PRESIDENT’S REPORT
on the invite list include plaintiff attorneys Jo- seph Cotchett Jr. and Elizabeth Cabraser, and Morrison & Foerster litigator James Bros- nahan. Sanger discusses the options and the surprise $4.6 million found last week in the court reserves:
Q: What’s BASF doing to address the planned court closures?
A: We have created a BASF Court Funding Task Force consisting of three working
Priya Sanger
groups. One is a working group chaired by Stephanie Skaff from Farella Braun & Martel, with vice chair help from Chris Kearney from Keker & Van Nest and Cloey Hewlett from Nossaman, on ways in which legislation could be passed to help the courts get greater funding. This working group consists of defense and plaintiff law firms, in-house lawyers, consumer attorneys and also has support from the S.F. Chamber of Commerce’s Jim Laz- arus, who is serving as the chamber liaison to the legisla- tive working group. The second working group is ex- ploring litigation options and determining whether to seek redress of the funding shortfall on the basis of uncon- stitutionality, run by Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser. The third working group run by Merri Baldwin of Chap- man, Popik & White is focused on the judiciary and ex- ploring ways in which the S.F. Superior Court, AOC and the Judicial Council can seek greater funding through their own efforts or in concert with the Legislature.
Obviously there is some overlap within the working groups because we are all working together toward a com- mon goal. The three working groups have been reaching out to the courts, to the AOC, to other legal and trade as- sociations, to bar association leaders throughout the state, and to state and local legislators to get the relevant facts, assess the political landscape so we can understand what is workable and what is not workable, and to address the situation as a broad coalition whose goal is to increase court funding.
Q: What type of legislative solutions are being considered?
A: One approach is new legislation that would allow each individual court to add ei-
ther new fees or supplemental fees for services in the complex litigation area, an area which would be able to withstand a new or height- ened fee without running afoul of access-to- justice issues. Such a law would allow each court to raise revenues in a way that would be consistent with court unification but would still allow each court to benefit from services it provides. The danger of this option is that the Legislature may continue underfunding
the judiciary on the theory that the judiciary can raise its own funds. Another option is to explore new legislation providing for additional funding by shifting funds from general revenue funds to the judicial branch. Another option is to allocate part of a possible [future] sales tax increase to the S.F. Superior Court. These are some but not all of the options we are considering. So we’re brain- storming ways that we might shore up the shortfall with help from the brain trust in our BASF membership, in our trade groups, our legislators, the S.F. Superior Court, and from the Judicial Council and AOC.
Q: What angle is the litigation task force taking?
A: This group would be exploring the possibility that it’s unconstitutional to underfund the courts because the court as a separate branch of government relies on fund- ing from the executive and legislative branches in order to function properly and in order to keep the separation of powers strong. People rely on the courts as part of their access to justice.
Q: Could a suit like that risk a constitutional crisis?
A: No, the challenge itself would not create a constitu- tional crisis. Constitutional challenges such as these are not uncommon. The challenge would remedy a constitu- tional crisis rather than create one.
Q: Does BASF favor any single solution? A: At this juncture we don’t know which path is the best
8 FALL 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68