PRESIDENT’S REPORT
tablished Judicial Council funding formula. The plan is a remedy that provides self-help power to each trial court.
MEDIUM-TO-LONG-TERM OPTIONS A medium-term option is for the legislature and the Judi- cial Council to authorize each county court to assess an ad- ditional (supplemental) fee to an already-fee-assessed service in an area that will not affect access to justice for the poor, such as in complex litigation, and legislation allows a bud- get-strapped court to keep the additional fee in its county. Here are a few Q&As:
• Does the power exist within the scope of the Judicial Coun- cil without need for legislation? No, legislation will be needed. The Judicial Council and the AOC will have to approve this option before it is brought to the legislature.
• How might this happen? BASF’s outreach to key mem- bers of the legislature indicates these members are receptive to sponsoring additional service fees.
• What are the pros? Legislation for additional service fees allows each county court to raise revenue in the medium term until long-term legislative solutions can be reached. Courtrooms can be kept open, access to justice remains, and this option does not threaten unification.
• What are the cons? Additional fees for judicial services may be difficult to pass, as some groups have a suspicion of greater fees. The legislature may continue to under- fund the judicial branch; however, this could be over- come with greater education of legislators and more lob- bying by a future judicial coalition.
• Does this threaten unification? No, this option leaves unification intact. It provides self-help to each trial court.
Last, the likely best long-term solution would be the es- tablishment of a broad-based coalition seeking a legislative solution where the judicial branch is sufficiently funded, which would begin with refunding courts to a level suf- ficient to reenable access to justice.
• What are the pros? This option would avert a potential lawsuit brought against the state of California for under- funding the judicial branch of government. It would pre- serve separation of powers, promote the independence and strength of the judicial branch, and restore access to justice. This option enables unification to continue.
• What are the cons? The State of California’s revenues for the midterm January 2012 budget are projected to be short by $500 million. This option could take time to implement, but could be accomplished with greater education of legislators and more lobbying by a future judicial coalition.
In conclusion, I hope that the Q&A article below and the options being generated by BASF’s three working groups give you an idea of how your bar association is working on behalf of not only the 14,000 licensed attorneys in San Francisco, but also the men, women, and children who seek access to justice through San Francisco Superior Court, our court, every day of the week.
I invite you to join us as we work through these challeng- ing times. If you are interested in serving on one of the BASF working groups please let me know by emailing
courtfunding@sfbar.org.
Priya S. Sanger is senior counsel in the Strategy and Operational Risk Group of the Wells Fargo & Company Law Department. She serves as BASF president for 2011.
The following article is reprinted with permission from The Recorder, August 9, 2011. Copyright 2011 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.
COURT CRISIS Q&A with BASF President Priya Sanger
The Bar Association of San Francisco has marshaled some familiar names to draw up possible lines of attack in San Francisco’s court budget crisis. Among the approaches BASF is weighing are legislative changes, fee increases and a legal challenge to court closures. BASF President Priya
Petra Pasternak
Sanger, a senior counsel at Wells Fargo Bank, said she ex- pects each topic to come up in a meeting Thursday [Au- gust 11, 2011] with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who is hosting a budget crisis-driven get-together with Bay Area bar leaders. Sanger said some of the other names
THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO ATTORNEY 7
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