City Watch Hits Flat-Fee Juvenile Defense Issue

 
The City Watch website is posting a story about the flat-fee juvenile defense system. At issue is how attorneys representing indigent youth are paid. The story by Gary Cohn is making the rounds as activists try to apply heat to officials who control the system.
 
Cohn writes that “… the problem is particularly serious in Los Angeles County, one of the world’s largest juvenile justice systems, where a controversial low-bid, flat fee compensation system for attorneys representing certain indigent youth raises systemic due process concerns. Under that system, contract attorneys — such as the one who represented Antonio, are paid an astonishingly low fee of $300 to $350 per case, regardless of whether the case involves shoplifting or murder. This is in a city where private lawyers are costly. Criminal defense attorney fees in Los Angeles can easily exceed $500 an hour.”
 
He also reports that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 11 voted unanimously to study the issue of panel attorneys’ compensation and other issues involving the county’s juvenile defense system. A series of recommendations is expected to be presented to the board this spring. 
 
Read the report, which also appears on publicCEO.com, here.

Civil Rights Becoming Key Budget Argument

 
Stepping up her intensity from previous references, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is pushing civil rights as a key argument for court funding increases, echoing comments from labor activists and others – and she’s including civil courts access along with the more high-profile (and obvious) criminal court problems.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Photo: California Courts)

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

 
The chief justice, in an address to state lawmakers, even put the number of California residents “deprived” of access to justice at 2 million and said the state was on the verge of what she called  civil rights crisis. Another talking point quote: “It’s tragic that 50 years after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act, California faces a different type of civil rights crisis. It is not about the law. It is about access to it.”

The chief justice’s comments are getting broad play around the state, and even the Los Angeles Times, which has not exactly been a leader in the court crisis coverage, took note. You can see the Times story here

Pasadena ‘Walk-Up’ Window Cuts Wait Times

 
Courts across California are reporting long lines for relatively routine issues, like traffic tickets, but at Pasadena a new walk-up window is letting people bypass even entering the courthouse, which means not going through the security lines and reduced wait times.
 
The Courthouse News is reporting that Supervising Judge Mary Thornton House called the new window a huge success and said it would reduce long waits and lines, adding that the court would like to install more walk-up windows, but structurally the building can only accommodate one.
 
Judge House also noted in the CN that the recent L.A. County Superior Courtco consolidation plan led the Pasadena courthouse to assume Alhambra traffic cases… “so our traffic matters were doubled, which created very long lines and required people to go through weapons screening simply to pay a ticket.” The report also noted a Yelp user who said it had taken him two hours to pay a $238 traffic ticket. The report also says members of the public still need to visit the clerk’s office to request traffic school, or pay traffic citations that have already been sent to collections. Check out the story here.

Chief Justice George’s Memoir Still Gets Noticed

 
It made some headlines when it was published a few months back, but now some of the long-lead publications are writing about former state Chief Justice Ron George’s “oral self-history” entitled Chief: The Quest for Justice in California. And it’s not always pretty, with a good example coming from the City Journal.
 
After noting that not that many people pay attention to the court system, the Journal says “… but George’s story is significant if only as an illustration of judicial hubris, of how power breeds arrogance, and of how a desire for respect from the establishment leads to activism from the bench.” The piece is written by Mark Pulliam, familiar to many in the courts community for his work as legal issues writer for the California Political Review.
 
It’s a good take on the “King George” book, and you can read it here

Some Teens Get A Special Court

 
One more alternative to California’s traditional justice system: Santa Monica High School has become the latest Los Angeles County school to adopt a “teen court” approach that lets fellow students judge their peers. The Santa Monica Daily Press reports that the program, launched in 1992, offers teenagers a voluntary alternative to delinquency court and the crime can be removed from their record.
 
The first court featured a visit from the police chief and several judges, but the teenagers handled the actual case themselves, according to a story by David Mark Simpson. The story follows a case of middle school computer hacking and how it gets handled. Citing a program official, the newspaper says the program has grown to include 23 schools.
 
The defendants, who are from other schools, opted to be tried by a jury of their peers rather than go to delinquency court. The incentive to be tried by a group of adolescents: The crime is expunged from their record.
See the story here.

Plaintiff, Defense Attorneys Agree On Court Funding Need

 
You just don’t find much common ground among plaintiffs attorneys, who tend to sue corporate entities, and the tort reformers, who tend to seek ways to make it harder to sue corporate entities. But both groups agree with California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s “Blueprint for Access to Justice” that she unveiled this month. Along with a spate of press outreach events, it represents this year’s budget offensive for the courts system.
 
The plaintiff attorney group Consumer Attorneys of California group’s president, John M. Feder, said in a press statement that “… we strongly support the restoration of adequate funding to California’s court system. For the past six years, as court funding has shriveled, California consumers and businesses have faced increasing obstacles to resolving disputes that can be fairly handled only by the courts. The long waits and travel inconveniences that have been created by closing courthouses, cutting staff and  reducing service hours must end. The Chief Justice’s proposal addresses the reality of what it will take to have a fully functioning judicial branch, and we think it is a step in the right direction toward restoring the access to justice that California citizens deserve in a society of laws.” 
 
 The Civil Justice Association of California, or CJAC, is among the state’s “tort reform” pro-business groups favoring the proposal.  The group’s website cites CJAC President Kim Stone saying that “… businesses in California need a fully functioning, appropriately funded judicial system. Court delays can turn a one year case into a three-year case, with greatly increased costs for both sides. CJAC applauds the $100M increase in judicial branch funding in the 2014 Governor’s proposed budget, but believes that the courts need and deserve more.”
 
There you have it. One of the few times you’ll read any report where those people are singing the same tune.
 
Find more on court funding from the plaintiff attorney point of view here.
 
And find more on court funding from the tort reform point of view here.

Presiding Juvenile Court Judge who blasted system is calling it quits

Los Angeles is losing one of its more respected judges. And while Superior Court Judge Michael Nash, presiding judge of the county’s sprawling juvenile court system, is doing the old “new opportunities” dance, a column from the L.A. Times might offer insight into his frustrations amid budget cuts and after 29 years on the court.

Judge Michael Nash (photo from California Courts, www.courts.ca.gov)

Judge Michael Nash (photo from California Courts, www.courts.ca.gov)

The judge told the Metropolitan News that he has not decided if he will retire soon or serve out his term, which tuns through 2014. The MetNews also reported that Deputy District Attorney Dayan Mathai Thursday became the first candidate to take out papers to run for Nash’s seat. You can find that story (and if you’re interested in court election news, go ahead and bookmark it) here.

 
Judge Nash’s comments were a bit more reflective, and downright dismal, in Jim Newton’s L.A. Times column in June, 2013: “I feel as crappy about things as I have in a long time,” he says in the column. “It’s just very difficult to do the job in a meaningful way.” Newton explains that “… the source of Nash’s discontent is the swelling caseload that his judges are being asked to carry — a burden that reduces the amount of time they have to focus on the needs of the children whose futures they decide. As of today, he 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.”
 
And (spoiler alert!) the Newton column ends with this: “… near the end of our conversation the other day, I asked whether he saw anything on the horizon that would make the work of his court easier and improve the lives of the children in its care. His answer: ‘No.'”
 
Read the telling column here.

Media Effort For Court Budget Increase Continues

 
“Justice doesn’t come cheap,” begins the editorial in The Sacramento Bee, adding that “California’s top court official has put out a price tag for the Legislature and public to ponder – $1.2 billion. That’s how much more the judicial branch needs annually by 2016-17 to recover from four years of steep budget cuts and restore a fully functioning court system.”
 
Say what you will of California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, you have to admit she’s working the state’s mainstream media in hopes of getting more cash for the courts. The SacBee is the latest to note that she is rejecting the governor’s “$105 million” increase, saying it will mean more layoffs. The state capitol newspaper writes that “… Cantil-Sakauye asserts – and the Legislative Analyst’s Office agrees – that because the courts can’t dip into reserves as they did the last two years, that would be a net reduction….” She says another $161.5 million will just “tread water” and keep the current level of services, plus cover an increase in employee health and retirement costs.
 
The paper also notes that “… the Judicial Council must accept some responsibility. Before pulling the plug in 2012, it wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on a badly botched statewide computer system designed to bring the courts into the 21st century. Administrative offices got fat. There’s more work to do to make the courts more efficient.” Truly, the budget games have begun.
 
Read more here.

Chino Newspaper Calls For Court Changes

 
The Chino Champion newspaper is among the local media organizations taking notice of civil justice rationing, and it has a proposal: Return the statewide courts system to local control. The paper writes that “… the court system is being squeezed to where it no longer serves the public as it should. Chino Valley residents have experienced the effects of its superior court closure, a move that adds costly hours or days to participants, whether they are plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses or jurors.”
 
The result, the Champion argues, is that relatively simple issues like code enforcement or traffic citations become more trouble than they are worth, both for government and residents. The suggestion: “we have advocated before that the courts return to the less expensive locally-based system to handle up to 90 percent of the matters such as traffic, small claims and custody orders which now clog the superior court system. This would be one step in restoring a sense of justice to the people.”
 
Read the editorial here.
 

Court Delays Hitting Mentally Ill Defendants

 
Nobody has to tell civil courts advocates that some court functions enjoy more political attention and funding priority than others. But there’s increasing concern that mentally incompetent defendants are being stuck in county jails because there are just not enough hospital beds available, at least not ones designed for treating the mentally ill. Of course, the system is creating a revolving door as the lack of treatment leads people right back to local jails.
 
The San Luis Obispo Tribune has one of the better local stories about the trend, which is shaping up as a key issue for the upcoming state budget battle. Recent federal court rulings have increased focus on mental health under Obamacare, and these cases are sure to gain priority. The Tribune explains the situation: “The problem is particularly notable for defendants declared incompetent to stand trial. Competent defendants understand the charges against them and can assist their attorneys in their defense. If an attorney doesn’t think a client can do that, he declares a doubt in court. At that point, psychiatric evaluations are ordered. If a judge deems the defendant incompetent, the case is suspended, and the defendant is ordered to undergo treatment until competency is restored.” Except backlogs and cutbacks make that process nearly impossible,
 
Read the report here.