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.

2014 Judicial Election Cycle Gets Started

We don’t yet know how many Los Angeles Superior Court judgeships will be up for election next year, but at least four candidates are hoping to take the familiar path from the District Attorney office to the bench. From various reports and announcements, they include Alison Matsumoto Estrada, Stacy Okun-Wiese, Donna Hollingsworth Armstrong and Andrew Cooper.
 
Typically, judicial careers in L.A. Superior Court begin with an appointment by the governor and few judges face contested elections. Some critics have suggested this is because the “culture” is that anyone challenging a seated judge can face negative reactions in court, both from that judge and even others. The early announcements for next year’s race suggest a more robust election cycle, and budget challenges are already a top issue.
 
Read about Andrew Cooper at MetNews here and about the other three candidates and find some campaign links here.

‘Routine’ Bay Area Court Decision Taking Years

It sounds fairly routine: A town’s government thinks development is good for an area, but environmentalists and others say officials have not demanded the kinds of research required by law. So you go to court for a decision, and how long should that take? In the Bay Area community of Newark, they are at three years – and counting.
 
At issue is a non-developed area of the town that many want to preserve. After taking several years to develop a master plan, and gain official support, developers found themselves facing a lawsuit in 2010. A Contra Costa Times newspaper report says that “… the lawsuit has meandered through the courts for the past three years, with all parties still waiting for a definitive ruling. A case management conference involving a judge and the attorneys for both sides is scheduled Nov. 12.”

It has become a case study in the courts’ role in such controversies, with added significance in an area of civil court delays and cutbacks. Read more about it here.

San Bernardino Lawyers Brace For Their ‘Reorganization’

 
The next wave of Superior Court reorganization is slated for San Bernardino early next year, and lawyers there are not happy about the changes, according to The Sun newspaper. The Sun reported that “… attorneys spoke to executive staff at the San Bernardino County Superior Court last week about alternatives to a planned reorganization that will have some people traveling farther distances for court cases.
 
Lawyers involved in the meeting told the newspaper that suggestions of cost savings and other ideas were not going to change the situation. The presiding judge of the county’s Superior Court announced in October that significant changes would occur next year during the 2014 realignment, which would include moving countywide civil cases to the new San Bernardino Justice Center.
 
See the story here.  

Judges Might Hear Cases Of Political Donors

A California Supreme Court ethics committee is seeking comments on a draft opinion that would allow state judges to hear cases of lawyers whose firms have donated to the judge’s campaigns, just so long as no single attorney trying that specific case has given more than $1,500. Judges would have to disclose the contribution, but could still hear the case.
 
The Metropolitan News is reporting details that “… the issue involves the interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 170.1(a)(9)(a), which mandates judicial disqualification when a “lawyer in the proceeding” has donated more than $1,500 to the judge’s campaign. The draft opinion would clarify that the statute does not apply to contributions by a firm, and does not provide for aggregation of smaller contributions by individual lawyer.”
 
The deadline for comment on either opinion is Nov. 15,  and comments may be submitted at the site, or by email, or by regular mail. The draft opinions and invitation to comment are posted on the committee’s website here. The full MetNews story is here.

Chief Justice Notices ‘Two-Tiered’ Court System

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

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


Anyone seeking evidence that California has created a two-tier system that denies justice to lower income residents can just ask the state’s chief justice. Echoing a host of earlier comments, Tani Cantil-Sakauye told KQED News that “The truth is, those who can will use other, private alternatives… but those of us who need to go to the court, who don’t have those resources, find ourselves frankly getting a second system of justice.” 
 
The report also included that “… the Chief said severe state budget cuts had created a ‘two-tier system of justice’ in California, where shuttered courthouses and shorter courtroom hours are ‘basically denying justice across the state.'” The comment continue a consistent message from state court managers that the system is broken and that the losers include lower and moderate income people who need the courts.
 
See video and read more about this particular interview, which includes that the chief justice self-identified as a Republican, here.  

‘Gold Rush’ On For Court Technologies

California may not have enough money to keep community courthouses open, but it has plenty for the next wave of tech upgrades in the wake of that half-billion-dollar failure Court Case Management System failure. In fact, Maria Dinezo at the Courthouse News Service writes that “… a new gold rush has come to California, with the state’s massive legal system open for mining as courts and lawyers move to new technology.”
 
The report notes that gold rushers “… are scrambling for a mother lode of multimillion-dollar contracts for software and licensing, vast additional sums for upkeep, and the right to set up a toll booth on Court Road for 38 million people.” Some clear winners are identified, as “… a group of judges, tech staff and administrators wrote a model contract and selected three top bidders: New Mexico-based Justice Systems Inc., Texas-based Tyler Technologies and Pennsylvania-based LT-Tech owned by Thompson Reuters formerly West Publishing.”
 
Included in the model contract: The right to charge lawyers a fee for every document electronically filed, perhaps around $5. Dinezo does some math: “In one big Southern California court, for example, about 750,000 documents are projected to be filed this year. That’s in Orange County’s civil section alone. Multiplied by a $5 fee, the flow of money would amount to $3 million a year. Extrapolating based on population, total income from the per-document fees could easily rise to $40 million a year throughout the state, paid by California’s lawyers.”
 
And that’s just for civil litigation and does not include separate fees for stuff like installation and upkeep. Follow more of the money here.

Debate Continues On Civil Jury Access, Reductions

 
Money is one resource that forces justice rationing, but jury time is another. When Gov. Brown recently vetoed a jury overhaul bill, the focus was rightly on the issue of allowing non-citizens to serve on the panels. Less reported were issues that would reduce the jury size in some criminal cases and virtually all civil trials.
 
The Sacramento Bee had a recent editorial calling for jury reform and offering some numbers. Says the newspaper: “Statewide approximately 10 million jurors are summoned for service, but only 4 million of those are available and qualified for the task. And even fewer, 1.5 million prospective jurors, actually report to courts. Courts struggle to find sufficient numbers of jurors to serve and the cost of jury service to the courts and to those who serve has become a real strain.” 
 
In a reform idea supported by the Bee, “… in all civil cases, the number of jurors would be reduced from 12 to eight… it’s estimated that the changes proposed would save beleaguered California courts an estimated $5.1 million annually in direct costs. Community costs, which include the loss of productivity, wages and business activity, would be reduced by approximately $174 million annually.”
 
But the idea is not really to save money. The fact is that “jury time” is a resource that’s in short supply, and the battle for access mirrors the sorts of decisions forced by the lack of funding. Read the newspaper’s opinion, and other California editorials gathered by the Associated Press, here

Chief Justice: We’re Basically Denying Justice

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

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

California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye continues to make the kind of statements you just know have to eventually fuel legal action:  either that or it’s basically okay to offer one justice system to the rich and another to everyone else.
 
In an audio interview with with Scott Shafer of The California Report produced by KQED, the chief justice says the state is “basically denying justice” to people by creating “a two-tiered system.” She also tells host Scott Shafer that Gov. Brown is basically overseeing a sea change in California justice, including moving inmates to county jails or onto the streets.
 
It’s strong stuff and you can listen here.
 
 
 
 

Gov. Signs Law, Illegal Immigrants Can Become Lawyers

Surprising nobody, Gov. Brown has signed legislation that allows an illegal immigrant to become an attorney — if they have gained the proper academic credentials and passed the state bar. The law comes after a Chico man named Sergio Garcia, a law school graduate who has awaited a green card for almost 10 years, appealed his license denial all the way to the state supreme court.
 
The Obama administration had opposed the idea, arguing that federal immigration law blocks such professional licensing unless states pass a specific law allowing law licenses for illegal immigrants. Stumped, the state’s supreme court judges asked the legislature to adopt such a law and it did, leading to Brown’s signature this week.