South Asian PAC Alleges Racism In L.A. Judge’s Elections

 
The MetNews is playing it calmly, but a new South Asian Bar Association Political Action Committee is not being shy about alleging racial bias against judges of South Asian decent. Noting that the PAC is “separate” from the bar association, its organizers point to the 2012 race between Judge Sanjay Kumar and Kim Smith, a Hawthorne Deputy City Attorney.
 
PAC organizers say that despite Smith being rated as “not qualified” by the Los Angeles County Bar Association and Kumar being rated “exceptionally well qualified,” the race was closer than they thought it should be. In fact, an attorney and PAC organizer is quoted by MetNews as saying that “… the South Asian community was shocked that this happened.”
 
The group has reportedly been raising money in SoCal and in San Francisco to warn the community of the “political challenges” faced by the situation.  Read the MetNews story here

Famous Judge Ito May Not Seek Re-Election

 
The Metropolitan News Enterprise is posting an “unconfirmed report” that L.A. Superior Court Judge Lance Ito, of O.J. Simpson trial fame, has not filed to seek another term. If that’s true, it will give the famous judge another chance to comment on the justice system; he’s not been shy in the past.
 
For example, in 2012 Ito made written comments accusing the state’s Administrative Office of Courts (AOC) of having adopted a “circle the wagons mentality,” when what it should to is to acknowledge that it “has been run in a deceptive, vindictive and manipulative manner” and get about the business of reform (from the MetNews).
 
The website has a rundown of current court races, with about 30 candidates participating in 11 elections. Thursday was the first deadline for filing to seek a judicial seat, but the election will not be wet until next week because an automatic deadline extension went into effect for about a dozen seats where no incumbent filed for re-election.
 
See the report and a rundown on who is running at MetNews.

Superior Court Judicial Election Deadline Looms, At Least 11 Seats Expected To Be ‘Open’

 
ANDREW M. STEIN, photo from his firm's website: www.steindefenselawyer.com

ANDREW M. STEIN, photo from his firm’s website: www.steindefenselawyer.com


A veteran criminal defense attorney and civil rights plaintiff-side attorney intends to buck the prosecutors trend in the upcoming Los Angeles Superior Court election, considering one of “at least 11” open seats to avoid running against an incumbent judge, the MetNews is reporting. The news site noted that Andrew M. Stein said he made the decision to run after eliciting a substantial positive response from “friends, relatives, and colleagues,” including a number of judges, whom he queried by email as to whether he should run.
 
The MetNews added that “… noting that all of the non-incumbents who had filed declarations of intent as ofThursday were deputy district attorneys, Stein said: ‘I love a lot of D.A.s and I have great respect for a lot of D.A.s. But I looked at who was running and they don’t have nearly the experience I have.'”
 
Stein is a sole practitioner and thus lacks the support that comes from a large firm, and the MetNews said that a successful campaign is likely to cost $350,000 or more.This week is a filing deadline that should make it clear which judicial seats are open. You can read the MetNews report, and bookmark it to follow the judicial race, here.

L.A. Supervisors Face Juvenile Justice Issue

 
A juvenile policy attorney and former public defender has an opinion piece making the rounds that makes a great argument for increasing funding to the Los Angeles juvenile justice system, but for once the issue is up to county officials instead of the wise ones in Sacramento. Carol Chodroff explains how the current attorney appointment scheme relies on a flat-fee contract that seems nearly designed for poor outcomes.
 
In her piece, which has appeared in both the Huffington Post and CityWatch, she reports that “… Los Angeles has one of the largest juvenile justice systems in the world, processing approximately 20,000 youths annually. About 11,000 of these youths are ineligible for representation by the public defender because of a conflict of interest. They are represented instead by appointed panel attorneys who receive a flat fee of approximately $350 for the life of a case, regardless of its complexity.
 
The bad news from this is that “… this perverse compensative scheme penalizes panel attorneys for doing the work required to zealously represent youthful clients. The resulting arbitrary and disparate treatment of children in the Los Angeles juvenile delinquency system is destructive, expensive, and unconstitutional.” But she also notes  that the good news is “… next week, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will hear an important motion introduced by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas to examine and recommend improvements to the delinquency representation system. The Board of Supervisors should pass this critical motion.”
 
You can read her argument in support of the county motion, via CityWatch, 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.

Civil Court Delays Lead To ‘Private’ Divorce Judges

 
California’s court delays may be frustrating many, but for some the solution might be “private judges” and opting into an alternative system. At “divorcehelp.com,” the private website warns that “.. although California law states that a couple can be divorced in six months and one day from the time one spouse is correctly served with proper divorce documents by the other, the reality is that it can take much, much longer.  One of the biggest culprits is the massive delays in the California court system.”
 
In some counties, the website contends, “… this means that it can take months or years to make it through the system, even in uncontested divorce cases. For example, initial divorce documents filed in Los Angeles County in April of 2013 were not being processed until December.

The service offers “mediation and private judge services” built upon 25 years of working with the court system. In other words, if you can afford the service you have a chance to bypass the gridlock. This is clearly something we’ll be seeing more of as the state dismantles its civil courts system. 
 
Check out the website 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.

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.

Courts Seek Savings With Jury Selection

 
The latest proposal from the California Judges Association to cut costs? How about lowering the number of no-reason jury dismissals from 10 to only five for misdemeanors? Supporters of that idea are asking state lawmakers to make the change via a bill, SB794, introduced by Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa.  
 

The Judge’s Association says the move would save $1.2 million per year for the courts, but a whopping $30 million or more for the prospective jurors, their employers and their communities, according to a report in SFGate. They also report that about 1.5 million Californians report for jury duty each year. It is unclear what impact the move would have on civil trials, where jury capacity is an increasingly touchy topic.

Check out the details here.