Welcome to our Blog

This weblog is intended primarily for the members of the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists. Please keep in mind, though, that it can be read by members of the public and is thus neither private nor confidential. If you would like to create a new post in our blog, please email the ACFLS webmaster, Bonnie Riley. Anyone may comment after supplying their email address (which will not be posted with the comment) and waiting for a moderator to approve. Enjoy! Blog contributors, login here.

Categories

Side Effects: A Tale from the Courthouse

I’m sure that we have all heard that the State, City and Court budget problems are not due to Prop. 13, the elimination of taxes on corporations and the wealthy, or any other cause except welfare programs and waste in unionized civil service functions. This week I learned some about what really goes on, at least within the Court system.

I needed to find an old paternity case, which had been filed in Santa Monica. The clerk in the Santa Monica courthouse was able to find the case on the computer system with ease (I guess all that data entry is part of the wasteful unionized labor going on behind the scenes). She told me that the clerk’s records indicated that the file had been sent to the Archives section, in the Hall of Records.

So, one day after morning L&M (not even slightly like S&M – really) I strolled over to the Archives section. Again, a clerk initiated a search, and was able to find the “incoming files” record, and assured me that the file had not yet been sent by Santa Monica to the Archives. So, back to Santa Monica, armed with that information.

This could have incited the Santa Monica clerks to give me a more ‘businesslike’ response, like shrugging their shoulders and asking “Whaddya want me to do aboudit?” Instead, the horribly inefficient, unionized, lazy, etc. etc. clerk asked me to wait. About 20 minutes later, the clerk returned with a printout of records (wastefully generated at taxpayer expense) which indicated that files from number SF xxx xxx through SF xxx xxx (numbers bracketing my file #) had been shipped to the Archives on October 30, 2009, in “box #xxx”. The clerk said that using the box number might make it easier for the Archives people to find the file. He then gave me a number to call to talk to an Archives supervisor.

Rather than going back downtown, I called the supervisor. Yes, she said, the box number would make it easier to confirm whether the file had arrived. After another 15 minute wait she came back on the line and confirmed that box xxx was there, still on a pallet, wrapped in plastic, on the loading dock, because they hadn’t had a chance, or the manpower, since October to intake it. Because it still sat on the loading dock, the incoming files records had not yet been updated, so the original archives clerk who said it wasn’t there was actually working from the most current information available to him.

With a request for a file from the box, that pallet apparently goes to the head of the line for processing. The supervisor told me that she hopes that the file will be on her desk by lunchtime today, so that I can review it this afternoon.

Through all of this, not one of the clerks complained about my request, my insistence that they look further, or about too much work to do. But the supervisor was apologetic in every sentence when talking to me. “I’m really very sorry, but we’ve just lost 40% of our staff, and you can see from boxes sitting on the loading dock that we didn’t have enough people before the cuts.” She didn’t ask me to call my County Supervisor, or the presiding judge. She just apologized for the conditions under which all the clerks labor.

While the Santa Monica clerk was looking for the records, on my second trip, a long line of people formed, waiting to see a clerk. Santa Monica courthouse now has many more clerk windows than clerks to fill them. Just as the clerk returned with the shipping records, a man walked up to the window, apparently familiar with the procedure and asserting priority to cut to the head of the line. He pushed through the window a bag from Subway. The clerk accepted the sandwich and started to deal with it, even as he dealt with the line that had built up behind me. Multi-tasking indeed.

I wonder how many clients lose how much time, or incur how many bills, because we are slashing away at the muscle which makes the court system function. When we cut them all, leaving just a skeleton of a court system, will any justice be dispensed?

Thomas M. Hall
Law Offices of Michael L. Abrams
11766 Wilshire Blvd., Sixth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025
(310) 268-1000

ACFLS Elkins Committee Report Submitted to Task Force in May

While we will not quote individual Task Force members here, it is safe to say our report was well received. Download your own copy, and please feel free to offer feedback by posting a comment or directly getting in touch with one of the committee members.

Elkins Report (MS Word document)

Exhibit 1 Adobe pdf

Exhibit 2 (MS Word document)

Exhibit 3 Adobe pdf

The delivery of the report to the Task Force members was timed to reach them prior to the May 12-13, 2009, meeting to finalize recommendations.  There will be a period of public comment in September and October after the Task Force has consolidated its input in August.  (June 2009 update on Task Force)

Live testimony from litigants and attorneys solicited on Monday, April 6

I just came across this on the California Courts website.   According to this page, the meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the Judicial Council Conference Center of the Administrative Office of the Courts, 455 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco, California.  The court website offers various ways to provide  your input, including an opportunity to submit a recording.  The next meeting is scheduled for May 12 and 13.

Tipping Points: Cal Courts Face Cutbacks, Shorter Hours

The National Law Journal reports that our courthouses may soon cut hours of operation, and that there’s no money to fund the much-needed 50 new judgeships.

“In California’s budget crisis, the nation’s largest state judiciary will be hit by severe budget shortages that may prompt shortened court hours, furloughed employees, loss of 50 new judgeships and less money for state-funded lawyers.”

NLJ quotes William Vickrey, Administrative Director of the Courts, as commenting, “”Courts may be open fewer hours. The irony is that in economic downturns the courts get more child support disputes, foster care filings, and landlord tenant problems.”

So at the same time that we will be building 15 new courthouses in California, there appears to be little prospect of staffing them.

California’s family law courts are already faced with huge caseloads of urgent, complex, and vitally important cases. AFCC (California Chapter) and ACFLS have already adopted resolutions describing the failure to adequately fund family courts as a public health crisis.

This means that our client-counseling, negotiation,  settlement and ADR skills are going to be more important than ever. Clients are not going to be able to afford the delays in getting their matters heard, and they aren’t going to want to pay us for endless trips to the courthouse where we spend most of the day waiting. We simply have to get better at narrowing the number of cases and issues that need judicial attention, and treating face time with judges as a precious commodity.

At the same time, I’m noticing a flood of attorneys laid off from large firms (Latham Watkins laid off 190 associates this week), or other practice areas deciding to take on family law cases. Such lawyers generally underestimate the complexity of family law cases, and their “trial and error” representation is apt to further crowd our already over-taxed family law bench.

The budget news makes the job of the Elkins Task Force even more daunting. Please share your ideas for family court reform here on the blog as ACFLS’s Elkins committee formulates recommendations to the Task Force.

Tipping Points — Reflections on California’s Family Courts

This week brought two interesting pieces of news.

First, when the California Legislature passed the budget, they also passed a bill authorizing Los Angeles County to offer its judges the benefit plan that had been found to violate state law. Since this program represents about $46,000 per year per judge, it will be a significant incentive to attract and keep good judges. After the recent Court of Appeal decisions, L.A.’s judges earned less money than our commissioners.

Second, the plan to transfer California’s courthouses from the counties to the State was approved, together with bonds for a major program of courthouse construction. The bonds are funded by filing fees. California is now on the way to building 21st Century courthouses.

So, what’s your vision for a 21st Century family court? Watch this spot for some of my thoughts, and please use the “comment” feature to post your ideas.

ACFLS Elkins committee wants your input

Please share your concerns, and all your reasoning as well as any suggested remedies, on how to improve our Family Law system for all litigants.  Visualize a blank slate and that you are the prime architect of the “state of the art” system for the ages:  What is needed?  YOU CAN THINK “OUTSIDE” THE BOX!