Journalism, Judges, and Justice: a Neglected American Alliance

The United States, after losing propaganda wars against Russia and China post-Trump, appears to be doubling down on anti-democratic allegations while elevating Asian-Americans into visible positions of power. This hybrid strategy is too little, too late, and will do nothing to alter China's rise to superpower status. 

By now, American politicians and CEOs know their country's institutions are no longer export-ready without substantial advertising and trillions of dollars of government stimulus. To add ballast to the strategies above, they are consolidating media and using government lawyers to prosecute perceived enemies of the state. Such maneuvering, which attempts to combine a Soviet hammer with American marketing and banking expertise, will fail because it brings nothing new. 

No government, irrespective of the political party in power, is really interested in freedom of the press. All democratic governments are keen to control the media by using undemocratic means. -- Preetika Dwivedi

Six corporations already control most of what Americans see, but social media, streaming services, satellite radio, and podcasts represent challenges to crafting a united narrative. As media further consolidates, it can distract you on firmer financial footing, sidelining critical voices by drowning you in options. For example, the American journalist most resembling Edward R. Murrow or Dan Rather is British-born Mehdi Hasan, whom most Americans have never heard of; meanwhile, any American wishing to read America's most honest political commentary would need to turn to the opening letter of Larry Flynt's Hustler magazine. When a semi-mainstream pornographer is a country's most incisive native-born journalist, it is unclear how further media consolidation will assist the role of journalist as the legislature's unofficial fact-finder.

"[I]mperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government." -- Chief Justice Hughes, 299 U.S. 353, 365 (1937)

Regarding "lawfare," the current Democratic Party majority has failed to secure significant jail time against even one alleged bad actor. Republican Steve Bannon's indictment was dismissed. Republicans Paul Manafort and Roger Stone were pardoned. Army lieutenant general Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI but was pardoned. The list of pardoned and/or convicted military personnel is long and, the occupation of Afghanistan having lasted 20 years, includes members under both Democratic and Republican administrations. 

History may not be kind to Clint Allen Lorance, Robert Bales, Jeremy Morlock, Edward Gallagher, or Mathew Golsteyn, but they can always claim they were victims of a corrupt military hierarchy, thus casting doubt on America's justice system. Such doubt means the law, designed to punish the guilty and free the innocent, cannot be wholly trusted, which in turn means American lawyers and judges cannot be trusted or believed. Doubt and legal maneuvering are not new phenomena, but when they have appeared together, the first casualty has been the credibility of the legal branch. In a ternary system where the judiciary supervises the executive and the legislature, it is not difficult to predict rot from one branch spreading everywhere. This, again, is nothing new. The 1995 O.J. Simpson trial foreshadowed issues not only within the criminal justice system, but the entire legal branch, including police departments, just as the Rodney King beating foreshadowed George Floyd's manslaughter. (The result of the upcoming Theranos trial, where a blond-haired, blue-eyed CEO is claiming she was the victim of a brown-skinned svengali, will determine whether California's justice system is capable of reform or irrevocably corrupt.)

Rot is particularly apt to spread where students lack proper civics and history instruction, and Americans who study the My Lai massacre are not taught the following facts: 1) twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader, was convicted; 2) the "day after the verdict, Nixon ordered Calley released from the post stockade and placed under house arrest in the Fort Benning bachelor officer quarters. Appeals would eventually reduce his punishment to time served." 

Why didn't President Nixon pardon Calley outright? The public--including a majority of whom voted--wouldn't have tolerated it, and their political engagement allowed Congress to use impeachment to drive Nixon out of the political arena. In contrast, when a divided Congress impeached Trump, few Americans cared because Trump was already out of office. (Politics may be a show, but it must contain some substance to maintain viewership.) 

Understanding events between Nixon and Biden requires remembering what happened between the American War of Aggression against Vietnam and twenty years of Afghan occupation: the Iraq War and Guantanamo Bay. There, too, justice and judges were feckless. Iraq War criminal Charles Graner served six and a half years of his ten year sentence. Lynndie England, Graner's co-conspirator, served only eighteen months of her three year sentence. As of July 2021, Guantanamo Bay is still open, despite former President Obama's pledge to close it. After the Mahmudiyah rape and killings, justice prevailed against Steven Dale Green, James P. Barker, Paul E. Cortez, Jesse V. Spielman, Bryan L. Howard, and Anthony W. Yribe, which made it all the more disheartening to see political and judicial integrity retreat again during the Afghan occupation. In stable countries, the scales of justice ought not to wobble so much. 

Now would be a good time for Americans to re-evaluate why political parties exist. It is not only to elevate intellectuals onto public platforms so they can compete with others under transparent rules that advance the nation. Ideally, politics is played by people who first and foremost prevent corruption within government itself, thereby gaining credibility to regulate the private sector, including criminals. Without such credibility, China's one-party system will succeed against the more complex, more variegated American system of checks and balances for obvious reasons: more variety is inferior when it allows more rather than less corruption, and when it renders corruption harder to root out. 

When the United States lacked global political competition, its political negligence was understandable. Today, America's political negligence is perplexing as well as unforgivable. After all, every empire eventually expires, but whether systemic corruption is part of its history is entirely up to its people and its politicians. Perhaps, in the end, not all empires are doomed to fail--just ones that make a mockery of their judges and journalists. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat, active member of International Federation of Journalists as of date of publication (July 2021)

Bonus: The war crimes mentioned above are by no means an  exhaustive list. According to CNN, 

"In testimony at an Article 32 hearing -- the military's version of a grand jury or preliminary hearing -- [Colonel] West said the [Iraqi] policeman... was not cooperating with interrogators, so he watched four of his soldiers from the 220th Field Artillery Battalion beat the detainee on the head and body. West said he also threatened to kill [the policeman]. 

Military prosecutors say West followed up on that threat by taking the suspect outside, put him on the ground near a weapons clearing barrel and fired his 9 mm pistol into the barrel. Apparently not knowing where West's gun was aimed, [the Iraqi policeman] cracked and gave information..." 

However, the policeman, Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi, "said in an interview that he did not [provide any valuable information], because he knew nothing." According to the NYT, "Hamoodi said that he was not sure what he told the Americans, but that it was meaningless information induced by fear and pain." 

"At least one man named by Mr. Hamoodi was taken into custody... and his home was searched. No plans for attacks on Americans or weapons were found. Colonel West testified that he did not know whether 'any corroboration' of a plot was ever found, adding: 'At the time I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received. It's possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi.'" (Source: NY Times, THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: INTERROGATIONS; How Colonel Risked His Career By Menacing Detainee and Lost, May 27, 2004, by Deborah Sontag) 

95 members of Congress signed a letter to the secretary of the Army supporting the colonel. West was fined 5,000 dollars. He became a Florida Representative and is now Chair of the Texas Republican Party.

"There was a looming sense of doom in America, a perception that established politics had failed. Many pundits had said that--after being motivated and defined for 30 years by the Communist threat--Americans seriously needed to find a new enemy." -- Mark Lawson, The Battle for Room Service (1993) 

After candidate Ross Perot's popularity, the "unnerving burden on President [Bill] Clinton was to restore democratic equilibrium--and confidence in the conventional ballot box--or America might yet be the territory for a populist, anti-political, sinister Mr. Fixit." -- Mark Lawson, The Battle for Room Service (1993)

Judge Kozinski and Judge Cantil-Sakauye: SCU Discussion

Judge Alex Kozinski and Judge Tani Cantil-Sakauye discussed civility at Santa Clara University on January 12, 2011.

Some quick facts: Judge Cantil-Sakauye is the current California Supreme Court Chief Justice and was appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Judge Kozinski is the Chief Judge for the 9th Circuit. Ronald Reagan, a Republican, appointed him at the age of 35 to his first judgeship. Both judges are ethnic minorities. Both judges were appointed by Republican governors.

I think Kozinski looks like Rehnquist, but that's just my take. Maybe it's the glasses--they both seem to wear the same type of glasses. Below are some highlights from the SCU discussion:

Judge Kozinski, in response to a question about civility in discussions: judges should call it like they see it; sometimes, when people mention civility, they mean "toning it down" for people who disagree with them. [Do you see why I like this guy?]

In response to whether judges get along with each other: courts get along famously--"they keep marrying each other." [This is funny, but it also indicates that many judges are sheltered from normal society and the private sector.]

IP cases are the most contentious [cases].

On diversity: I "would not be comfortable on a court with all white guys." [Judge Cantil-Sakauye commented that she had no problems being on a court with all white guys, drawing some laughter, presumably because she has experience serving on non-diverse courts and committees. Judge Kozinski commented that when he went to law school in 1975, women already represented a significant portion of his graduating class.]

On Yale Law: at Yale, "they don't teach you law at all," he said, drawing laughter from the audience.

On televised court hearings: we've had them in my appellate court since the 1990's as part of a pilot program that eventually became permanent.

Judge Cantil-Sakauye: "My first client is the rule of law."

Criticizing opposing counsel and making personal attacks distracts from the arguments. When I see that, I flip over the page and look at the lawyer's bar number [which shows how much experience s/he has], because experienced lawyers don't do that.

She essentially confirmed that there had been a California Supreme Court judge who was senile, and his colleagues had covered up the judge's senility. However, she denied that there was a "code of silence," saying, there is a "code of respect, not silence."

On judicial elections and corporate campaign donations: bankrolling judicial candidates "makes for a suspicious foundation" and causes people to "wonder about the soundness of opinions."

On her election to the California Supreme Court during the contentious 2010 elections: she was concerned because of her unique last name (ethnic and hyphenated). She said, "Never underestimate the power of 'Mr. No'" in an election year where voters are fed up with existing political players.

On diversity: it "broadens the discussion." For example, is some behavior heinous or a product of the environment?

Judges on Judges

I attended a legal seminar, and some of the judges had several interesting comments. One said that he enjoyed being a judge because we live in a secular society, and the rule of the law binds us all together. Judges, therefore, are the physical manifestation of this common bond, and it is a privilege to be one. [Brilliant comment from a brilliant judge. I always enjoy listening to JF.]

Another judge said that he enjoyed being a lawyer because he enjoyed advocacy. He said he never went home and thought, "Yes! [fist-pump] I really issued a heck of a decision today!"

A judge said that lawyers should "keep it real" in their motions and papers. (Don't try to "sell" the judge something.) He also said we live in a TV culture today, so visual aids are important in jury trials.

Another judge indicated that lawyers should use only their best arguments and not try to include every single possible argument.

Dealing with Gov Corruption and Santa Clara County

I appear to have written this in 2010 or 2012.  I am publishing it on November 10, 2015.

Here is a hilarious and useful article on dealing with government shakedowns:

http://killingbatteries.com/2008/05/how-to-escape-a-bribe-shakedown-perpetrated-by-greedy-moldovan-swine/

All governments seem to have corrupt members, although differences exist in the degree and type of corruption. Why do governments have such difficulty eliminating corruption? Because government officials are backed by laws; laws confer power; and power tends to corrupt on some level.

Power Should be Limited when Objective Measures of Performance are also Limited

When I was younger, I believed judges and other government officials were uniformly intelligent and moral beings. Unfortunately, experience has taught me otherwise. Courts, police departments, and other government agencies are still subject to the rule of averages--there will be many people who are average, a few who are very good, and a few who are very bad.

Government agencies tend to have more bad employees because it is hard to judge someone who produces nothing tangible. You can judge a salesperson, surgeon, taxi driver or lawyer using many objective metrics--sales, financial well-being, customer satisfaction, number of accidents, etc. But how do you evaluate a police officer, government lawyer, teacher, or judge? It's much more complicated, because there isn't an obvious objective metric. For example, a good teacher could have terrible students, a bad teacher could have wonderful students, Cop A could have fewer complaints than Cop B but Cop B could still be better, etc. Remembering that power tends to corrupt, the general idea is to minimize power where possible, especially when performance is difficult to measure. (Unfortunately--or perhaps fortunately--most Americans haven't had sufficient contact with government officials to truly understand the aforementioned principle.)

Yet another problem with government officials--besides the power and objective evaluation issues--is that they are used to deference. Spending your day-to-day life being deferred to must have some effect on people. From what I've seen, receiving constant compliments and deference results in a gradual and permanent aversion to people who fail to genuflect socially. Such a result is not optimal, because the more government officials rely on deference, the more likely it is that kowtowing becomes the pathway to success, not merit. We will revisit this idea later on.

Santa Clara County might be a good example of the "Compliments Over Merit" principle. First, the level of inbreeding--i.e., family relations--is astounding. Several judges are married to each other or other county/city employees. This inbreeding means the entire family unit experiences constant deference and virtually no criticism. Is a societal/class/professional bubble welcome when judges have so much power and deal with diverse parties? After all, so much law turns on credibility. When judges are surrounded by sycophants and non-diverse coworkers, what is the result? When weighing testimony, are judges going to disfavor someone with an accent? Will judges be able to understand that an older Filipino person will probably agree with every single statement offered by them, regardless of actual veracity? Does being surrounded by zero African-American, Pakistani, and Filipino persons in power create a subconscious bias? Is one race or class unintentionally favored over others? We don't really know, because the level of transparency in the court system is essentially non-existent. (When I tried to increase transparency as a County Commissioner, the Presiding Judge apparently shot down my idea, claiming it would take up too much time and resources. My idea would have taken only a few minutes a day to implement.) In any case, it's fair to contend that the Santa Clara County Superior Court has a higher-than-average level of inbreeding in its upper ranks and little racial diversity. Why should we care?

For one thing, Santa Clara County Superior Court has so few minority judges, you have to wonder what it's like to be a minority in a place that resembles an Orange County country club. As of June 8, 2010, in the main civil courthouse, only two out of the seventeen judges were non-white (another three are Jewish). Also, of the seventeen main civil judges, only four are female. You might think such non-diversity is shameful in a county that is around 40% immigrant and presumably at least 48% female, but it turns out that the white male Irish-American judges--all of them--are the hardest-working, most predictable judges (I'm not saying they are the best judges, but they are consistent, work hard, and follow the law, which means a lawyer can tell his/her client whether it is cost-effective to do x or y). Moreover, the Caucasian/white judges are, by and large, quite good. The following judge is retired, so I will mention him by name--Judge Alden E. Danner, for example, went out of his way to assist me when I submitted an accommodation request for my hearing impairment. He didn't have to do anything for me, and if you believe new age liberals, you wouldn't think that a conservative white male would be overly helpful to someone like me, but Judge Danner was instrumental in my ability to practice law.

In contrast, the two most pompous and unprepared judges I've encountered happen to be non-white males. I have struggled to discover the reasons behind this phenomenon, and I think I've finally figured it out: basically, affirmative action has failed because affirmative action allows the majority to elevate minorities based on charisma or some other social factor, not merit. Meanwhile, the majority race--lacking an approved legal path to elevate members based on factors external to merit--elevates their own members using merit and intelligence, creating a gap in quality between racial minorities and racial majorities. [Note: I've noticed that local Latino judges tend to be independent and intelligent. There's one particularly cool, smart judge I've nicknamed, "The Messiah." I attribute this phenomenon to the fact that Latinos have sizable numbers and political representation in San Jose and Santa Clara County. As such, they may be racial minorities, but not necessarily powerless minorities, which creates a welcome exception to everything I'm writing in this post.]

Affirmative Action Results in Cloning Different Colors of the Same Culture

Why does affirmative action tend to work against independent, extremely intelligent minorities? A minority who works hard and shows an independent streak may show up his/her colleagues, which places him/her at a disadvantage when it comes to being hired. Who wants to hire someone who might show him up? In contrast, a minority who sucks up to the majority will be favored by the majority, even if s/he has fewer credentials. Thus, rather than help the best minorities get ahead, affirmative action seems to help undeserving, compliant minorities at the expense of hard-working, independent minorities. If my theory is correct, then affirmative action represents the worst of all possible worlds--it punishes hard-working minorities and elevates undeserving minorities, which causes all racial groups to be resentful.

Of course, there are exceptions to my theory, but even these exceptions prove that when the majority uses affirmative action to hire someone, they opt for a clone, not real diversity. For example, regardless of how you view him, Clarence Thomas is an example of an independent minority because his views differ from the majority of his own race. At the same time, his views are a clone of the person who nominated him, i.e., President George H. W. Bush. Thus, even when affirmative action results in the hiring of an independent racial minority, such independence tends to have a caveat: conformation to the racial-majority's views and culture.

[By the way, law clerks are a different breed--they have to produce something--accurate legal briefs and decisions--and so the above generalizations don't apply to them. Also, I've noticed that some of the best law clerks in Santa Clara County Superior Court happen to be Asian, which makes it strange to see so few Asian judges here. (As of June 16, 2010, only one of the main civil courthouse judges is Asian).]

To understand why affirmative action might be a terrible idea, we must think about how racial minorities function when they are surrounded by a single racial majority. A minority surrounded by a majority will automatically stand out, so s/he has to be non-threatening to succeed. One way to do that is to make jokes, have a sense of humor, and adapt as much as possible. It shouldn't be surprising then, that several judges may have shimmied their way to the top through charisma and playing the clown with colleagues. These judges tend to believe in kowtowing--that's how they've survived in their own jobs, and they probably believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander. In short, when racial minorities are placed in a non-diverse environment, they favor survival over everything else. As such, they tend to try to avoid a situation where they lose face, because while a majority-race judge will get the benefit of the doubt, it's possible the minority-race judge will not. Thus, to many minority-race judges, anyone who fails to show deference is viewed as a threat. You can almost hear the internal subconscious dialogue: "Who does this person think he is? I had to kowtow (or fit in) for years and conform to get to this position, and now he's challenging me?"

When I've seen lawyers fight for clients--which sometimes means disagreeing with a judge--the majority-race judges tend to take this opposition in stride. One judge--we'll call him the "Scandinavian Stud"--even tries to help out younger, more aggressive lawyers who disagree with him by starting out sentences with, "As you know, I can't give you legal advice, but..." However, two minority judges--both of whom are married to current or former government employees--tend to take any opposition as an insult. A failure to suck up tends to trigger the following subconscious response: "All right, you want to oppose me, I'll show you who's boss..."

I'm not saying some majority-race (i.e., white) judges don't have the same response. In one case, when I made a comment about African-American Oscar Grant, a white pro-police judge immediately got red-faced and combative. (More on this police-judicial connection later, but you can click on this LINK if you're interested in how this connection can affect justice in the court system.) Overall, though, I tend to notice race-minority judges being more prickly and demanding of deference.

Now, why should a subconscious, unintentional, and systemic issue of deference be a problem? Doesn't deference promote workplace harmony? First, all societies and systems do better when some criticism is encouraged. People improve through criticism, not false deference. (Didn't we all read the fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?)

Second, the kowtowing system disfavors hard-working minorities. If you're a minority who doesn't want to kowtow to the government or your colleagues, and you care more about working harder than fitting in, then you're out of luck. The majority-race judges are used to minorities who will adapt and fit into their culture, and God help the minority-race person who tries to do things differently.

Third, the whole point of affirmative action (AA) is to increase diversity and make minorities feel comfortable despite their lack of political representation and power. In theory, the majority benefits by showing its tolerance and also by gaining alternative viewpoints and experiences. However, if I am correct--that affirmative action favors charismatic and social minorities over more hard-working and independent minorities--then the aforementioned benefits do not exist, because AA produces under-performing clones of the majority. Under my theory, we could put some black makeup on a few majority-race employees and get the same result as our current AA programs. In short, as long as the majority is choosing who is hired or promoted based on AA, the benefits of AA are dubious.

Citizens Should Favor Ideological Diversity over Race-Based Diversity

Don't get me wrong--we shouldn't completely disavow AA. If AA leads to useful diversity, not cloning, then it makes sense. As it stands, many judges are elected by special interest groups--thereby reducing ideological diversity--which means residents and voters should seek useful diversity. In Santa Clara County, the county sheriffs and city police have tremendous influence over judicial elections. Remember our recent election? Almost every winning judicial candidate mentioned an endorsement from some public safety officer union. Since most residents are unfamiliar with the local court system and its members, they tend to rely on endorsements when voting, which provides police officers with disproportionate influence over judicial selection. As a result, the state judicial branch--which is supposed to check the executive branch, i.e., the police--no longer has the sufficient diversity to challenge the police. In fact, the public safety unions--the police officers, firefighters, and prison guards--have so much power in Sacramento, they have even affected the independence of the legislative branch. From an ideological perspective, real diversity in government seems to diminish with each passing day. If AA promotes independent thinkers and outsiders--a term that can sometimes be equated with minorities, though not always--then it serves a useful function. If, however, AA produces clones of the majority, it is not helpful to anyone and serves merely to reinforce the existing culture and majority.

You want one obvious example that AA doesn't promote the best minorities? The only African-American federal judge in San Jose, California  [as of 2010] may have lied about his brother being targeted during civil rights strife in the South. Even though the judge's lie was discovered, [as of 2010] he is still on the bench, and until a few weeks ago, he was surrounded by no other local judicial minorities--all of his colleagues in federal and bankruptcy court were part of the racial majority power structure (or look like part of the racial majority or power structure), and all of them are really good judges. (One of them, a white male judge, is probably one of the best judges in the entire country. I refer, of course, to Judge Jeremy Fogel.) Of course, the federal bench has several white judges who do "interesting" things and manage not to be singled out.  Clearly, the "prickliness" factor is not limited to racial minorities, but because racial minorities stand out more, their behavior gets noticed more, which reinforces an awful cycle of "respect ma authoritah!" (You may think I am being hard on racial minorities, but if you read carefully, you will notice I am not being hard on minorities--just affirmative action. All entities have good, average, and bad employees.)

What makes the AA selection process even more problematic is that hired minorities harm other minorities by promoting a culture of deference and the status quo, not true diversity. As such, if the majority gets out of hand due to a lack of cultural knowledge, there is little luck that minority co-workers will be able to rein in the majority. If anything, minority co-workers promoted via affirmative action may lead the charge against independent minorities in an effort to fit in and promote the status quo. As Shelby Steele states, "Such policies have the effect of transforming whites from victimizers into patrons and keeping [minorities] where they have always been--dependent on the largesse of whites." What then, is the use of having racial diversity if it is being achieved in a way that discourages useful diversity?

Are Social and Subconscious Racial Preferences Inevitable?

One judge has commented that lawyers are more social than other professions, implying that lawyers should understand that social activities and connections do not impact decisions and culture in the courthouse. I call shenanigans. When I see a judge hugging a lawyer in Starbucks, I get upset. When I see more experienced lawyers--who lack civility but get respect from the judges based on tenure--I get upset. When I see a judge being Facebook friends with active lawyers who may appear in front of him, it makes me upset. This web of social ties causes some judges to rely on reputation rather than the papers/briefs when it comes to evaluating testimony and deciding whether to overturn a law clerk's draft.

Think about it: social ties and inbreeding lead to gossip, and gossip relies on hearsay, which is usually unreliable and which corrodes the "fairness for all" legal system. Why read the briefs if you know the lawyer from your days in law school? Why bother checking the case citations if most cases settle anyway? Are you really going to contest a lawyer's interpretation of the law if you know he plays poker with a friend?

Social ties are fine for private sector workers who need to sell things and make things, but government employees cannot help but favor people they see on a regular basis. Most government workers don't produce anything tangible or measurable, so their success is measured primarily by reputation. Naturally, then, as in the private sector, someone who smiles and sucks up to them will be favored over someone less social. The solution isn't to blame an introverted lawyer or a non-conformist lawyer, but to work harder to rely on objective data when making decisions about courtroom culture and to increase transparency. Do certain judges rule against minorities more than other judges? Do certain judges favor corporations over individuals? We don't know. No statistics are kept on such issues. Useful transparency doesn't exist in the local court system. (Why do written pleadings even have the name of the lawyer or firm on them? Can't a system be developed to track the papers based on numbers or some other non-identifying status? Most legal opinions at the trial court level are written before lawyers appear at court hearings.)

Diversity can be excellent in terms of production and innovation, but it also creates challenges and leads to volatility. Legal systems ought to ensure that government employees, especially judges, do not attack or disfavor non-conformists, especially when such non-conformists are not part of the majority-race.

Our current legal system in Santa Clara County is flawed for many reasons, including a culture that crushes non-conformity. When a non-conformist understands the legal system is flawed, the natural response is to avoid the system--not to suck up to it. Also, when one judge physically intimidates a lawyer, and another judge lies to his face--and both of these judges allow unfair speculation to run rampant and allow their colleagues to unfairly suffer collective punishment--more social ties aren't the answer. Lawyers and residents should be able to rely on judges being fair and impartial, regardless of social ties. Oftentimes, the best people to expose cracks within the system are part of the system and cannot openly speak out; consequently, government entities should implement self-correcting measures before problems affect an entity's or person's reputation. As we all know, courts rely on their reputation to maximize compliance with judicial orders and judgments.

If Santa Clara County Superior Court fails to recognize its lack of useful, consumer-based transparency; its inbreeding problems; and its absence of independent minorities, the court's reputation will suffer. Once lost, a reputation is difficult to regain. One can only hope that the Presiding Judge and her colleagues understand what is at stake.

To the Anonymous Commenter

To the anonymous person who left a detailed comment regarding a Bay Area judge:

Thank you for reading my blog and taking the time to post your comment. Unfortunately, I cannot publish your comment. I am an attorney, and my license to practice law is a privilege given to me by the state bar. Being a member of the bar requires me to adhere to certain rules, including ethics rules. Some of these rules prevent attorneys from publicly criticizing judges.

You may wonder how someone like me--who favors free speech and disfavors content-based speech restrictions--can reconcile his personal beliefs with his refusal to publish your comment.

First, I am a pragmatic man. As long as I am a lawyer, I exist to serve my clients. If local judges think I will publish negative commentary about them, some of them may do whatever they can to harm my cases. The law gives judges much discretion, so it is unwise to give a judge any incentive to go against you.

Second, in theory, the judicial branch exists as a check on the passions of the people. This special role requires judges to be independent. Judicial independence is difficult to achieve if lawyers are openly criticizing judges to a public that lacks the training to understand difficult legal concepts. As it stands, American judges have, for the most part, remained above the political fray and are viewed as neutral by most Americans. This favorable perception is due in part to maintaining a closed system of criticism, which gives the public fewer opportunities to sensationalize court hearings and rulings. In short, cases are unique, rights are precious, and unsubstantiated public criticism about specific judges makes it more difficult to execute judgments and have faith in the legal process.

I hope you understand my position, and I hope you will continue to read my blog.

Update on March 2017: I've become extremely critical of lawyers as well as judges; however, I no longer have an active caseload, so my primary duties are to the public and to the truth, not to my clients.  

California Spending

Imagine a place where everyone knows they have a spending problem, no one cares, and no one minds passing the financial consequences to their children. Welcome to California.

Fun facts: California paid out $2.1 billion in bonuses, overtime, and other extras in 2007. (See SF Chronicle, Erin McCormick, A1, June 30, 2008.)

A Superior Court Judge makes $178,789 a year; an Appellate Court Justice makes $204,599 a year; and a state Supreme Court Justice makes $218,237 a year. All state judges are eligible for generous pensions, dental benefits, health benefits, basic life and AD&D insurance, supplemental life insurance, vision service plans, long term care insurance, a voluntary tax savings program (FlexElect), and a savings plus program (a Thrift Plan, i.e., a 401K, and a Deferred Compensation Plan (IRC 457)).

Liberal Judges vs. Conservative Judges

I was thinking this morning about courts and politics. I've discovered I tend to get along very well with former military servicemembers and police officers. One of my best friends is a JAG (from ultra-conservative Orange County, no less). Another lawyer I respect is also a JAG. While I don't know many police officers, I've found most of them to be hard workers.

As an anti-war libertarian, I find it strange that I can easily socialize with people on opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum. (At least now I understand Ron Paul's comment that individual military servicemembers, as a group, contributed more to his presidential campaign than to any other candidate's.) I did some thinking, and I realized I get along with liberals because I favor change and diversity, and I get along with conservatives because I see the limits of the law in creating any real change. In other words, I am hopeful enough to get along with the liberals, but cynical enough to see the inefficacy of most liberal programs.

As attorneys, there comes a period of time when we get enough experience to see the system as it is, not as we want it to be. Think of the famous Gandhi quote--"Be the change you want to see in the world"--but minus the idealism. After we clean the pixie dust from our eyes, young lawyers look at our student loans and get back to work. (The potential for starvation helps clear the mind rather quickly.) We realize, sadly, that the law doesn't matter so much as the audience, and the only audience that much of the time is the judge, who gets selected randomly. Is it strange to think that the law relies so much on randomness? I assure you, at some point, you get over it, or you go insane. As fans of Trainspotting will appreciate, I choose sanity.

I have also noticed that conservatives tend to work harder. For example, I've noticed that judges who were former military servicemembers work the hardest. Even politicians who used to be military, like Chuck Reed, are known for working hard. Servicemen don't seem to lose their work ethic, and they bring it with them to every job, whether it's politics or the bench. Thus, while many government jobs are filled with "lifers" resistant to change and who do the absolute minimum required, the military is probably the one branch of government that demands you work hard, no exceptions allowed. As a result, when servicemembers finish their military commitment, they bring the same "hardcore" attitude to their civilian careers. In my experience, judges who are ex-military usually read the court filings and are well-prepared for court hearings, even if they don't reach a fair result or go overboard. Many other judges are quite content to show up and let their law clerks do most or all of the work, but that lax attitude doesn't seem to afflict most ex-military members.

Police officers tend to function like military servicemembers. They're also hardcore, and they respect hard work. (By the way, the police officers I've met usually hate Democrats, because they think Democrats are naive in thinking their policies or laws would have any effect on a child molester or a drug dealer trying to make a buck.)

So why do I tend to get along with cops and military servicemembers, even though I am anti-war and I favor more police oversight? I guess it's because I'm hardcore, too. I'm fond of saying, "I do what I say, I say what I mean." As I get older (cue Winston Churchill and his comment about young hearts and old brains), I've noticed that many self-proclaimed liberals tend to be big thinkers and big talkers but lack the capacity for actual sacrifice. For example, I recently saw a liberal activist with a T-shirt that said, "Anti-War." Well, that's great, but how does buying yourself a T-shirt help some little kid in Iraq? Personally, I would take that T-shirt money and donate it to kiva.org, the Red Cross, or some other organization. That's the problem I've seen with many liberals--they have strong views, but they refuse to sacrifice anything themselves. It's usually someone else who has to do the sacrificing--either the rich, the small business owner, etc.

As for liberal judges, I've found many of them tend to have a poor work ethic. While the conservative judges are at home reading the papers for court the next day, the liberal judges tend to be teaching law classes, giving seminars, publishing some legal treatise--i.e., something that allows them to impart their knowledge to the public.

Don't get me wrong--I love legal seminars, especially the ones that include judges. But other than one judge, who's in federal court, I don't tend to see liberal-minded judges prepared with insightful questions to ask. One time, I provided a liberal-minded judge with extensive legislative history relating to a law. I marked in bold and 14 point font all the relevant sections of the history that showed the judge that his law clerk's statutory interpretation was wrong. The judge practically freaked out (I could almost hear him thinking, "You don't expect me to read all this, do you?"), and--in my subjective opinion--may or may not have ignored the legislature's intent.

Maybe I'm a terrible oral advocate, but I've left court several times feeling like my hard work and research were a waste of my time and my client's time. Too often, there are no tentative rulings to focus the oral argument, or the judge does not ask me a single question. As a result, I've become critical of judges who rely solely on their law clerks, even when their clerks do excellent work. As far as I'm concerned, judges who don't personally read the legal briefs are stealing from taxpayers. It seems no different than a lawyer who bills for time never worked. A lawyer who tried to bill for unworked hours would be fired, so why should a judge be treated any differently? After all, judges are paid for their time and expertise, just like lawyers. Shouldn't they read the legal briefs, even if they have research attorneys?

Before addressing some differences between conservative and liberal judges, it's important to note that I am generalizing--there are liberal judges who are hard-working, and conservative judges who appreciate nuance. At the same time, I have noticed some distinct patterns among liberal judges and conservative judges. In my experience, conservative judges tend to read the papers; either ask relevant questions or none at all (think Clarence Thomas); tend to work hard; tend to avoid legal seminars and other outside legal activities; and have a well-run, efficient courtroom (i.e., if someone starts repeating arguments already stated in the papers, they get cut off).

The downside to conservative judges is when they're good, they're great, but when they're bad, they're the Devil's spawn. Really horrible conservative judges, for example, think they're the only thing standing between anarchy and civilized society. As a result, if the bad conservative judge hates your case, you and your clients will get sanctioned or will suffer somehow. Another characteristic of terrible conservative judges is that if you don't suck up to them, you will pay for it. The legal system has many technicalities, and a bad conservative judge can make your trial or legal motion Kafkaesque if he feels like you're not giving him appropriate respect; in the alternative, he may just dismiss your case, knowing that your client probably doesn't have the resources to appeal.

In contrast, liberal judges tend not to sanction parties, even when they richly deserve it. Say what you want about "sympathetic" judges, but when it comes to avoiding embarrassing scenarios, I'm putting my money on the liberal judge. At the same time, generally speaking, liberal judges tend to believe their compassion and wisdom absolves them from reading every paper that is filed. Perhaps that is a reasonable perspective. After all, most law/research clerks are quite good, and they summarize the legal papers very well. The downside to relying on law clerks is that it takes a long time for a new lawyer to get any respect from some liberal judges. If a new lawyer is good, but the judge never reads his papers, the new lawyer will never get any respect.

When I first started out, I could tell who read my legal briefs by the level of respect I got from the bench. Typically, due to my youthful appearance, if a judge hadn't read my legal briefs, he would act like he was doing me a favor when I won. In contrast, the judges who had read the papers knew I wrote well, and they would treat me no differently than anyone else. Over time, I realized that most of the judges who read my papers happened to be more conservative. I really enjoyed not being treated differently just because I didn't have 40 years of experience. After all, if your papers are well-written, and you cited the proper case law, why should the number of years you've had a bar card matter?

Again, I realize this post relies on generalizations, but I hope you've enjoyed it. One last comment: if you get the chance, vote for female judges. There aren't enough of them in court, and, just like in real life, the more women around, the less likely it is that the men do crazy things. According to the Federal Judicial Center's History Office, only 25% of Article III judges are female, and only 1% identify themselves as Asian Americans. (Source: Shawna Wilson, Oct 2009, Young Lawyer.) I don't know the exact state court statistics, but a similar gender imbalance probably exists in California state courts.

P.S. I just realized a shorthand way to summarize my entire post. Have you seen the early episodes of the TV series, Scrubs? If so, think of Bob Kelso as the average liberal judge--the one who doesn't practice medicine and lets other people do much of the work--and think of Dr. Cox as the average conservative judge--the one who looks like the a**hole, but who's really the main person holding up the place. I'd probably play Dr. Dorian, who, "despite his numerous flaws, quirks, and personal insecurities," is shown to be a very competent doctor. Well, at least that's what Wikipedia says.

P.P.S. Make sure you read Ken's comment. Overall, he may be right that there are only two categories of judges: judges who require strict, slavish compliance with evidentiary rules, and judges who don't. But Ken's comment also tells you that judges have wide discretion in interpreting the evidence rules, which should tell you that the rules are too convoluted. The more convoluted the law, the more the legislature is allowing judges to potentially decide outcomes based on individual preferences.

Let me give you two examples of a judge administering evidence rules differently. In one trial, opposing counsel had numerous emails that hadn't been verified, i.e., no custodian of records appeared, no declaration, just a bunch of emails sent by some employees. No one was disputing that the employees had sent the emails. Opposing counsel waited the end of his examination before asking the court to admit the twenty or so emails into evidence. The judge, knowing my objections would require tedious parsing of the emails, glared at me, almost daring me to tick him off by making an objection. This was a bench trial (no jury), so I didn't object to the emails. The judge admitted the emails into evidence. The judge glaring at me won't show up anywhere in the record or transcript.

In another case, I had numerous emails to introduce. All emails were given to me by the corporate defendant. All the people who had sent the emails used corporate email accounts. No one was disputing that the plaintiff had sent these emails. A company employee admitted on the stand that no one had hacked into the server, and there was no reason to believe the emails had been altered or forged in any way. Opposing counsel came from a large law firm and objected several times to the emails. The judge refused to admit the emails into evidence.

What's the difference between scenario A and scenario B? I don't know what to tell you. One was a jury trial, and the other one was non-jury, but that should not have made any difference. By the way, the same judge presided over both trials.

[Update: about a year after the trial in which the judge refused to admit numerous emails into evidence, I had another jury trial with a different judge. This trial also involved several important emails. I was able to get the emails admitted into evidence.]

(A federal judge, the Hon. Judge James Rosenbaum, has tried to come up with a solution, FRE 808; however, other than one law review article, I don't see much else on this new proposed rule of evidence.)

Should State Bars Shield Judges from Criticism?

If you're a lawyer, should your free speech rights be curtailed? Before you criticize judges, see here for NYT article (John Schwartz, 9/12/09). The Florida State Bar reprimanded Sean Conway, an attorney, for his blog posts about local judges.

Personally, I am very conflicted. On the one hand, we should respect judicial independence, and we already allow judges to issue gag orders to prevent jury prejudice. But other than judges and lawyers--who are most familiar with the legal system--who else is able to provide reliable information on our court system?

In the final analysis, judges are government employees, not kings and queens. They are 1/3 of our representative government. It makes little sense to shield them from criticism, assuming such criticism does not negatively prejudice the parties in the case. In short, judicial criticism should turn on how the criticism affects the parties, not lawyers or judges.

David Feige, from New York, posted an interesting comment:

Judicial accountability is critical. Awful criminal court judges too often fly below the radar, eviscerating critical constitutional protections, and harming the mostly poor and disenfranchised who appear before them. It is here, more than almost anywhere that free open debate, and even freewheeling and critical commentary should be encouraged, not chilled.

Real judges have the temperament to roll with the punches, and admire and encourage argument in order to bring the truth to the fore. The fact that a judge seeks to squelch discussion, and intimidate opponents says everything one needs to know about their fitness to judge.

Amen, David.

Contempt: Judge Jails a Man for Making Noise

A state court judge has jailed a man for making a yawning noise in his courtroom. See here. Apparently, in Illinois, a state court judge may sentence someone who commits "contempt of court" to six months in jail. (In California, a person found guilty of contempt may be fined up to $1,000, imprisoned for up to five days, or both, for each separate act of contempt. See CCP § 1218.)

The "contempt of court" power allows judges to keep their courtrooms running smoothly. The reason this Illinois judge was able to throw the citizen in jail is because the alleged contemptuous action occurred in his immediate view and presence. No separate notice or hearing is required for "direct contempt"; indeed, according to the United States Supreme Court, "All that is required [for summary contempt] is that an order be made reciting the facts, adjudging the person guilty and prescribing the punishment.” See Arthur v. Sup.Ct. (1965) 62 C2d 404, 407; see also CCP § 1211.

In California, a lawyer’s offensive courtroom behavior may cause him or her to be in contempt. For example, courts have held that the following statements are sufficient to find someone in contempt: “This court obviously doesn't want to apply the law,” or, “You’re not my mother.” To me, these statements don't warrant any jail time. Yet, lawyers are subject to contempt and discipline for making “disrespectful” remarks about judges, even if such statements have merit. For example, courts have held that referring to a judge as a “petty”; accusing a judge of religious bias; or telling a judge his client hasn’t received a fair trial is enough to issue a finding of contempt.

Should judges have absolute power over conduct in their courtrooms? After all, the United States Supreme Court says that such power is necessary “where immediate punishment is essential to prevent demoralization of the court's authority before the public.” See Pounders v. Watson (1997) 521 U.S. 982, 988. In theory, it sounds reasonable. Many people would agree that judges ought to be able to control courtroom proceedings. After all, lawyers get paid an awful lot of money by the hour, and if one person is holding up proceedings, it costs both general taxpayers and clients money.

While the theory is sound, in reality, good judges don't need the threat of jail time or $1,000 fines to control their courtrooms. Which is better? A judge who can maintain order by the force of his words and personality, or a judge who has to use jail time to control an unarmed citizen in his courtroom? (And yes, that's a rhetorical question.)

Let us not forget: judges are public servants. They receive a good salary; lifetime medical benefits; and pensions from the very people who come to their courtrooms and who are subject to their contempt orders. They are also given several staff members who do much of the heavy lifting for them. Why should a public servant be able to throw a taxpaying citizen in jail based on a subjective interpretation of the person's non-verbal conduct? Why are courts--which are government buildings--exempt from free speech rights? Why can't a judge just ask the courtroom bailiff to remove the offending party from the court, thereby immediately ending any potential controversy?

I fear we have given our public servants far too much power. In this day and age, there are precious few judges who actually read all the documents in the cases before them. In my experience, most judges tend to rely on legal memos written by their staff. These memos purport to objectively summarize the facts and law in the tens or hundreds of pages filed by the parties' lawyers. As a result of these memos, many judges have already made up their mind about their cases prior to oral argument and do not bother to read any actual documents filed with the court. Sometimes, a judge's law clerk has even prepared a written order before the hearing. Consequently, most court appearances are either exercises in drudgery or "sucking up." With the typical large county courtroom having over thirty cases to hear in one day, rigorous debate has become impractical. There are dozens of other cases waiting; only a judge with a tremendous work ethic will read all the documents in the cases before him or her; and most motions raise procedural, not substantive, issues.

It would be more honest to put judges' law clerks--who research and write the legal memos--on the bench during oral argument, but this kind of honesty would destroy the image of judges as hard-working, caring public servants. As long as image is important to the appearance of order, law clerks will remain in the audience or jury box, silent and unassuming.

It isn't unreasonable to believe that the courts' overloaded dockets and generous staff have caused intellectually untenable conditions. For instance, a lawyer who prepares for court hearings is disfavored, because he or she may raise facts not in the law clerk's prepared memo. For example, when I've mentioned facts or law not in the judge's memo, I've had judges immediately change the subject and point to the front page of my papers and mention formatting issues that had nothing to do with the case itself. One time, a judge who didn't read the documents told me that my writing was disorganized and asked me to identify the specific page I was referring to. This deft maneuver allowed the judge to get up to speed on the spot. (As for being "disorganized," the sentence I was referring to was in bold font and couldn't be missed by anyone who had read the papers.) I've even had a judge say the wrong name of a plaintiff's supervisor in an employment case. (Did I correct the judge? Of course not. If I did, I would have given the judge an incentive to rule against my client or find me in contempt.) I have more stories--like the time a judge held me in contempt, never issued a written order, and later verbally revoked the finding of contempt--but I'll save them for another day.

There is no question that going "off-script" puts a lazy judge in a bad situation. If a lawyer raises an issue that isn't in the legal memo, the judge is clueless but has to act knowledgeable to prevent being embarrassed in front of his or her staff and the audience. Thus, a lawyer who intentionally or unintentionally reveals a judge's ignorance of the case creates problems for a judge. As a result, the lawyer who forcefully argues his client's case and disagrees with a judge is more likely to be deemed as "disrespectful" by a lazy judge than a judge who has read the papers and can use logic to refute the lawyer's arguments in open court. Therein lies the problem with allowing judges wide latitude to issue "direct contempt" orders. A good, hard-working judge who is familiar with a case probably won't need to use contempt powers against any lawyer; in contrast, a lazy judge concerned with saving face will use contempt powers to prevent being embarrassed. The moral of the story is this: the tool of contempt is used mainly by inept judges.

Amazingly, rather than checking the power of egotistical, lazy judges, the United States Supreme Court has assumed all judges are reasonable persons who can be trusted with almost absolute power. Perhaps as a result of its rosy assumption, the Court has erred on the side of giving lower-court judges more, rather than less, latitude to use contempt to maintain order. Unfortunately, the Court's rationale is flawed. The "contempt of court" power isn't necessary even for lazy judges to maintain order or to save face. A lazy but decent judge will, when presented with an issue not raised in his or her memo, defer to the other side. In other words, the lazy but honorable judge will turn to opposing counsel, who has read the documents, and expect the other lawyer to fill in the gaps. Some very wise judges don't ask any questions at all in their courtroom, making it almost impossible for a lawyer to have cause to say something out of line.

While "contempt of court" is useful to maintaining order, too often, it allows lazy judges to prevent participants from embarrassing them. Indeed, judges who don't read the papers are the ones being disrespectful to the legal process by causing lawyers to argue less forcefully, which penalizes diligence and inhibits strong debate. Surprisingly, while many people believe government workers have incentives to work as little as possible, they also believe that judges--who are government employees--are above laziness and pettiness. In the end, a judge who needs to use contempt orders and sanctions to maintain decorum probably shouldn't be a judge. Judges should use the power of contempt to prevent violence or to punish persons who intentionally violate written court orders. The real risk of public "demoralization" comes from out-of-control judges who abuse their contempt powers.

Bonus: here's an interesting piece on Judge Manuel Real aka Manny Real, who once "jailed five antiwar spectators for failing to stand as he left the courtroom." Perhaps Judge Real is Southern California's version of NoCal's Judge Samuel Conti. Judge Conti once sanctioned me around ten thousand dollars without bothering to give me a court hearing. When I called to ask for a hearing, he and/or his staff immediately sent the file back to state court, where he thought the case belonged (the sanctions were related to his belief that I should have kept the case in state court). The party that requested the sanctions later declared bankruptcy. I love karma.

Sotomayor and Judicial Realism

1. Next time people want to place their faith in a judge, remember this name: Judge Samuel Kent. He was a judge in the Southern District of Texas who was sentenced to almost three years in prison for lying about his assaults on two women who worked for him. (See WSJ, 5/28/09, A5). Judge Kent was a federal judge--which confers a lifetime appointment. Guess who appointed him to the bench? President George Bush the First.

2. And now let's move on to Judge Sotomayor. I don't know her. I don't really care, because she'll be replacing a judge who seems to rule in a similar fashion. I'll get interested when someone replaces Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, or Scalia. The idea, though, that she's unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice is ludicrous. She made a comment indicating that a Latina female would have a different perspective than a white male. I heard Justice Sandra Day O'Connor--a conservative Reagan appointee--talk about the exact same thing in a Santa Clara Law school lecture many years ago (around 2002).

Justice O'Connor was talking about the Gail Atwater case, where a small-town cop hauled a Texas soccer mom to jail because her kids weren't wearing seatbelts. Justice O'Connor dissented in that opinion. See Atwater v. Lago Vista, (2001). Every single justice in the majority opinion was male. Every single female justice dissented. Justice O'Connor mentioned the gender disparity in her speech with a sigh and a shaking of her head. I interpreted her body language to mean that if more women were involved, the case would have been decided differently.

It should go without saying that a person's background will influence his or her personal opinions. For example, growing up female will present someone with a different--not better, not worse--perspective than growing up male. Does a person's ethnicity or gender mean that s/he will not be impartial when applying the law? Of course not.

Why, then, should we care about diversity on the bench? First, judges hold so much power over Americans--a non-homogeneous group of people--that diversity on the bench is a laudable goal, as long as excellence is not sacrificed. Second, most of us would probably recoil at the idea of a Supreme Court that is 100% African-American, 100% homosexual, 100% Hispanic, or 100% Muslim--why is that the case, if someone's background is irrelevant? I think it's because a lack of diversity indicates that the system for selecting powerful people is flawed. Assuming there are many people qualified to be on the Supreme Court, we should be able to draw from a wide pool of applicants, not just people from one particular ethnicity or gender.

Here, Judge Sotomayor's most relevant characteristic--the diversity of her work experience--is outstanding. She has been a criminal prosecutor (government lawyer); a civil litigator (private lawyer); and even a solo practitioner.

In any case, if Judge Sotomayor is a radical judicial activist, then so is Justice O'Connor.

Judges and Francis Bacon

Francis Bacon has written eleven rules on how to be a good judge. Click here for more.

The first is this: "You should draw your learning out of your books, not out of your brain."

My favorite? "That you should be truly impartial, and not so as men may see affection through fine carriage."

Jury Trials in the Bay Area

The SJ Mercury News (2/05/09, 3B, Leigh Potinger) recently compiled the number of Bay Area jury trials for the fiscal year 2006-2007.

San Francisco County had 509 jury trials.
Contra Costa County had 305 jury trials.
Santa Clara County had 291 jury trials.
Alameda County had 223 jury trials.
San Mateo County had 139 jury trials.
Santa Cruz County had 59 jury trials.

Out of the thousands of cases filed, only a few make it to a jury. The most commonly cited statistic is that only 5% to 10% of cases go to trial, which I presume includes both bench and jury trials. I just completed my first jury trial where I represented an employee alleging retaliation and gender/age discrimination. Here are my thoughts:

1. If you want to win, the jury must like your client. No matter how good your case is legally, if the jury doesn't like your client, you will lose. In employment cases, performance evaluations and peer reviews can be used by either side to show that a plaintiff was either well-liked or unpopular. Although I find a lot of these reviews irrelevant, the Court will probably admit them if one of the performance factors the employer evaluates is "teamwork."

2. Even if you catch the employer/defendant in a lie, it's not over. Jurors told me that yes, I made some people look bad or shifty, but the particular misrepresentations I caught weren't big enough to deliver a slam dunk. Jurors are looking for a major lie and will disregard non-major lies. In general, making your client's supervisors look like morons isn't good enough (though it may make your client very, very happy). Lawyers should try to show that the company came up with special rules or something new or unusual to harass or retaliate against an employee. Plaintiffs' employment lawyers should also try to show their clients were doing one type of work before the discriminatory/retaliatory time period, but after a new supervisor came, they started doing another type of work.

3. Not all corporations are alike. Some corporations have good reputations. If the defendant is a used car dealership or big pharma, you'll probably have an easier time as the plaintiff. But most jurors see technology companies as non-evil. Post-trial, I heard one juror tell the defendant, "Keep making those [semiconductor] chips." I could only sigh to myself.

Big corporations also have advantages because of their pre-determined performance processes, such as giving an employee 90 days to improve performance before termination. Almost every juror mentioned that the employer went through a pre-determined termination process, which, to them, meant my client's termination was probably justified. I was surprised to see jurors acting like the company's disciplinary process was some kind of holy grail. Once again, I could only sigh. Couldn't these people see that the company might have used its internal process to exaggerate minor complaints against my client? Didn't they hear me get an employee handling the process to say he actively solicited negative information about my client? Apparently not. The corporation had involved different people at different stages, making it hard for jurors to believe there was a corporate conspiracy against my client to fire her. The jury didn't buy the idea that general corporate inertia or an poorly done investigation could result in a discriminatory termination.

4. Not even the best lawyering can save "difficult" facts. Jurors told me I did the best I could with the facts I had. It still wasn't good enough. I don't know if they were being polite, but only two jurors were willing to give me criticism. (I specifically asked jurors to tell me what I could have done better.) Overall, however, no juror seemed to think I could have done any better. They believed the semiconductor company complied with its internal procedure and, as far as they were concerned, that was the alpha and the omega.

5. Lawyers should suck up to the judge. (Or, as my friend says, "As far as you're concerned, the judge is G-d.") I know most lawyers defer to judges anyway, but as a matter of principle, I only suck up to people I genuinely like. I've learned I need to suck up to everyone during trial. Any trial, even a jury trial, isn't the best time to let out your inner George "Anti-Establishment" Carlin. Once a judge decides he dislikes your case, he can make the trial as difficult as possible for you.

For example, the defense deemed some of my questions too vague, even though the witnesses probably understood what I was asking. The judge would usually sustain the defense's objection or demand more specificity. The defense's objections caused me to add many details to my questions, making them more difficult to follow. I never anticipated a situation where my questions would be less ambiguous but more confusing. At one point, even after I specified the time period, the location, and the persons involved, the defense and judge only backed off when I looked directly at the jury and asked, "How can I possibly make the question more specific?" Some judges might disregard objections to the form of the question, but only if the attorney is moving his/her case along quickly and being very respectful to the Court. The lesson? Don't count on having your pre-drafted questions automatically accepted, even if you think a witness will understand them.

Behind the scenes, it wasn't much better. The judge wouldn't accommodate my request to take one of my witnesses out of order. Earlier, he said it was okay to take one witness out of order because of her child care responsibilities, but around two days later, he said it was my problem, not his (he's right--it is the lawyer's responsibility to have his/her witnesses available). Still, that's a major problem when the judge also tells you if you don't get done with the witness on Friday, and she can't come back on Monday, he's going to strike her entire testimony.

You haven't even heard the best part. The defense, on the day this witness was going to testify, knew about my witness availability problem and asked for an earlier lunch time. The judge granted their request and the defense got a 2 hour lunch instead of the normal 1.5 or 1.75 hours--the only time during the whole trial I remember having such a long lunch. That's about 30 minutes of precious time taken away from me. Does the jury know anything about this? Nope. So when I finally get my witness on the stand, and the judge tells me to slow down because I'm speaking too fast, I look stupid. Score one for the defense, zero for transparency. (Thankfully, the witness got done in time.)

What was really unexpected, though, was how the judge kept telling me what not to do or say. For example, my client had a male coworker who was much younger than her. I referred to this coworker as a younger male (after all, my case involved age and gender discrimination claims). Later, in chambers, the judge told me that I could no longer use the terms, "younger" and "male" when mentioning this younger male coworker in my questions. The defense hadn't requested this particular instruction--the judge, on his own, felt it was prejudicial to the defense.

Perhaps another judge would not have told me in chambers what I couldn't do (e.g., you can't read from the deposition transcript anymore--you're being too dramatic); or would not have added objections for the other side (Defense: Objection: vague, ambiguous. Judge: it's also argumentative. Sustained. Me: silently, to myself--I can't believe I actually thought I was going to get a decent shot against this major corporation and its army of lawyers.")

For the record, I do not think the judge was biased. I've had two other bench trials before him, and he ruled against my client in one case, and in favor of my client in the other case. In this (jury) trial, he was a little too involved for my liking, but that's his call.

6. Know the hearsay rule and its exceptions by heart. I was surprised at what the judge wouldn't let in. Even when I said the documents were not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted or just to show the defendant received notice of a complaint on a particular date, the judge wouldn't let in my documents. He said my witness could testify orally about the content of the emails, and the emails themselves appeared redundant. You have to be willing to get the evidence in through oral testimony, or to redact documents before asking the court to admit them. Always have a backup plan.

Remember: even if your document isn't admitted, your witness still has it in front of him because you gave him a copy that was marked for identification. Not having it admitted just means the jury can't look at it--your witness can still see the document. So don't get discouraged if a document isn't admitted--just ask a question using the information in the document, like, "On January 2, 2007, did you discuss your workload with Peter, your supervisor? A: Yes. Q: What did you discuss? A: (witness may glance at the email before answering.)"

Doing it this way, I was able to get what I wanted published to a jury, except it came through direct testimony rather than documents. Did this unorthodox method endear me to the judge? No. See paragraph 5, above.

7. The judge may disregard the CACI jury instructions. Despite CRC 2.11050(a) and (e), this judge didn't have much respect for the CACI instructions. He modified them and also accepted most of the defense's special jury instructions, which I thought diluted the impact of the more neutral CACI instructions. By the time he was done, I thought the combination of special and CACI jury instructions bore little resemblance to what the judicial council had issued. When I said the whole point of having pre-drafted jury instructions was to create uniformity and predictability, the judge muttered that I wasn't there when the Judicial Council drafted the CACI instructions.

In addition, this judge wanted us in chambers every morning before trial to discuss the jury instructions. That is ordinarily a really good idea. I just didn't expect to get up at 7:00AM every morning instead of 7:30AM. That extra 30 minutes means a lot when you need as much rest as possible.

When discussing jury instructions, you have to argue that the modified instructions mis-state the law or are prejudicial somehow. Make sure you put your objections on the record to each one. Otherwise, when the judge reads the instructions to the jury, s/he'll probably tell them all the lawyers agreed that the instructions properly state the law.

8. The evidence code stacks the deck against individual plaintiffs. The business records exception to the hearsay rule allows corporations to let in almost any document. A company can offer performance evaluations written by Person X, without ever needing to call Person X to the stand for cross-examination. Sound unfair? You're darn right it's unfair, but that's the way the code is written. To counter this defense tactic, if you're the plaintiff, you may want to subpoena people you think will criticize your client.

In addition, if plaintiff sent an email that referred to other pieces of evidence, like charts or data, the judge may demand those sections be redacted. As this judge told me, your client can't vouch for the accuracy of any of these charts or data she is referring to, so it's inadmissible hearsay. No matter what I said--state of mind, just offering it to show my client's understanding, offering it only to show that words were said on this particular date, we're not saying it's true, etc.--it didn't work. Some judges treat jurors like Pavlovian dogs who, if exposed to certain statements or words, will suddenly rule in favor of Plaintiff based on pure emotion. I find this attitude distasteful and patronizing. I see it as reducing the power of jurors to hear the full facts of a case and to decide themselves whether those facts are accurate. But I'm not a judge. My opinions don't matter.

The lesson? Don't assume you'll get any of your emails or documents in if those documents refer to anything that isn't within your client's personal knowledge. Did your client write to Human Resources that her boss made her watch porn with a coworker on the Sabbath? With some judges, you better make sure your client can identify the pornstars in the movie, the exact brand of the DVD player, and the particular way the boss was waxing his carrot before you try to get that document in. I am kidding--sort of. When in doubt, subpoena all persons who have the most direct personal knowledge on a particular point you want published to the jury.

In my case, the judge said that the charts my client sent to her boss about her workload relative to her peers were inadmissible. He said that even though my client's direct supervisor required monthly reports about the workload of my client and her coworkers; the supervisor received these reports on a regular basis; and the supervisor hadn't questioned their accuracy, it wasn't good enough. The supervisor himself had no direct personal knowledge of his employees' workload, so it was hearsay. When I said I wasn't offering it for the truth of the charts, only to show my client's good faith belief about her unbalanced workload, the judge said I was offering it for the truth, and that was that. (As you can see, judges have a lot of discretion when it comes to evidence.)

I might not have had a problem in federal court publishing company emails to the jury. According to the Hon. James Rosenbaum, District Judge for Minnesota, FRE 808 automatically allows corporate emails and trumps 403 (relevance), 602 (personal knowledge), 902 (authentication), and 803 and 804 (declarant's availability or unavailability). See 12 Green Bag 2D 165, "In Defense of Rule 808, Federal Rules of Evidence." However, I cannot find any trace of FRE 808 anywhere except in this judge's published article. A rule regulating admission of corporate communications seems long overdue. In terms of reliability, there is much difference between a handwritten note and a corporate email between a supervisor and an employee stored on a company's servers.

To be fair, no judge wants to get overturned on appeal. The way the legal system is set up, it's easier for a judge to leave out a piece of evidence than to admit it if there's even a small doubt that admitting it will prejudice the jury. Unfortunately, it's also more likely that a large corporation will have the resources to appeal, which creates systemic problems with administering justice when corporations and individuals are suing each other.

9. Be careful when putting on hostile witnesses on your own direct examination. In my case, opposing counsel used a hostile witness I called to read performance evaluations written by third parties (business records exception to hearsay rule). The defense got in damaging information about my client as part of my own case in chief. (They would have gotten in the information later on, but the timing helped them.)

10. Jurors don't want to talk to your client if they ruled against him or her. They are usually happy to talk to the lawyers, but not the actual individual who lost the case. I made the mistake of putting some jurors in an awkward position by trying to get them to talk to my client.

That's all I can think of right now. I still wish my client had prevailed. My desire in writing this post is to stimulate an informed dialogue about our legal system. Good night, and good luck.

Bonus: more on jury trials, more specifically, jury verdict forms, HERE.

Bonus: Mark Bennett discusses jury selection. 

Judges and Pay

The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court isn't above whining:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/washington/20bar.html

Justice Roberts feels judicial pay is too low. According to the article, federal district judges make $169,300; federal appeals court judges, $179,500; Supreme Court justices, $208,100; and the chief justice, $217,400.

Basically, Justice Roberts is saying that $169,300 + full health care benefits + a pension + absolute job security (federal judges get lifetime appointments) are not enough to attract talent. What really infuriates me is that he calls the more-than-adequate pay scale a "constitutional crisis." This is the same man who thought everything was peachy in Guantanamo and voted against giving detainees due process rights. But when it comes to getting paid 169K a year, Justice Roberts suddenly invokes the Constitution? Perhaps Justice Roberts is tinkering with a legal doctrine involving the fine art of douchebaggery.

The 1/19/09 NY Times article cleverly implies that Justice Roberts' primary argument relies on appealing to a nebulous "human dimension."

Anthony Bourdain on the Decline of Meritocracy

I don't usually recommend television shows, but Anthony Bourdain's "No Reservations" is just too good to keep to myself. When I first saw Bourdain's show, I couldn't stand him. Fortunately, Bourdain is a quickly acquired taste, and by the second show, I couldn't get enough. Some people see Bourdain as a snarky alcoholic who gets paid to go around the world and eat for a living. Others, however, see him as confident America personified--unafraid of the foreign, friendly to all, direct, irreverent, and eager to socialize (preferably where alcohol is involved).

If you, like author Chuck Thompson (Smile When You're Lying), are disenchanted with the sanitized media, check out "No Reservations." In one of his best shows, Bourdain travels to Colombia. In between bites, we are treated to stories about Pablo Escobar, a local rap group, and the evolution of Colombia itself. (Other fans praise the Vietnam show as his best, but I haven't seen it yet.)

Bourdain's funniest moments seem to take place in cold weather. In Sweden, after a night out on the tundra, Bourdain goes on a hilarious 30 second monologue about how he wants to be called "Giver of life," because his cigarette lighter provided fire for his crew. In Iceland, Bourdain is looking forward to an annual party, and when it's nothing like promised, he gets drunk and proceeds to mock the entire event. At one point, he busts out his lighter in tribute to an Icelandic a capella group. Later, he names a horse Sarah Jessica Parker (she has a long face).

Mr. Bourdain also has a blog. [Update: looks like link has changed to here: https://www.travelchannel.com/shows/anthony-bourdain/articles/]

Bonus: here is a fantastic salon.com 2006 interview with him. My favorite excerpts are below:

On Bourdain's intense dislike for Rachael Ray:

Q: Will we see you in a year saying, "Oh, I had drinks with Rachael Ray, and actually, she's all right"?

A: Yeah, right. "After the hot-tub incident, I've changed my mind." You know, listen, like I said, I could be wrong. Unlikely. But maybe she's nice to puppies...[Anyway,] If I ever saw her getting trashed on Old Crow, pistol-whipping a vegan after a bar crawl, I would think, "That's an interesting woman. I would like to know her."

[Bonus: https://www.salon.com/2006/10/05/ruhlman_bourdain_foie/]

On immigration:

Listen, in 25 years, I don't remember ever seeing an American-born kid of any income level walk into my restaurant, or any restaurant owned by any of my friends, and ask, Do you have a dishwasher job, or a prep job, or a job for a kitchen porter? We're not willing to do it. If somebody else wants to come over here and do it, that's fine with me...

I also like the idea of people from other places coming to our country and multiplying. It makes for better food, higher expectations, more diversity and cuter people. Foreigners should come to our country and have sex with our womenfolk.

On how laws, P.C., and regulations are driving Americans apart and reducing merit-based values:

I think it's great that kitchens are maybe the last meritocracy, the last workplace where men and women can speak to each other honestly, however offensively that might be, where your value is only in how well you do your job and how well you can talk shit back at somebody. I see that as an admirable quality. I don't like the idea of tiptoeing around each other. I think that if you say something stupid and offensive, somebody should get right up in your face and say, "That was incredibly stupid and offensive, and f**k you too!" Once you enforce it, bring in the human resources department, everybody goes home to their own neighborhoods, and we never really talk.

[More on kitchens as meritocracies here (Judy Joo, 1/22/09, WSJ, "Out of the Fire, Into the Frying Pan").]

Author's note: Bourdain's paragraph above really appeals to me. I am usually non-confrontational, so it's hard to tell my stance on most issues. However, despite my generally flexible nature, I am steadfast when it comes to the idea of meritocracy. Judging people based on their work, not their beliefs, should be the norm, not the exception. As a lawyer, for example, I don't care what a judge's political affiliation is, as long as s/he reads the pleadings. I don't even care if I lose, as long as the rationale makes sense. But give me a judge who's lazy, who got his/her job through charisma rather than hard work, and who relies entirely on law clerks, and it's all I can do not to have a Tourette's "incident" during oral argument and an anger-induced aneurysm afterwards.

Unfortunately, many judges, because of the political nature of the appointment process, got their jobs through charisma rather than a widely-acknowledged work ethic. Once on the bench, judges are given highly trained staff who prepare advisory legal memos on each case. Because of these law clerks--who initially have more overall substantive legal knowledge than the judge--the incentive to read litigants' pleadings is removed. Predictably, most judges lapse into a titular position, where they rubberstamp their clerks' opinions or memorandums of law.

In fact, if you were to put a camera above most judges during oral argument, you'd see only a legal memo prepared by a law clerk. The judge usually doesn't open any of the case files, unless an attorney specifically mentions an exhibit or particular page. Also, a judge knows that if s/he changes a law clerk's proposed opinion, either the clerk or the judge must spend time drafting a brand new opinion. As a result, changing a clerk's proposed opinion creates work (and trouble) for everyone. In this way, the "memo" system fundamentally changes oral argument and the legal system. Rather than seek the truth or a just result, the judge's job becomes corralling the attorneys into the confines of the law clerk's memo.

Inevitably, the "memo" system results in a clash between hard-working lawyers and judges who don't read the pleadings. That's because the "memo" system is fine if you're a bad or lazy lawyer--you get treated the same as a lawyer who's spent hours reading every single case cited in the papers and who knows every detail of his/her case. It's like going to a class with a teacher who doesn't prepare for a lecture and who treats all the kids the same--regardless of whether they did their homework perfectly or didn't bothering opening a textbook. If you're a student in that class, you can't help but be upset.

First, your teacher just got paid taxpayer money for showing up unprepared. Second, your teacher is wasting your time because s/he has nothing to offer. You could have spent the day doing productive, money-generating activities, but you can't, because you have to spend time preparing in case the teacher does have questions, and you have to spend time attending the class. Third, even if the best students don't get discouraged, they are less motivated to do their best. Good students like being pushed--lazy ones don't. Fourth, anyone who cares about the schooling system as a whole should get upset. By failing to work hard, your teacher is incentivizing his/her students to be unprepared or to submit shoddy work. Predictably, everyone starts slouching towards mediocrity, because unprepared teachers discourage students who ask questions or who are passionate about a topic. There's no point in having any substantive interaction anyway, because the unprepared teacher's job isn't to get the truth or the proper result--it's to get the students to be quiet and accept the findings in his/her research assistant's memo. (Some teachers, if they're particularly devious, will try to embarrass vocal students by having arbitrary decorum rules. Such rules allow teachers to divert attention from substantive matters when in a tough spot, while also making well-prepared students appear ill-mannered.) Thus, the purpose of the schooling system--to create an environment that encourages achievement and well-informed debate to maximize accurate results--is perverted, all on the taxpayer's dime. Change teachers to judges, research assistants to law clerks, and students to lawyers, and you might have an accurate metaphor for how our current judicial system works.

To be fair, most law clerks are quite good (almost all of them graduated at the top of their class). They're usually sitting in the back of the courtroom, silently viewing oral arguments. In the current judicial system, good lawyers learn that their job is to divine what the semi-invisible law clerk wants, not the judge. There are at least two major problems with this delegation of judicial work:

1. There is no way for an attorney to question the clerks; in fact, one federal court refused to even give me a clerk's name after I protested the court's refusal to have a hearing.

2. Most clerks usually have no law firm experience, so they don't know much about the actual practice of law. This can result in a new or pusillanimous clerk making a credibility determination based on the size or prestige of a firm rather than the merits of the case. It also results in a system that is disinclined to take any risks, no matter how small. (Better to "split the baby" and award something to each side, even if one side is completely correct. No one will protest too much, except perhaps the client--who is mostly invisible until trial.) Good lawyers quickly learn they need to prepare their clients for settlement--no matter how good or bad the case.

As for judges, they continue to have little incentive to read any of the pleadings. For example, I had one case where a judge got the name of my client's supervisor wrong--even though I had quoted her numerous times in my papers, and her testimony was our main source of evidence. Lest you think this was a routine motion, it was a dispositive motion that eventually dismissed my client's entire case. (This judge's colleague once said the judge isn't enamored with "motion work," and prefers to spend his time on trials. That's fine, except if your law clerk is the only one reading the pleadings, s/he decides whether you have a trial.) I've had a case where a judge pointed to my PO Box mailing address on my pleading caption, thinking I didn't have an office address. (After the first page, my papers actually listed my office address.) I could go on, but I'll spare my readers.

In any case, judging people on their work ethic is the clear solution to solving the timeless issues of racism, sexism, etc. I don't mean we should have a nation of Orwellian Boxers--the result counts, too. But make no mistake--without affirming work ethic as our primary value, we will rely on our prejudices and lesser angels to make decisions, leading to a decline in merit-based progress. Down the road, we'll realize that when meritocracy goes, down goes any nation--and by then, it will be too late.

And on that note, here is a paragraph attributed to Bourdain I can relate to, sans the Mary Jane:

I know there's deep inside (me) some lazy hippie who'd be perfectly happy to lay on the couch, smoke weed and watch The Simpsons all day - I'm really afraid of that guy. I don't like him. I don't want him around. And my whole life is kind of constructed to avoid reverting to that guy: Stay busy. Stay focused. Try not to mess up.

Update on February 4, 2009: I forgot an essential element that needs to accompany work ethic--self-restraint. Without self-restraint, having a wonderful work ethic could mean Germany gearing up for WWII.