PRESIDENT’S REPORT
San Francisco Superior Court in Crisis: WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Priya Sanger “ T
he civil justice system in San Francisco is col- lapsing,” San Francisco Superior Court Pre- siding Judge Katherine Feinstein announced at a packed press conference on July 18, 2011. She then detailed a complete disman-
tling of the court beginning with sixty-day layoff notices being delivered to two hundred court employees, separa- tion papers being delivered to eleven of the twelve court commissioners (one commissioner is funded by a federal grant), and twenty-five civil courtrooms closing effective October 3, 2011.
With a $13.75 million deficit for the fiscal year that began July 1, 2011, Feinstein continued, “After we downsize this court in the next sixty days, we will be a shell of what we once were.”
So what is The Bar Association of San Francisco doing to help?
Within two days of Judge Feinstein’s press conference, BASF’s Board of Directors met and sprang into action. BASF wrote a letter to the Judicial Council of California and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) urging support for funding for the San Francisco Superior Court. This letter was also signed within twenty-four hours by eight minority bar associations, including the Minority Bar Coalition, which represents more than twenty local bar associations.
Twenty-nine past BASF presidents drafted a similar letter urging the AOC “to do everything in its power to main- tain a fair and accessible system of justice for the people of California.”
And within twenty hours, led by BASF board member and managing partner of O’Melveny & Myers’ San Francisco office Michael F. Tubach, sixty-two managing partners of Bay Area law firms signed a letter urging the AOC “to take swift and clear action to prevent the unfathomable conse- quences that are sure to result from the contemplated cuts.”
The Bar Association of San Francisco is working at light speed to meet the crisis in the courts head-on and to form
6 FALL 2011
a coalition to remedy it. The BASF Court Funding Task Force, consisting of three working groups, has been cre- ated and is drawing on the expertise of leaders from the de- fense bar, the plaintiff bar, corporations, government, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, law schools, and unions representing court workers—all working side by side on the common goal to save our local court.
The three parallel working groups—Legislation, Consti- tutional Challenges, and Judicial Council—have identi- fied the following options that were being considered and worked on as of mid-August as San Francisco Attorney mag- azine went to print.
SHORT TERM OPTION In the short term, the Judicial Council could authorize trial courts to assess a new user fee, not otherwise man- dated by statute and not previously assessed, in an area that will not affect access to justice for the poor—such as in complex litigation (establishment of a user fee is not to be confused with the assessment of filing fees, which are statu- torily mandated). Here are a few Q&As:
• Does the power exist within the scope of the Judicial Council without need for legislation? Yes it appears to be within the scope of California Government Code Regulation 70631.
• How might this happen? The Judicial Council would set up an emergency meeting to review and approve the pro- posed service fee.
• What are the pros? These fees allow trial courts to get an ongoing cash infusion from complex litigation for all courtrooms during the budget shortfall until a legislative solution is reached. Courtrooms can be kept open, and thus access to justice remains intact.
• What are the cons? The legislature may continue to underfund the judicial branch; however, this could be overcome with greater education of legislators and more lobbying by a future judicial coalition.
• Does this threaten unification? No, this plan does not af- fect each county superior court’s allocation under the es-
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