Report: ‘Sad State’ Of Courts Will Boost Arbitration

While noting that non-court arbitration has often been seen as anti-consumer, a report in the member-run news organization Voice of San Diego lays out a good argument that ongoing court cuts will boost the practice. It also cites a recent study noting that formerly routine business collection practices can take up to a year, making it difficult to do business in counties hard-hit by court delays.
 
“Historically, we have seen that people who want to tilt the playing field in their favor will use delay in the trial courts as a justification for that,” one official told the website. “It has less resonance where cases get to trial efficiently and quickly as they had up until this latest round of five years of budget cuts.”
 
We have already heard that justice system administrators are urging a “settle the case” approach to ease strain on the diminished system, and certainly arbitration is part of that rationing strategy. This is a good, balanced look at how that’s starting to play out: Read Here

Law Firm Lists Some Effects From Ongoing Court Cutbacks

Until the mainstream media returns its spotlight on the cuts in civil court funding, which we can assume will happen once the failing system causes a high-profile incident, those involved in the justice community continue to note the demise. One of those is the L.A. law firm of Girardi-Keese, which uses its website to list “only a few” of the effects.
 
They list: In Stanislaus County, parents must wait 17 weeks for a family court mediator; more than 100 courtrooms have closed statewide, more than 50 in Los Angeles County alone; paying a traffic ticket in San Francisco can take four hours; more than 2,600 court employees have lost their jobs.
 
The firm of course calls for changes. See their efforts here.

Closing Of Local Courthouses Amounts To Theft

Closing local courthouses amounts to theft, says the noted left-leaning reporter James Preston Allen, publisher of the San Pedro-based “Random Lengths News” newspaper. To support the claim, he turns to both the state public records law and some old fashioned arithmetic.
 
Writes Allen: “In April of this year, this newspaper filed a public records request with the Los Angeles Superior Court and found that the total monies collected from fees and fines at both the Avalon and San Pedro courts amounted to over $4.5 million per year. In fact, in fiscal year 2010-11 the total collected was a whopping $4,885,772. It would seem that of this gross amount, someone might figure out how to keep the courthouse doors open. But no, this is not the reality. The reason why the court can’t afford to keep doing business is that out of all these revenues collected, the State of California takes 54 percent, the county takes 37 percent and the cities receive 6 percent. And the court? In 2010-11, the court received a paltry one percent,or $48,857.52.” 
 
The writer, in his “At Length” column, says that he is “… personally and profoundly amazed by the indifference shown by the business community, most of the Council District 15 neighborhood councils and the legal profession who have all acquiesced to this abridgment of the public’s right to fair and equal access to the law. Not to mention the loss of 50 well paid jobs and requisite traffic to the court that generates business in the area.”
 
His headline is “Theft of the Courthouse” and you can read it here.

Judicial Council Planning Open Meeting, Will Stream Talks

 
They will call it “historic” this week as the state’s Judicial Council holds an actual public meeting that’s even set for streaming over the Internet. The Monterey Herald is among those heralding the event, calling it “… part of a broader effort to increase transparency in the state’s Judicial Council, which sets policy for the country’s largest court system and has been criticized for keeping its committee meetings and even agendas out of the public eye. A ruling defining the extent of public access to the council’s meetings is expected in coming months.” Increased public involvement was thought by many to be part of a deal that increased courts funding, but Gov. Brown apparently removed such provisions from the final budget.
 
Like every other California county, Monterey has court issues. Along with operational cuts, the raid on construction funds meant that $49 million worth of improvements, including “… three courtrooms in a 47,200-square-foot building; moving Salinas Valley civil suits to the facility; and adding a self-help center, a jury assembly room, children’s waiting room, holding cells, an alternative dispute resolution center, attorney interview rooms and witness waiting rooms” were “delayed.” 

Transit Strike Underscores Problems With Court Closures: What Happens When Access Goes Away?

 
Lots of issues surface during a transit strike like this week’s BART shutdown in San Francisco. Let’s add one more: By “consolidating” what were community courts, the courts – especially the Los Angeles Superior Court — has made access to justice much more dependent on mass transit, and nobody has mentioned what happens when you can’t make court because of problems with transit, whether that is a strike or just some random breakdown. Does somebody face a bench warrant because a bus overheats?
 
Granted, even community courts faced similar challenges. But let’s note that, as The Los Angeles Times reported back in March, “… in the 21-page [lawsuit] filing, the organizations said the reduction in the number of courthouses hearing such cases from 26 to five throughout the county will create difficulties for low-income tenants and people with disabilities fighting eviction… some people will have to travel up to 32 miles to litigate their cases, court officials have said. The trips ‘to the courthouse for these tenants will require numerous transfers and travel to unfamiliar areas and will be prohibitively difficult and expensive,’ the lawsuit states.”
 
So the best-case for those using public transit is a living hell. But we need to address how the courts handle lack of transit, and the BART strike is the first large-scale example since the rationing of justice began for real last week. It’s a good time to revisit the lawsuit coverage, see L.A.Times.
 
For updates, follow us on Twitter @CACourtsMonitor

Governor, Judicial Council Dismiss ‘Open Government’ Provisions

 
In a likely blow to an already tense relationship, the California Judicial Council has successfully side-stepped an “open government” provision of the state budget that would have required that the group’s meetings be public. The Judicial Council, which is the administrative office of the justice system, had come under fire during the recent state budget process for its spending practices and for conducting most of its decision-making process in secret. Labor groups, in particular, argue that too many judicial admin decisions are made without public comment.
 
Those concerns earned provision to open Judicial Council process as part of a budget bargain. But last Friday, reports Courthouse News Service, “… after lobbying by California’s Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Governor Jerry Brown on Thursday ‘blue penciled,’ or eliminated, that transparency provision.”

Unlike L.A., Some Courts Cut The Cutting

Not all of California’s county courts are continuing with planned cutbacks in the wake of a state funding increase. San Mateo County Superior Court, for example, announced that one courtroom slated for closure would remain open and seven jobs will also be saved. The Daily Journal newspaper said that the county will get about $900,000 of the $60 million that the budget is returning to courts statewide.
 
However, the paper also noted, judicial officials say the increase “… must be viewed in light of $261 million in current cuts and mounting deficits from prior years of unprecedented slashing of funds.” The court is also a far cry from where it was last fall when judges announced the closing of six courtrooms along with shortened public service hours. Like other California courts, it is reorganizing in ways that will force people to travel longer distances to deal with cases ranging from traffic disputes to residential evictions.
 
How other counties handle cutbacks in the wake of the state funding increase could have impacts in Los Angeles, where some court critics day judicial administrators should have reduced or delayed job cuts due to the budget increase.
 
Read how San Mateo is doing here

Gay Marriage Ruling Begins A Process

 
This week’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage clears the way for same-sex couples to tie the knot in California, but the state’s legal system could take a month to complete its process. The judgement was, of course, big news across the state but for some of the better social media commentary and general over-the-top coverage of the Los Angeles celebration let us recommend our friends over at WEHOville.

Juvenile Court Judge Feeling Crappy About Justice System

 
Jim Newton’s L.A. Times column Monday offered a glimpse into what’s already happening to the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court, which continues to be a victim of the state’s judicial rationing. Newton profiled Judge Michael Nash, who supervises the court and is heralded by some for increasing transparency in the “Dependency Court” where foster care cases are heard. 
Michael Nash, presiding judge of the Juvenile Court in Los Angeles County (The Los Angeles Times published this photo as part of the juvenile court story.)

Michael Nash, presiding judge of the Juvenile Court in Los Angeles County. (The Los Angeles Times published this photo as part of the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court story.)

 
“I feel as crappy about things as I have in a long time,” Nash tells the paper, adding that “… it’s just very difficult to do the job in a meaningful way.” Budget cuts are, of course, part of that and he also laments what he feels are poor social worker decisions about taking kids out of homes – a process he thinks is partly because the workers worry about being “second guessed.” 
 
The column includes some eye-popping stats: “As of today, [Nash] said, each of the court’s 20 full-time judges handles roughly 1,350 cases at any given time, well above the recommended maximum. Often, matters of grave consequence must be heard and decided in minutes, even when they call for careful deliberation. A typical day’s calendar for a Dependency Court judge might include deciding how much and what type of medication to authorize for a child; whether to remove children from homes after allegations of neglect or abuse; and whether to place them in the hands of strangers or relatives, or return them to shaky parents.”
 
What will be more difficult to track is what happens to the court now that access to justice has been curtailed to the point that we’re bound to have more homeless, more bench warrants and more trouble hitting homes. You can read the column here and you can follow the writer on Twitter: @newton jim. 

L.A. Co. Layoffs Came Despite Increased Funding

 
In the days leading up to layoffs in the Los Angeles County Superior Courts, some labor leaders wondered why the cutbacks were coming despite increased state funding and a new formula that would ensure that $60 million would not only go directly to trial courts, but be distributed under a formula that will likely send a higher percentage of that money to L.A. County.
 
Alex Matthews at the Capitol Weekly, a government-focused newspaper, has a good story that includes significant background. He cites officials noting that “… some counties, such as San Diego, Santa Clara, Orange County, and San Francisco had received more money than was necessary for their workload in the past and will therefore lose some money under the new allocation methodology. Others that have been particularly affected by budget cuts, such as Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Fresno, Riverside, and San Joaquin, will receive more.”