times editorial here.
Find the Blueprint here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Paper Calls For More Superior Court Judges

December 24, 2013 By

Program NOTE: No post on Christmas Day! Happy Holidays to all!

A major Inland Empire newspaper is calling for increased funding for civil court judges and staff in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, which have the worst judicial shortfall in California – the only area in worse shape than Los Angels County, according to state research. The Press-Enterprise, in an editorial, says that the California Judicial Council has determined that “… Riverside County, for example, has 76 judges, but needs 138. San Bernardino County has 84 judges, but should have 156. So Riverside County is 62 judges short, while San Bernardino County needs another 82 judges. Those are the worst numbers in the state; the next largest gap is in Los Angeles County, which should have another 41 judges.”
 
The newspaper says that lawmakers should use use “a small share” of a projected budget surplus to address the problem adding that funding a new judge also means funding related support staff. The paper noted that “… a new judgeship costs about $1.65 million the first year, and $909,000 annually in subsequent years — figures which include money for additional court staffing that judges need, such as clerks, secretaries and security.”
 
We can expect more demands for judicial improvements as word circulates of a likely state budget surplus, yet early budget documents have not indicated any anticipated increases. See more here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , ,

More Judges, Court Staff Eyed, If There’s More Money

December 19, 2013 By
Nobody is saying there will be funding to expand California’s court capacity, but the California Judicial Council has voted that some of any new money will go to provide new judges in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Both communities have been identified as among the state’s very worst in terms of justice access and have, of course, been hard-hit by the half-decade of court budget cutting
 
The Press-Enterprise newspaper has a good story on the decision by the Judicial Council, the courts administrative branch, and noting that lines outside courthouses are going around the block. The newspaper reports that “…additionally, several years of statewide budget cuts resulted in hundreds of staff reductions for both courts, causing shuttering or reduction of services at courthouses, and redirecting the type of cases some courts can handle… [the] cases affected by the pressure of too few judges include civil and family law courts, where decisions are made about critical issues of custody and child support.

The report cites a significant “new assessment” approved in 2012 that changed the official “judicial needs” for several counties, and Contra Costa County gave up a promised judicial position because of Riverside County’s shortage. The paper also recalls that money-dependent legislation “… originally provided for 150 new judges statewide, in three rollouts of 50 judges each. The first was completed, but the next two were stalled as state funds for the courts were severely cut in the succeeding years… the 2012 assessment says Riverside County has 76 judges, but needs 138. San Bernardino County has 84, but needs 156.

The next-biggest judicial shortage is in Los Angeles County, which needs 41. The P-E also breaks down the money: “Funding for a judgeship includes not just the judge’s salary but also money for court room personnel such as clerks, secretaries and sheriff’s deputies for security. A new judicial position is estimated to cost $1.65 million for the first year, which usually involves establishment of chambers and other one-time costs, and about $909,000 per year thereafter. A beginning judge’s annual salary is $181,292.”

 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Routine Juvenile Court Press Access Seems Doomed

December 13, 2013 By
A state appeals court has issued a tentative ruling that it will overturn an open-court decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Nash, the presiding judge of the county’s juvenile court who had decreed that dependency hearings were “presumptively open” to the press. The issue has been highlighted by open-court advocates who argue that state oversight of child custody is of immense public interest.
 
On the other hand, social worker unions and others have argued that protecting the privacy of children is more important than open courts. For example, they argue, the presumption of an open court means families and attorneys would have to monitor courtrooms to see if media was present. The Los Angeles Times and the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law have filed briefs asking the appeals court to keep the hearings open.
 
In an L.A. Times report on the pending decision, which is open for more arguments later this month, the children’s institute director, Robert Fellmeth, said, “We fully agree that there are many instances where it’s appropriate to have confidentiality and protect vulnerable children from exposure. Nash’s order allowed that, liberally… what we oppose is the draconian cloak of secrecy that conceals this profound exercise in state parenting.”
 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , ,

‘King George’ Could Have Gone Federal? Historic Implications Abound

December 12, 2013 By
Most of our discussion over former Chief Justice Ronald George’s recent memoir “Chief” has focused on his relentless quest for power. But S.F. Gate in the Bay Area has an interesting alternative take, pointing out that many of California’s same-sex marriage rulings might have gone another way if “King George” had accepted a federal judgeship that was offered shortly after he’d accepted an appeal court position.
 
That move, of course, set up an appointment to the state high court by Gov. Wilson. But S.F. Gate has this bit of insight: “If Wilson had appointed someone else instead of George in 1991, there’s a fair chance that some of the court’s later 4-3 decisions would have turned out differently — such as the May 2008 ruling, written by the chief justice, that legalized same-sex marriage in California. That ruling stayed in effect for less than six months before the voters outlawed same-sex marriage by passing Proposition 8, which ultimately was overturned by the federal courts. But George’s ruling allowed 18,000 gay and lesbian couples to marry…”
 
There are other milestones, but clearly it’s a take on the Justice George story we’ve not seen. You can see it here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Chief Justice Favors Transparency She Controls

December 11, 2013 By
 
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Photo: California Courts)

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Photo: California Courts)


The Courthouse News has some of the better coverage from a year-end press meeting with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, who still says she favors court transparency despite having led the successful effort to remove open-meeting requirements from legislation. Apparently she supports the rule if judges write it, with TCN reporting that “… while the chief justice lobbied against a bill requiring open meetings by Judicial Council committees, she said she always supported the idea but wanted the judiciary to have control over the language in the rule.”
 
She explained that: “Because I think there are different considerations with judges who are on the advisory committees that draft the proposals for council to consider. In the process of drafting those proposals and deciding if a proposal should even come to council, judges still in their judicial role speak about substantive issues of law…  we have a concern about the code of judicial ethics and what judges can and cannot say in the process of a heated argument in the development of a proposal versus what they can and should be saying publicly.” 
 
And of course she noted “… a new long-term fiscal plan for the courts that she hopes will persuade the governor to restore $1 billion in funding to the judicial branch over five years.” Read more here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , ,

Judicial Pay Hike Continues To Make News

December 9, 2013 By
That pay increase for California judges continues to make headlines, especially since the hike will be retroactive back to July 1 and none of the increase was discussed amid decisions to eliminate courthouse jobs. But the raises are virtually mandated by state law, which ties judicial pay increases to the average pay increase received by other state employees.
 
That same law means the judges could be in line for a 4.5 percent pay increase by the middle of 2015, even if none of the eliminated court jobs are ever reinstated. Even with the state law and the fact that judges have not gotten a pay raise since 2007. Superior Court judges earn $178,789 per yea, and that’s going to $181,292. Justices on the appeals court will get bumped to $207,463, up from $204,599.
 
The pay increase will also have a cascading effect in San Diego and several other counties, where the pay for members of the county Board of Supervisors is tied to the pay of judges.
 
There’s a good story about the raises, and ties to county supervisor pay, at the U-T San Diego website here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Federal court to video-stream most important cases

December 5, 2013 By
The federal appeals court for California and other western states is expanding its Internet video streaming to include important cases heard by the full court, as opposed to lesser cases heard by panels of the full court. The Ninth Circuit, which usually meets in San Francisco and is known for allowing more media access than other courts, will broadcast five cases slated for oral arguments betweenDec. 9 and 11. It is believed that this is the first time a federal appellate court has allowed live broadcast of a proceeding.
 
“The Ninth Circuit has a long history of using advances in technology to make the court more accessible and transparent,” 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said in a statement. “Video streaming is a way to open the court’s doors even wider so that more people can see and hear what transpires in the courtroom, particularly in regard to some of our most important cases.” 
 
You can find Associated Press coverage of the decision, via the Mercury News, here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , ,
«Older Posts
Newer Posts»