Legal Pad

Court closures likely to continue through June

Expect California's once-a-month court closures to continue, at least through June.

In a report posted online Thursday, Administrative Office of the Courts staff recommends that the statewide shutterings continue through the current fiscal year. What happens in July? Well, that depends on how much money the Legislature and governor are willing to shell out to the courts, the report says.

If the politicians don't pony up more money, local court leaders should be able to decide whether their local courthouses continue to close once a month, AOC staff says. The Judicial Council will consider the report's recommendations at its meeting Jan. 21.

Council members will also no doubt ponder why the closures have saved significantly less money than originally predicted. Ten closure days through June 2010 were supposed to save $93.9 million, according to the AOC. Revised projections have lowered that figure to $63.6 million, largely because some trial courts couldn't reach cost-cutting pacts with labor groups and sheriffs, according to the report. We'll have more on that later.

You can read the report, and a handful of the hundreds of comments the AOC received on court closures, here (.pdf).

— Cheryl Miller
Follow me on Twitter

AG investigating court facilities contractor

The attorney general’s office is investigating allegations that a private company hired to manage and maintain courthouses around the state does not have a legally required contractor’s license.

A spokeswoman for AG Jerry Brown confirmed that investigators are looking into Aleut Global Solutions, or AGS, which has a contract with the Administrative Office of the Courts to service court facilities in Northern California. AGS is one of three companies retained by the AOC to maintain hundreds of buildings that have transferred from county control to the state.

Although the original 2006 contract with AGS, previously known as TekStar, required the company to possess a contractor’s license, nobody at the AOC checked to see that it did. A spokesman for the Contractors State Licensing Board said AGS does not appear in its licensing log.

Also, the license of a second contractor, Jacobs Facilities Inc., lapsed at some point during its three-year agreement to maintain Southern California courthouses, AOC officials said this week. The work was transferred to a related company, which has a valid license, officials added.

The AOC employee who blew the whistle on the contracts, after the jump.

L.A. Judge Indicted in Alleged Election Bribery Attempt

Los Angeles County Superior Court is already facing a lost business day next week when many of its courthouses go dark Wednesday to cut costs. Now it’s facing the loss of a judge, at least temporarily.

Judge Harvey Silberman was indicted by a grand jury on June 24 on charges that he tried to bribe Deputy District Attorney Serena Murillo not to run against him in the June 2008 election, according to a copy of the indictment provided by the attorney general’s office.

Also charged in the indictment were political consultants Evelyn Alexander and Alan Steinberg. Silberman’s attorney, Daniel Nixon, told the Los Angeles Times that the judge “is appalled and outraged” by the charges and that he is “absolutely innocent.” The two consultants entered not guilty pleas on Wednesday. Silberman’s arraignment was delayed pending the arrival of an out-of-county judge.

Witness list, after the jump

Examiner Says: Censure Judge. Maybe De-Bench Him.

A Sacramento judge who walked out on a heated divorce trial should be publicly censured “at a minimum” and perhaps even removed from office, an examiner has recommended to the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Peter McBrien gave “false and misleading testimony while under oath,” won’t admit to “the impropriety of his conduct” and is “likely” to commit “further misconduct,” Examiner Andrew Blum wrote in a July 7 letter (.pdf) to commissioners.

Not surprisingly, McBrien’s attorney sees things differently.

Imagine that … after the jump.

Lawyer's Abuse Helps Him Lose Abuse Case (For Awhile)

You gotta hand it to temporary Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Schulte: He respects the elderly. But maybe a little too much.

About a year ago, Schulte found that an 83-year-old man named Michael had been the victim of elder abuse. Not because of what allegedly happened to him at home, but because the defense lawyer had raised his voice and been confrontational while questioning the old guy in court.

“The examination of him, I think, was abusive to him,” the judge told the lawyer. “We’re in a court of families that go through these difficult times. And they need to be treated with respect. And I compared that to how [Michael’s counsel] cross-examined [Diana]. With respect, without raising his voice, without being confrontational.”

And he was peeved that the elderly man’s daughter, who was accused of abuse, didn’t tap the attorney on the shoulder and tell him to tone down the questioning.

And how’d that affect the ruling? And the appeal? After the jump.

Why We're Talking About a Judge's Shootout Back in '06

Let met tell you a tale about a judge who’s a real rootin’ tootin’ shootin’ son of a gun.

He’s Harold Neville, retired from Humboldt County Superior Court in the wilds of far northwest California. But he seems to have a bit of the spirit of famed Judge Roy Bean, who called himself the “Law West of the Pecos” back in Texas in the 1800s.

It seems Neville had been fishing with a lady friend on Oct. 29, 2006, when he became alerted to the presence of car thieves, who had stolen one vehicle and were pillaging others, down a one-way road to the Klamath River. Rather than let ‘um get away, Neville — a former Marine and highway patrol officer — blocked the road with his truck, pulled a handgun out of the vehicle’s door and demanded one of the suspects, who was in a stolen Toyota 4Runner SUV 40 yards away, to stand down.

Find out what kind of a shot Neville was, after the jump ...

Fewer Bad Apples in Judge Pool

The number of would-be judges labeled “not qualified” by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation last year dropped by more than 50 percent from 2007, according to figures released by the State Bar late Monday.

Just 15 of 259 applicants received the dreaded “not qualified” rating. Thirty-three received the label in 2007.

The JNE numbers detail the cumulative gender and ethnicities of lawyers applying for judgeships in 2008. They also break down the applicants’ ratings – extremely well qualified, well qualified, qualified and not qualified -- by gender and ethnic subgroups.

State law requires JNE to release the data annually. The Judicial Council and the governor’s office released similar figures on judicial applicants and appointments earlier this week.

This year’s JNE numbers are in the chart at right — click to enlarge.

—  Cheryl Miller

Retirement Rules Mean No Furloughs for Judges

Volunteering for once-a-month, unpaid furlough days to help cut costs is the chic thing for staffers to do at the California Supreme Court, First District Court of Appeal and the Administrative Office of the Courts.

But the 26 justices on the Supreme Court and First District can’t get in on that action, even if they want to show solidarity in these harsh financial times. They’ve been advised not to take part, or risk doing damage to their retirement benefits.

Oh, the bureaucracy! … After the jump.

Judge Applications Down, esp. Among Non-Whites

The number of lawyers applying for judgeships in California last year dropped 37 percent from 2007, according to numbers released today by the governor’s office.

Just 262 attorneys submitted applications in 2008, down from 414 the year before and 325 in 2007. Rachel Cameron, a spokeswoman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said no one is sure why the numbers fell.

“We don’t have one particular thing we can point to one way or another,” Cameron said.

Only white guys still apply. All kinds of blame, after the jump.

Psst -- There's an Easy Way Out on Prop 8

Let’s face it, the California Supreme Court will face a tough decision after it hears oral argument next month on the challenge to Proposition 8 and same-sex marriage. Essentially, the court will have to choose between being on the Roger Taney side of history or egregiously flouting the will of 7 million voters (with a retention election just 18 months away).

Happily, we've come up with a third and much easier way out. As a public service to the court, we’ve drafted the first four pages of an opinion that gets the resolution the majority wants while shifting the blame elsewhere – to our grandstanding hard-working state senators and assembly members.

The opinion would look like this. [.pdf]

— Scott Graham