Golden State leads national trend of civil justice rationing

The CCM is adding selected national news stories on what amounts to the ongoing dismantling of the American civil justice system. While we remain focused on California civil justice rationing, it’s important to know that the Golden State is indeed leading a trend. To offer an overview, we will cite a “classic” story from the Economist that sets the stage.
 
The magazine reported more than a year ago that “… a report by the American Bar Association found that in the last three years, most states have cut court funding by around 10-15%. In the past two years, 26 have stopped filling judicial vacancies, 34 have stopped replacing clerks, 31 have frozen or cut the salaries of judges or staff, 16 have furloughed clerical staff, and nine have furloughed judges.”
 
It’s only gotten worse.
 
But the Economist offered more insight into what the civil cuts mean:
In Florida in 2009, according to the Washington Economics Group, the backlog in civil courts is costing the state some $9.8 billion in GDP a year, a staggering achievement for a court system that costs just $1.2 billion in its entirety. To make up the funding shortfall, courts are imposing higher filing fees on litigants. This threatens the idea of the equal right to justice, says Rebecca Love Kourlis of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.
 

Strong NBC Report Getting Some ‘Legs’ Online

Good news: The NBC San Francisco affiliate investigative report on the court backlog (see July 24 post below) is getting some increased attention online and the reporter, Stephen Stock, is continuing the conversation on Twitter. The Twitter conversation even includes some high-profile judges. 

Recent Tweets include “CA ct backlog: collection filings can take anywhere from 5 months to 32 months!!! depending on which court” and “court backlog DEFINITELY affects tenant/landlord disputes!

Stock and the “Bay Area Investigative Unit” took a look behind the usual reporting on numbers and “official voices” and reported on the stories of actual people. They highlighted a mother who has been waiting for her day in court for three years – over custody of her children. 

This is the first story we have re-noticed here, and if you check it out you’ll see why. See it here (and note that the written text leaves out some of the good parts from the video; they are slightly different).

After Layoffs, L.A. Courts Hiring Again – Judges That Is

After laying off more than 100 justice workers over the past month and eliminating hundreds more positions, the Los Angeles Superior Court has announced a half-dozen new hires for some $178,789-per-year jobs. Gov. Brown announced the appointment of six new judges last week, including two Superior Court commissioners, one former public defender and two prosecutors.
 
In one of the ironies of the justice rationing system, judges are protected in their jobs. Yet some have complained that they are actually not that effective due to staff cutbacks. Most judges begin their time on the bench after a governor’s appointment, and while they then face “election” most never face serious opposition.
 
The new judges are Loyd C. Loomis, Nicole C. Bershon, Beverly L. Bourne, Rupa S. Goswami, Curtis A. Kin and Teresa T. Sullivan. You can read more about them here.

Coastal Lawsuit Backup Shows 1,837-Case, 20-year Backlog

 
What happens when the Superior Courts civil dockets get really, really backed up? In effect, the rule of law is suspended; there’s a great example of that with the California Coastal Commission, which can’t actually levy fines but uses lawsuits to enforce regulations. But, in a must-read story, the San Jose Mercury News says the state agency now faces “… 1,837 backlogged cases, some dating back 20 years.”
The newspaper says that the cases “… range from wealthy Malibu residents putting up illegal “no parking” signs to block families from public beaches to a company suspected of illegally mining sand on Monterey County beaches to property owners dumping debris on the shoreline in rural Del Norte County.” And there’s a bill in Sacramento that would allow the commission to levy its own fines, like the Fish & Wildlife or air quality agencies. 
 
So you can take your pick: The new law would finally give the commission “some teeth” or it could bypass the civil justice system in favor of another fine-producing state board. But as other issues face the slowness of Superior Courts, you can bet this illustrates a trend away from having “your day in court.” Read the story 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