Roberts Promises Supreme Court E-filing

U.S. Chief Justice Robert’s annual “state of the judiciary” report has brought the usual level of yawn, but his comments on court tech did catch some media. A good example is from The Washington Post, which noted that “… there is, in fact, a nugget of newsy news in Roberts’s“2014 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary”: The Supreme Court will bypass the federal judiciary’s somewhat troubled electronic case-filing system in favor of its own, expected to come in 2016. But the chief justice’s accounting is perhaps most useful for what, with a bit of between-the-lines reading, it reveals about why, he admits, ‘the courts will often choose to be late to the harvest of American ingenuity.'”
 
It’s not all that encouraging for anyone hoping the nation’s highest court would become more transparent, especially since issues like cameras in the courtroom seem far, far away.
 

Magazine Notes High-Stakes Court Cases

Mother Jones magazine is offering a rundown on five states where electing state supreme court justices has become a high-stakes political battle, complete with spending millions of dollars on attack and counter-attack ads. The piece offers some familiar names for anyone who follows the judicial policy wars, like Texas and North Carolina, and some places where you might not have noticed conflict, like Tennessee.
 
In particular, the magazine notes that Florida, also home to significant fights over the governor’s office and of course a vital presidential swing state, has seen dramatic increases. Florida, says reporter A.J. Vicens,  “… ranked near the bottom of the list between 2000-09 in terms of judicial candidate contributions, with nominees raising just $7,500 during that entire period. But that changed in the 2011-12 cycle, when three Supreme Court judges were up for retention votes, with candidate fundraising coming in at more than $1.5 million and independent spending topping $3.1 million.”
 
For court watchers, it may be interesting that the increased spending is happening in some states with “retention” models, which are believed to decrease political efforts in the judiciary. In those states, voters can only decide whether or not to keep or dismiss a judge – as opposed to choosing between candidates. California, for example, uses a retention system for its high court, although a huge majority of lower court judges run unopposed.
 

Report: Immigration Wait For Non-Detained Average 900 Days

Hearst News is reporting that “… non-detained immigrants now face an average 900-day wait for their cases to be resolved in the country’s immigration courts, according to an official in the Executive Office for Immigration Review.” That is even higher than the previous average time of 520 days, which was based on data gathered by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse [TRAC] at Syracuse University and included some cases where people were detained in federal custody.

“Detained cases, they try to move more quickly,” TRAC Research Center director Susan Long told Hearst. “Secondly, most of those don’t have attorneys, and therefore they get deported. Removal decisions move much more quickly than any one that has an application for relief.

The story also noted that “… nationally, as of Sept. 30, 2013, EOIR had 350,330 pending cases. That’s up 56 percent from the 223,707 cases pending on Sept. 30, 2009. Between 2009 and the start of the influx of unaccompanied minors from Central America at the U.S.-Mexico border earlier this year, the number of new cases received in immigration courts actually was in decline, EOIR’s statistics show.”

 

Courts Monitor Writer On Vets’ Asbestos Issue

On the Huffington Post’s national political page today, Sara Warner, publisher of the California Courts Monitor, argues that Democrats are being tone deaf when it comes to the role that veterans play in asbestos bankruptcy trust issues.
 
You can find her comments here: Dems Tone-Deaf on Veterans’ Asbestos Issue

Still Undecided? LAT Endorsements

Still undecided on today’s judicial election vote? For what it’s worth, here are the Los Angeles Times endorsements:
 
Office 22: Pamala Matsumoto
Office 48: Charles M. Calderon
Office 54: Debra L. Losnick
Office 61: Jacqueline Lewis
Office 76: Alison Matsumoto Estrada
Office 87: Andrew M. Stein
Office 97: Songhai “Sunny” Armstead
Office 107: Emma Castro
Office 113: Stacy Wiese
Office 117: James B. Pierce
Office 138: Donna Hollingsworth Armstrong
Office 157: Andrew Cooper
 
You can see more of the Times recommendations here: June 3 primary election: The Times recommends

Top Ten Takeaways from Perrin Conference in L.A.

Here, in no particular order, are our Top Ten immediate take-aways from the “Cutting-Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference” organized by the Perrin Conferences company. The Perrin conferences are different from most legal-issues gatherings because they include several points of view, being attended by plaintiff attorneys, civil defense attorneys and even issue-specific judges.
 
The two-day conference was held March 17 and 18 at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, California and drew more than 100 attorneys from across the country.
 
See the list:
 
10. Lung cancer is a growth area for asbestos litigation. Panelists explained that we should expect from 6,000 to 7,000 new asbestos-related lung cancer cases per year. New York Judge Sherry Klein Heitler, a panelist in the “emerging trends” discussion, said that “… the reality is that we just do not have the money” to deal with the new cases.
 
9. These lung cases will include smokers, even those with extensive tobacco use histories. One panelist predicted that the expanding case volume and reduced court capacity will likely lead to more consolidation, where multiple cases are handled together.

Family Court ‘Expose’ On The Big Screen

 
 
Photo: www.divorcecorp.com

Photo: www.divorcecorp.co


That new “Divorce Corp.” documentary by Joe Sorge continues to make waves, with Variety saying that its director “… depicts the family court itself as an untrustworthy, user-unfriendly system of so-called justice. Here, they claim, divorcing couples are placed at the mercy of judges who are frequently irresponsible in their judgment; intolerant of those who attempt to navigate the courts without counsel (there are no court-appointed attorneys); and prejudiced in favor of lawyers who ply them with campaign contributions.”
 
The trade journal also calls the film a “vigorous but clumsily argued expose of the corrupt family-court practices that have turned one of life’s more painful experiences into a $50 billion-a-year industry.” The movie is in limited theatrical release now and Los Angeles is one of the cities where you can find a showing. Check out the Variety piece for showtimes and the rest of the review here.
 

 

Chevron ‘Donziger’ case wrapping up in NYC

One of the most-watched civil cases in the country, pitting California-based Chevron against what the New York Times called a “freelance” attorney, is headed for closing arguments this week in New York City. Over the last few weeks a parade of witnesses have testified about bribes, perjury and other allegations. The trial, before a federal judge not a jury, even has a de facto YouTube channel as parts of Joe Berlinger’s documentary “Crude” are posted.
 
At issue is a previous trial in Ecuador that resulted in judgement of more than $9 billion against Chevron, based on work done by Texaco before the later company was acquired by Chevron. In part, the case has become famous after a judge ordered that outtakes from the Berlinger movie could be seen as evidence for Chevron, not just the whole film. The unused footage apparently shows very candid conversations about intimidating judges and misrepresenting evidence, and is posted all over YouTube. Chevron is, in effect, suing Donziger under RICO laws.
 
Any Google search returns plenty of stories, but let us recommend this recent report from the New York Times that includes “… one after another, the witnesses, including some of his closest allies and financiers who are now estranged from his cause, have testified that Mr. Donziger committed witness tampering and fraud.” Read that here.
 
And for a more recent report, that’s much more sympathetic for Donziger, check out this interview-focused  Adam Klasfeld piece in the Courthouse News Service.

Pushback, Frustration Mounts Against Slow Court Dockets

It will take a bit more time before the most recent civil court budget courts, and their resulting delays, become a routine part of lawsuit strategy. But, already you can see where people seeking their day in court are becoming increasingly frustrated – to the point of one attorney holding press conferences and citing a landmark NBC3 investigative report by Stephen Stock (see previous posts) to make his point.
 
The Michael Rooney law office, in an apparent Redwood City civil lawsuit between individuals, even issued a press release over a popular distribution network recently and scheduled a press conference on the courthouse steps – just to demand a case get a trial date. In the statement, the budget cuts are noted and the argument is made that people abusing the courts can “…further exploit the Courts’ apparent inability to handle cases by using every trick to delay their victims’ right to justice, while making themselves judgment-proof before a jury renders a judgment against them, once again outsmarting the legal system that they have abused for years.”
 
The NBC3 report comes into play (and you can bet it will again) by noting “… as San Mateo County Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Foiles, recently stated in an interview by NBC3 Reporter, Stephen Stock: “justice delayed is justice denied… and we’re delaying justice!”
 
You can check out the PR Newswire release here.