ABA Blue Ribbon Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System - Survey

The American Bar Association has convened a blue-ribbon Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System. This Task Force is charged with exploring the extent and impact of the underfunding of the judiciary on access to justice for all. It is vital that your opinions are included. It will take you less than 10 minutes to complete the survey which will allow the ABA to better understand the current economic tsunami and advance solutions to address it.

Take the Survey by visiting the ABA website (cut and paste the following link into your address bar):

http://maestro.abanet.org/trk/click?ref=zpqri74vj_3-106edx311ef8x1378617&

Judicial Council Court Forms Now Savable Online

Thanks to the efforts of the Superior Court of Orange County, 937 Judicial Council forms can now be filled out online and saved on computers without the need for users to purchase any software.

“All court users – especially self-represented litigants – will benefit from having savable forms online,” stated Presiding Judge Kim G. Dunning of the Superior Court of Orange County.

Judicial Council forms assist court filers in many areas of the law including civil, family, juvenile, small claims, and traffic matters. Forms are also available for persons requesting protective orders and name changes.

In the past, form users were able to fill out a form online, but had to print it out immediately because it could not be saved. The new savable format allows users to take their time in filling out forms, gather additional information as needed, make corrections, and then save the document.

The new capability will help litigants and the courts because forms that are printed out and filed with the court will be better prepared. Filers also will be able to save digital copies of the forms that they have kept for their records.

With the savable forms, self-help and other service centers will be able to work with clients over several sessions without losing any work performed online.

Judicial Council forms may be found at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms. Over the last 90 days, the forms have been downloaded more than 1.8 million times from this web site.

The new savable forms can be filled out and saved using the free Adobe Acrobat Reader, version 7.0 or later. On the last page of each form, a “Save” button prompts the user to save the form. “Print” and “Clear” buttons have also been provided in those cases where users may fill out a form on a public or shared computer.

Elkins Family Law Task Force to Present Final Recommendations on April 23

The Elkins Family Law Task Force has released its response to public comment on its Draft Recommendations.

The Task Force was appointed in May 2008 to conduct a comprehensive review of family law proceedings and recommend to the Judicial Council of California proposals that will increase access to justice, ensure due process, and provide for more effective and consistent court rules, policies, and procedures.

The Task Force has held 12 in-person hearings. At the February meetings in San Francisco, the Task Force reviewed and considered public comments on the Draft Recommendations. ALDAP participated in the hearings on October 27, 2009 in Los Angeles and February 23, 2010 in San Francisco. On December 3, 2009, ALDAP submitted its comments on the Task Force's Draft Recommendations which were issued on October 1, 2009.

The Elkins Family Law Task Force's Final Recommendations will be presented at the April 23, 2010 meeting of the Judicial Council in San Francisco. The meeting agenda includes the committee's responses to each written comment and includes reference to oral testimonies made before the committee by the public.

A large percentage of the responses by the committee concerning the legal document assistant profession involve the committee's concerns surrounding lack of consumer protections. ALDAP agrees that the protections presently afforded under Business & Professions Code section 6400 et seq. lack enforcement, particularly in light of budgetary restrictions in most counties. The fundamental principle underlying the formation of ALDAP and its programs was, and still remains, a focus on consumer protections and professional integrity.

ALDAP agrees that there is more work to be accomplished within our profession before court administrators will accept LDAs as a viable resource. Much of the testimony concerning LDAs was not beneficial to our profession and, in fact, created cause for concern. Merely publishing a directory of LDAs will not cure the issues inherent in our profession and does not afford consumer protections. It is clear the committee agrees and finds the requests for such a directory to be premature.

The Task Force responded to ALDAP's comments as follows:

• ALDAP lobbied the commission for a placard notice stating that document preparers must be bonded and registered pursuant to 6400 which could have included a link to ALDAP's online directory of all California Legal Document Assistants. ALDAP disagrees with the committee that a directory as a resource could be inappropriate, and insists that signage of this nature is very much needed.
• The Task Force agrees with ALDAP that AB 590 will expand self-help services. Their response to our comments does not mention that LDA services can also help expand self-help programs and services.
• The Task Force repeatedly stated that, while it was "mindful" of the benefits that many LDAs provide to unrepresented litigants, it does not believe a recommendation that the court refer services via a LDA directory is appropriate in light of the current lack of enforcement of consumer protections. The committee frequently distinguished such a directory or LDA referral program from Lawyer Referral Services, which must be certified and, therefore, offer "extensive consumer protections."
• The Task Force agrees with ALDAP that LDAs enjoy a beneficial relationship involving limited scope respresentation (LSR) and adds that these relationships do afford consumer protections as attorneys are responsible for accuracy of work product, and that attorneys may become members of a certified lawyer referral service.
• The Task Force disagrees with ALDAP that LDAs should receive copies of notices or court correspondence relative to cases inasmuch as LDAs do not represent consumers. The Task Force suggests that LDAs address this issue with their clients to ensure that clients forward notices and correspondence received from the court to the LDA.
• The Task Force believes that it is important that LDAs review court order procedures with clients and requests LDAs consider not charging for orders after hearing, as the court regularly refers self representing litigants to the self-help clinic for the same services at no cost.
• The Task Force agrees with ALDAP's recommendation that court advocates should be appointed on behalf of children in family law matters.
• The Task Force agrees with ALDAP that educational resources should be provided to self-representing litigants regarding a variety of options concerning their cases including the role of LDAs. (emphasis added)
• The Task Force partially agrees with ALDAP that implementation of a universal form providing for disclosure of non-attorney assistance, after review as to scope, should be considered for implementation.
• The Task Force agrees with ALDAP's recommendation for consideration of uniform adoption of processes concerning rejected filings and self-representing clients who utilize the services of an LDA.
• Finally, the committee commends ALDAP and its members for providing resources and tools to self-representing litigants so they may successfully navigate the court system.

The only issue ALDAP believes outstanding concerns the placement of placards containing LDA statutory regulations within the courthouse. ALDAP believes this approach would resolve a large percentage of the committee's concerns regarding consumer protections, as it is clear that educating consumers is paramount. Consumer education creates a self protection. Combining placard placement with mandatory filing of non-attorney disclosures would result in consumer protections right at the source - the clerk's office.

ALDAP agrees 100% with the committee's remarks concerning consumer protections. It has long been ALDAP's goal to institute stricter consumer protections. We shall continue with our campaign for enforcement of existing consumer protections while further defining professional integrity. For the past 10 years others have tried to sweep noncompliance under the rug in an effort to yield harvest, yet the fruit of those (non) efforts lies upon the ground spoiled and reeking of the stench of rogues. In the past three years ALDAP has established itself as the leader in consumer protections and professional integrity. Our work is not yet done.

Chief Justice Praises Court Reforms in "State of the Judiciary" Address

State Courts Affected by Fiscal Crisis, but Remain Focused on Delivering Equal Justice

In his 15th annual State of the Judiciary Address to the California Legislature, Chief Justice Ronald M. George yesterday praised the Legislature and Governor for their support in achieving fundamental reforms in the judicial branch’s structure that have left courts “better able to deliver on the promise of equal justice under law than at any other time in my service as Chief Justice of California, and perhaps than at any other time in our state’s history.”

These historic structural reforms began with breakthrough legislation in 1997 that provided for statewide funding of the courts. Trial court unification followed in 1998 and the historic Trial Court Facilities Act was enacted in 2002.

Chief Justice George observed that the reforms “have enabled us to provide better service to the public, have strengthened the fundamental role of the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government, and have resulted in a greater degree of accountability to you – the legislative branch of government – and to the public.”

Although courts are fundamentally strong, the state’s current fiscal crisis leaves the courts “increasingly hard-pressed to meet their obligation to provide accessible justice,” the Chief Justice noted.

The Chief Justice urged the Legislature to maintain the essential infrastructure projects already under way – including the statewide Case Management System (CCMS) and the court facilities construction and management program.

Impact of Fiscal Crisis on State Courts

“We managed to get through this difficult year with a combination of spending reductions, redirections of one-time funding, and the use of reserves – which will not continue to be available,” Chief Justice George stated. “But at this critical juncture I can report that although the state of the judicial branch is significantly challenged, the branch remains robust and resilient.”

At an emergency meeting last July, the Judicial Council instituted a one-day-per-month closure of all state courts for a total of ten days during the fiscal year. The decision to close the courts was made with “great reluctance” by council members, but it was the only feasible option available to address year-end budget reductions while providing statewide consistency for the public, protecting court employees from major layoffs, and avoiding other piecemeal cutbacks in service.

“The unintended yet inevitable symbolism of ‘Closed’ signs on our courthouses – institutions that embody our nation’s revered democratic ideals – is a graphic indication of the severity of California’s economic crisis,” Chief Justice George declared. “These statewide closures must not continue into the next fiscal year.”

“For many Californians the courts represent their primary — and sometimes their most important —interaction with state government. Yet the entire judicial branch budget accounts for only about two percent of the state budget,” he stated.

“The current budget now proposed for the courts includes triggers related to federal funding and new revenue from traffic violations — contingencies that are uncertain,” he stated. “We look to you not for increases, but for sufficient and secure funding in the coming fiscal year, including an extension of temporary revenue enhancements that are due to sunset next year.”

Judges Voluntarily Waive Portion of Salaries

The Chief Justice last July pledged to reduce his own salary and requested that other state jurists do the same to acknowledge the sacrifice that was asked of the 20,000 court employees who were forced to take a pay cut equivalent of one day a month, as a result of state court closures.

“I am pleased to report that the vast majority of judges and justices in California – between 80 and 90 percent – have pledged to participate in a voluntary salary waiver program amounting to a 4.6 percent pay reduction, or have otherwise made equivalent donations to their courts to help preserve access to justice in their communities,” Chief Justice George stated, noting that 100 percent of the Supreme Court justices are participating.

Cost-savings measures also were implemented by the California Supreme Court, which closed its Los Angeles Clerk’s Office at the end of 2009, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), which instituted a hiring freeze on all except critical positions and reduced operating expenses.

Court Technology Moves into the 21st Century

Chief Justice George told legislators that “we cannot retreat from our mutual commitment to investing in the judicial branch’s infrastructure” – specifically, the California Case Management System (CCMS) and the court facility construction and management program.

“These endeavors cannot be shelved when we encounter bad times – the welfare and safety of Californians depend upon proper investment in the long-term future of our state, and our plans will enhance California’s economy to benefit us all,” he declared.

As a result of severely outdated case management systems in most courts, judges and law enforcement officers are often unaware of the past criminal history of violent offenders, of outstanding warrants, and of domestic violence restraining orders.

Chief Justice George reported that development and testing of CCMS, undertaken at the urging of two governors and the legislature and in partnership with our justice system partners, is nearly complete.

“When fully deployed, the new system will deliver the services, efficiencies, and access to information that the public has a right to expect.”

Building Safe and Secure Courthouses

Chief Justice George also reported that as of December 29, 2009, all of state’s 532 courthouses and other facilities had transferred from the counties to state governance under the historic Trial Court Facilities Act, marking the “successful conclusion of one of the largest real estate transactions in our state’s history.”

“Judicial branch oversight of court facilities provides significant benefits for the public: increased safety and security, greater operational efficiencies, savings through statewide purchasing power, and enhanced delivery of programs and services,” he noted.

The critical task before the judicial branch now, the Chief Justice stated, is to begin repairing and replacing the most dilapidated and dangerous court facilities under Senate Bill 1407, legislation that created funding for this purpose with lease revenue bonds – without using a single dollar from the state’s general fund.

The bill authorizes the expenditure of up to $5 billion to construct or renovate 41 courthouses in 34 counties – the most critically needed projects required to remedy seismic, asbestos, mold, and security deficiencies.

“This homegrown stimulus package ... could not have come at a better time for the California construction industry and the men and women employed in the building trades,” Chief Justice George observed. “Estimates are that as many as 105,000 jobs will be created by the projects authorized by this measure.”

The Chief Justice responded to suggestions by some that the fees designated for the court construction program be redirected to day-to-day court operations for the duration of the economic downturn:

“For many reasons, I – and at least 54 of the state’s 58 superior court presiding judges – believe this shortsighted approach would have severe negative consequences for public safety and the well-being of the men and women who work in our courts. It also would be financially costly to the state in the long run.”

In closing, Chief Justice George noted, “Courts are not a luxury to be funded in good times and ignored in bad times. Justice cannot be available only when it is convenient to pay for it. We shall attempt to address and absorb the reductions in our budget during these difficult times. But all of us – in each of the three branches of government – must remain committed to continuing the progress we have made toward meeting the goal of a fair and accessible system of justice.”

The Chief Justice’s 2010 State of the Judiciary Address to the California Legislature is available on the California Courts Web site at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/.

Elkins Family Law Task Force to Meet on February 1-2 in San Francisco

The task force will meet for 2 days from February 1-2, 2010 in the Judicial Council Conference Center of the Administrative Office of the Courts in San Francisco.

If you would like to address the task force at an upcoming meeting, please submit your request to elkinstaskforce@jud.ca.gov or the address or fax below at least 4 business days before the meeting. Please include the following information in your request:

• Presenter's name (Your name)
• Title/position (i.e., Party, Attorney, Mediator, etc.)
• Contact information (i.e., address, telephone number, e-mail, etc.),
• County of residence;
• Organization or affiliation, if any (i.e., Are speaking for yourself and/or an organization?); and
• Brief description of presentation (i.e., What are you suggesting?).
• If you have a pending family law case in any California court, please specify which court(s).

The Task Force cannot hear comments on specific cases so please do not include your court case number, court department, names of any parties, attorneys, court staff, judicial officers, mediators, or any individual names or references to the specifics in your case.

Please feel free to e-mail, send, or fax your written statement in advance. You may address the task force for up to 3 minutes, as time permits.

Contact Information
Elkins Family Law Task Force Center for Families, Children & the Courts AOC
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
fax: 415-865-7217
e-mail: elkinstaskforce@jud.ca.gov
Web site: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/elkins.htm

Court Closures to Continue Through June 2010 In Response to Judicial Branch Budget Cuts

Report Shows Estimated Savings of $63 Million

San Francisco—At a public meeting today, the Judicial Council of California approved the continuation of one-day-a-month court closures through June 2010, in response to severe budget reductions in the judicial branch budget for fiscal year 2009–2010.

“Today’s action to continue court closures through June 2010 reflects the severity of the state’s economic crisis and the unprecedented reductions in the judicial branch budget,” stated Chief Justice Ronald M. George, chair of the 28-member council, the administrative policymaking agency for state courts.

“The council’s decision does not lessen our longstanding goal to provide access to justice for Californians, he continued. “For this reason, the council today reaffirmed its commitment to seek adequate resources from the Governor and Legislature to avoid statewide court closures in the next fiscal year.”

History of Court Closures

The court closures are designed as a uniform cost-saving tool to assist California courts in absorbing substantial budget reductions imposed in fiscal year 2009–2010. The closures were authorized by Government Code section 68106, passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor as part of this year's state budget.

At a public meeting on July 29, 2009, the Judicial Council designated the third Wednesday of each month from September 2009 through June 2010 as a uniform statewide court closure day. The council directed that on that day, all superior courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court would be closed. The Administrative Office of the Courts closes on the same day as the courts.

Impact of Court Closures

At the time the court closures were approved, the Judicial Council directed that an evaluation be conducted of the impact of closures on the courts, the public, and justice system partners. The evaluation included statewide survey responses of 54 superior courts, all 6 Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and 275 justice system partners.

The evaluation report included the following findings:

• By June 2010, it is estimated that the total cost reductions achieved as result of statewide court closures will be approximately $63.3 million.
• This figure includes estimated savings for the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) that will exceed the initial partial year savings estimate of $8.5 million by about 13 percent.
• The impact of the court closures varied considerably from court to court. Although a few courts reported that there was no discernible impact or minimal impact, many courts reported there was some real impact on court operations and court users, as the council anticipated.
• There were mixed findings on the selection of Wednesday as the court closure day. Many trial courts disagreed with the selection of that day, although others felt differently. Some courts asserted that the selection of Wednesday had no greater or lesser impact than any other day of the week; others found Wednesday to be the best day. Justice system partners also expressed mixed views.
• By a margin of nearly three to one, trial courts believed it would be more confusing for court users if the closures occurred on different days of the month. Courts reported that the statewide uniformity of the court closure day made the delivery of the message to the public easier and prevented confusion among court users.
• Justice system partners generally reported that if the courts are going to close one day a month, it is best that the day be uniform statewide.
• The Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal reported considerably less impact on court operations and calendaring. The selection of Wednesday was not seen as problematic, and one-third believes it was the best day to select.

In addition to continuing court closures through June 2010, the council also reaffirmed that keeping courts open and accessible to the public remains a top priority and renewed its commitment to advocate for sufficient resources in the next fiscal year to avoid the need for further court closures. The council directed that recommendations and uniform guidelines be developed for limited closures of courts, on a court-by-court basis, if the Legislature and Governor do not provide sufficient resources for the judicial branch in fiscal year 2010-2011. That plan will be presented to the council for consideration at its April 2010 meeting.

2010 New and Revised California Court Forms

New Year = New Forms

A list of the new and revised California Judicial Council forms can be accessed by clicking here. This list includes forms effective January 1, 2010 and July 1, 2010.

To access the actual forms, visit this page.

If you are still using Legal Solutions, please note that the software is no longer supported by the publisher, and your forms may be outdated.

New Public Access Rules for Judicial Branch to Take Effect January 1, 2010

At Meeting Today, Judicial Council Takes Other Actions on Legislative Priorities, Judicial Benefits

San Francisco—The Judicial Council of California today approved new court rules that set forth comprehensive public access provisions applicable to judicial administrative records maintained by state trial and appellate courts, the Judicial Council, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).

Effective January 1, 2010, the rules implement Government Code section 68106.2(g), which was added by Senate Bill X4 13 as part of the State Budget Act.

“The rules adopted today acknowledge the judicial branch’s strong support of the public’s right of access to information about its activities,” stated Chief Justice Ronald M. George, chair of the Judicial Council. “They grant broad access to judicial administrative records, and at the same time recognize the unique role and function of the judicial branch of government.”

The rules are based on the California Public Records Act, applicable to state executive branch agencies, and also include concepts drawn from the Freedom of Information Act, applicable to federal executive branch agencies. New rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court includes the following:

• Provides that judicial administrative records, as opposed to “adjudicative records,” are open to the public unless specifically exempt. The rule does not apply to “adjudicative” court records—such as those prepared for or filed or used in a court proceeding or in the judicial deliberation process—which are already governed by a large body of case law.
• Exempts from disclosure the same information that is exempt from access under the California Public Records Act—such as personnel, medical, and similar records—and modifies these exemptions and includes others where appropriate to address the specific functions of the judicial branch.
• Clarifies the fees that a judicial branch entity may charge in responding to requests for copies of judicial administrative records. A judicial branch entity will be able to recover a fee representing its direct costs of duplication. In the case of requests for records for commercial use, a judicial branch entity will be able to recover a fee representing the costs of document search and review.
• Sets standards for response times to requests for administrative records that reflect the requirements of the California Public Records Act. A judicial branch entity will be required to respond to a request for administrative records within 10 calendar days from receipt of the request by providing a determination as to whether records will be available or the reason they will be withheld. Once a judicial branch entity has determined that it has records that are responsive to a request, that entity must make the records available promptly.

The rules were drafted in consultation with a judicial working group that included representatives from the appellate courts, trial courts, and California Judges Association. The rules also reflect input from legislative staff, trial court employee labor unions, and groups advocating open access to government information.

At its meeting today, the Judicial Council directed the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to compile and present to the council by December 31, 2011, branchwide information about the impact of the new rules on the courts. The report on the new access rules is available on the California Courts Web site at this link: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/reports/121509item14.pdf .

The complete agenda is available at this link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/age121509.pdf .

OTHER ACTIONS

Legislative Priorities: The council voted to seek sufficient funding from the Legislature to avoid statewide court closures. The council also decided to continue to seek legislative authorization for a third set of 50 judgeships due to the urgent need for new judgeships in the trial courts. In 2005, the council received funding for the first set of 50 judgeships, which were appointed by the Governor. The second set of judgeships was approved in 2007 but was not funded. The third set of judgeships, if approved, would be allocated based on the 2008 Judicial Needs Assessment.

Disparities in Judicial Benefits: The council accepted a report to the Legislature that analyzes the historical disparities in supplemental judicial benefits in state trial courts. About 90 percent of superior court judges serve in courts where some form of supplemental benefits is provided, the report concludes. The disparity among judges can be significant: some judges receive no supplemental benefits while others receive a supplemental benefits package worth approximately $50,000 a year. The report responds to Senate Bill X2 11, which requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature on this issue by December 31, 2009. The report recommends that the council study this area further.

Court Management Compensation: The council accepted an interim report on the salaries and benefits of court executive officers in the state trial courts, in addition to recommendations that will ensure appropriate accountability. The council directed the AOC to prepare the report following the release of a special audit in 2008 to the Superior Court of Placer County. The report contains data collected from the courts and a model personnel policy that courts can use when setting, reviewing, and modifying court executive salaries and benefits. Proposed amendments to the California Rules of Court will be circulated for public comment in mid-December and submitted to the Judicial Council in April 2010.

California Supreme Court to Close Los Angeles Clerk’s Office

San Francisco – Chief Justice Ronald M. George has announced that the California Supreme Court will close its satellite Clerk’s Office in the Ronald Reagan Building at 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, at the close of business effective December 31, 2009.

The decision to close the office was made for budgetary reasons, following a review of the work processed by the office and the cost of operations.

“The Supreme Court regrets making this decision, but it is important during tough economic times to carefully scrutinize the court’s filing practices and procedures and find cost savings and efficiencies where possible,” stated Chief Justice George. “I give many thanks to our Los Angeles employees who staff the Clerk’s Office for their loyalty and dedication to excellent public service.”

The Los Angeles Clerk’s Office is staffed by a supervising deputy clerk and two deputy clerks. Like the court’s headquarters office in San Francisco, the Los Angeles office receives Supreme Court filings and documents from court users. After the initial case data is entered into the automated system, all case files and documents are shipped to the San Francisco Clerk’s office where additional clerical work is performed before the cases are assigned to the court’s legal staff.

Effective January 1, 2010, all petitions for review, writs, and legal briefs must be filed directly with the Clerk’s Office at the Earl Warren Building, First Floor, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco. The closure of the Los Angeles Clerk’s Office will not change the Supreme Court’s practice of regularly holding oral argument in Los Angeles (typically in April, June, October and December).

Elkins Family Law Task Force: Comments on the Draft Recommendations

Yesterday, ALDAP submitted these comments in response to the invitation to comment on the Elkins Family Law Task Force Draft Recommendations to increase access to justice for all family law litigants, ensure fairness and due process, and provide for more effective and consistent family law rules, policies, and procedures. We appreciate the opportunity to familiarize task force participants with the LDA profession, and to voice our strong support of these efforts to simplify and standardize procedures in the family law courts.

Reminder: California State Courts Closed Wednesday, October 21

All California state courts will close Wednesday, October 21, 2009, as a cost-saving measure to help courts cope with unprecedented budget reductions in the judicial branch of government.

Authorized by Government Code section 68106, which was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, the Judicial Council approved the court closures on the third Wednesday of the month starting in September 2009 and continuing through June 2010.

“The mission of the Judicial Council is to improve access to justice, so it was extremely difficult for us to make any decision that results in closing our courts,” stated Chief Justice Ronald M. George, chair of the Judicial Council, the 27-member policymaking body for the state courts.

In the face of severe budget reductions, however, the Chief Justice stated that the council approved the closures as a way to partially offset the budget cutbacks while seeking to protect court employees and critical court programs that provide services to the public.

Court Closure Days

All state courts will be closed on October 21, 2009: the Supreme Court of California, the Courts of Appeal, and the superior courts in each of California’s 58 counties. The Administrative Office of the Courts will be closed on the same day as the courts.

This is the second day that state courts have closed. The remaining court closure days are November 18, 2009; December 16, 2009; January 20, 2010; February 17, 2010; March 17, 2010; April 21, 2010; May 19, 2010; and June 16, 2010.

Closing state courts one day a month may result in savings of about $94.3 million statewide. In addition to court closures, the Judicial Council took other actions to reduce the impact of the judicial branch’s $414 million budget reduction.

The council reallocated $165 million in special funds to offset cuts to the trial court operations budget. The special funds address a portion of the court funding cuts and unfunded growth costs for court security, dependency counsel for children in neglect and abuse cases, court interpreters for those who speak little or no English, and employee retirement costs. The council also allocated $46.7 million in projected new fee revenues to the trial courts.

Court closure days are to be counted as holidays for the purpose of computing time for statutory deadlines. See the full report approved by the Judicial Council at this link: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/age072909.pdf.

Placer Superior Court Posts January 2010 Rule Amendments

Placer County Superior Court has posted a copy of new rules to go into effect January 2010. To view a copy of the Rules including revisions, go to: http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/fees/Local-Rules-Effective-1-1-10-(Draft).pdf

Federal Rule Change Re Computation of Time

On December 1st, when the amendments to the Federal Rules become effective, a day will be counted as a day, whether it is a weekend day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, or any other recognized holiday day. That will be true regardless of the number of days allowed for the response.

New Rule 6(a)(1)(B) states: "to count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays." The Report of the Judicial Conference states that the reason for the change was to "make the method of computing time consistent, simpler, and clearer." If a deadline is measured in hours, The new Rule says hours are counted the same way. Every hour is counted.

Counting Is Different Depending On Whether You Are Counting Forward Or Backward

The basic rules of when to start counting days, and when to stop, won't change under the new Rule. The day of the act or event that triggers the count still isn't included. You start counting the following day. If the last day of the count falls on a weekend day or on a state or federal holiday, the count still extends forward to the next day that is not a weekend day or holiday.
The count also gets extended if the final day falls on a day that the court is "inaccessible," to the first accessible day. The term "inaccessible" isn't limited, as it is currently, to lack of accessibility caused by "weather or other conditions." The new advisory committee notes to Rule 6 suggest that inaccessibility might include "an outage of the electronic filing system.

Things are also different if you are counting backwards. The new Rule 6 allows you to get to the "next day" when counting backwards, you continue to count backwards if the last day of the count is a weekend or holiday. So if your last day is Saturday, the filing is due the Friday before that Saturday.

Holidays are treated differently between a backward count and a forward count. If you are counting backwards, and the last day is a state holiday (not a federal holiday), then the count ends on the state holiday. If you hit a federal holiday, however, you continue counting backwards to the next business day. But forward counts treat state and federal holidays in the same way.

New Definition Of The "Last Day"

There's now specific definition of the meaning of "last day," contained in new Rule 6(a)(4). For paper filings, the last day ends "when the clerk's office is scheduled to close." For electronic filing, the last day ends "at midnight in the court's time zone."

What About Three Days For Mailing?

Rule 6(d), which gives lawyers an additional three days if served by mail or e-filing, remains the same. That seems odd, given the definition of "last day" taking into account e-filing procedures and the widespread use of electronic filing.

Response Periods For Discovery Responses, Summary Judgment, And Other Matters

The change in counting methodology resulted in the adjustment of a number of different response time periods set out in the Rules.

The time for responding to a complaint, formerly 20 days, will be 21 days.

As for summary judgment, there is a new version of Rule 56(c)(1)(A), which says that in the absence of local rule, a party can move for summary judgment at any time up until thirty days after the close of discovery. The response is due 21 days later, and the reply is due 14 days after that.

The time for responding to interrogatories and document requests isn't affected by the rule changes and are still thirty days. Learn more from an powerpoint from the federal judiciary website, titled "The Days Of Our District Court Lives."

State Courts To Close One Day a Month Starting 9/16/09

Closures Result of Unprecedented State Budget Cuts

All California state courts will close Wednesday, September 16, 2009, as a cost-savings measure to help courts cope with unprecedented budget reductions in the judicial branch of government.

As recently authorized by Government Code section 68106 which was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, the Judicial Council approved the court closures on the third Wednesday of the month starting in September 2009 and continuing through June 2010.

“The mission of the Judicial Council is to improve access to justice, so it was extremely difficult for us to make any decision that results in closing our courts,” stated Chief Justice Ronald M. George, chair of the Judicial Council, the 27-member policymaking body for the state courts.

“However, in the face of severe budget reductions, the council approved the closures as a way to partially offset the budget cutbacks while seeking to protect court employees and critical court programs that provide services to the public,” he continued.

All state courts will be closed: the Supreme Court of California, the Courts of Appeal, and the superior courts in each of California’s 58 counties. The Administrative Office of the Courts will be closed on the same day as the courts.

Court Closure Days

The court closure days are September 16, 2009; October 21, 2009; November 18, 2009; December 16, 2009; January 20, 2010; February 17, 2010; March 17, 2010; April 21, 2010; May 19, 2010; and June 16, 2010.

The closures of state courts one day a month will result in savings of about $94.3 million on a statewide basis. In addition to court closures, the Judicial Council took other actions to reduce the impact of the judicial branch’s $414 million budget reduction.

The council reallocated $159 million in special funds to offset cuts to the trial court operations budget. The special funds address a portion of the court funding cuts and unfunded growth costs for court security, dependency counsel for children in neglect and abuse cases; court interpreters for those who speak little or no English; and employee retirement costs. The council also allocated $46.7 million in projected new fee revenues to the trial courts.

In addition to approving the monthly closures, the council also directed that information on monetary savings from the court closures and the impact of the closures on court users, county justice partners, and court operations be reported to the council in January 2010. Based on that information, the council may reconsider whether to continue or reduce the number of monthly closures for the remainder of the fiscal year.

The Judicial Council considered other alternatives to court closures, but none would have resulted in as much savings as the statewide monthly closures but instead would have further reduced services to the public.

Court closure days are to be counted as holidays for the purpose of computing time for statutory deadlines. Click here for the full report.

Hawaii Supreme Court Decides NOT to Implement Overly-Broad Definition of "Practice of Law"; Proposal Would Have Banned Non-Attorney Document Preparers

The following email was sent to ALDAP by Betty Marais, who operates Legal-EZ, a legal document service in Hawaii. The good news concerns the Hawaii State Bar's attempt to broaden the definition of the "practice of law," which would have prohibited Betty and other legal document preparers from operating their businesses. ALDAP has been monitoring this process and spoken out against setting such a dangerous precedent that could negatively affect all non-attorney legal document preparers, as well as the entire access-to-justice movement. We salute all who joined in this important battle!

GOOD NEWS!! To all of my ardent supporters: we have finally received word from the Supreme Court - and after some delay, I got a copy of the letter which says basically - that the Justices have decided to 'table' the proposal (unauthorized practice of law) with no immediate plans for further consideration.

It seems that Legal-EZ has been given a 'reprieve' from the 'powers that be' who wish to limit OR eliminate your ability to hire services, like my company, to assist you in the preparation of your simple legal documents !! I thank you ALL for support, letters, and emails - I really would not have been able to make this happen without your support. I will remain diligent to make sure nothing like this happens again and if it does, we will be prepared.

Thank you and aloha,

Betty Marais
LEGAL-EZ
Legal Document Preparation Services
The Interstate Building, Suite 614
1314 S. King Street
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 591-0379
(888) 591-0379
(808) 593-0270

Riverside County Superior Local Rule Change

Riverside County Superior Court's Cross-Court Filing Program To Be Eliminated 7/1/09

Effective July 1, 2009, the court’s cross-court filing program will be eliminated.

Documents must be filed at the courthouse where a case is pending. Parties may elect to directly fax file documents at the correct court location pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.304.

Parties electing to directly fax file documents will be charged a fax registration fee of $100 for fiscal year 2009-10 to fax an unlimited number of pages. Please complete the Direct Fax Filing Registration form (RI-M01) to sign up for the fax-filing program. Visa, MasterCard, and Discover may be used to pay the $100 registration fee for the fax-filing program.

Attorneys are encouraged to establish an account with the court from which the registration, and other fees, may be paid.

A Judicial Council 'Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet' must accompany each facsimile filing.

The completed Direct Fax Filing Registration form may be submitted either in person at the clerk’s office, by fax or by mail. If dropping off in person at the clerk’s office, the form should be provided to the clerk’s office where the majority of documents will be filed. If the form is submitted by fax, it should be faxed to the court location where the majority of documents will be filed. Fax numbers are located below. If the form is submitted by mail, it should be mailed to the court location where the majority of documents will be filed. For mailing addresses click here.
Fax filing phone numbers are at the court's web site: http://riverside.courts.ca.gov/faxlist.htm

(Note: An updated and expanded list of direct fax filing numbers will be provided in June 2009).

Proposed and Amended Superior Court Rules

California Superior Courts and the Judicial Council Propose Amendments for January, 2009

Many California counties and the California Judicial Council have posted proposed amendments effective January 1, 2009, including:

California Rules of Court: Adopted amendments effective January 1, 2009 are posted on the Judicial Council website at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/amendments.htm.

Alameda County: proposed amendments are available on the court’s website at: http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/courts/rules/localrules2008/index.shtml. The comment period has passed.

Los Angeles County: The proposed amendments are available on the court’s website at: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civil/. The comment period has passed.

San Bernardino County: The proposed amendments are available on the court’s website at: http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/Courts/pdfs/misc/proposedrules.pdf. The comment period has passed.

San Diego County: The proposed amendments are available on the court’s website at: http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?Pageid=55,1057253&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL.
The comment period has passed.

San Francisco County: The proposed amendments are available on the court’s website at: http://www.sfgov.org/site/courts_index.asp?id=3471. The comment period has passed.

San Mateo County: The proposed amendments are available on the court’s website at: http://www.sanmateocourt.org/director.php?filename=./news/index.html. Comments are due by November 28, 2008.

Santa Clara County: The proposed amendments are available on the court’s website at: http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/rules/rules.htm. The comment period has passed.

Ventura County: The proposed amendments are now available on the court's web site: file:///C/Documents%20and%20Settings/Chris/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/OLKD/www.ventura.courts.ca.gov. Choose "What's New." The comment period has passed.

Focus on Forms: Free MCLE at San Diego Law Library

November 14th, 2008 (Friday), Noon - 1:00 p.m.

For anyone involved in a business dealing or law suit, finding out where to find the correct forms can be a harrowing process. This 1 hour class will try to provide information to assist you in finding forms, both through online sources and from print resources. The focus will be on litigation forms (California and Federal) and business (transactional forms). A resource list will be provided with the class.

MCLE:
1 hour general participatory credit

Cost:
Free - Library Members, $5 - Non-members

RSVP:
Call (619) 531-3900, or sign up at the circulation desk

Location:
Main Law Library
1105 Front Street
San Diego, CA 92101

LDA Round-table Discussion in San Diego: Wednesday, October 29 at 6:00 p.m.

“The single biggest challenge confronting the state courts … is the rising number of self-represented litigants.”

Their Challenge is the LDA’s Opportunity!

“The self-represented are no longer just the poor, but their ranks now include more members of the middle class and a rising number of small businesses.”

Please join us for an informal round-table discussion about the future of the LDA profession and what we, as business owners, can do to boost profitability in this new era of self-help legal services.

• When: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 6:00 – 7:30 p.m.


• Where: Mimi’s Café, 10788 Westview Parkway, San Diego (Mira Mesa Blvd. @ I-15)


• Cost: Just whatever you pay for your food & drink


• Sponsored by: Alliance of Legal Document Assistant Professionals, Inc.

* Remarks by: Chief Justice John T. Broderick, Jr., NH Supreme Court, speaking at the 2008 Equal Justice Conference

New Statewide Task Force Appointed to Improve Fairness, Efficiency in Family Law Cases

San Francisco—William C. Vickrey, Administrative Director of the Courts, today announced the appointment of members to the Elkins Family Law Task Force, a new statewide panel that will strive to improve efficiency and fairness in family law proceedings.

To be chaired by Associate Justice Laurie D. Zelon of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), the task force will conduct a comprehensive review of family law proceedings and recommend changes to increase access to justice, ensure due process, and provide for more effective and consistent rules, policies, and procedures.

“The diverse membership of this impressive group will permit a thoughtful and thorough review of the many challenges involved in family law proceedings,” stated Chief Justice Ronald M. George. “The courts and public we serve will greatly benefit from improvements to the administration of justice in this important area.”

“In the lives of the parties, the significance and importance of family law cases cannot be overstated,” Mr. Vickrey observed. “The courts have a vital role to play in these cases, where critical issues are involved. The parties deserve policies and procedures that can be understood and navigated, and the rules must ensure due process and the opportunity to be heard to ensure the trust and confidence of parties involved in family law proceedings.”

Justice Zelon noted, “I look forward to working with this impressive group of family law experts and to hearing from the many interested groups and individuals who care about improving the way we handle family law cases. It is my hope that this task force, as a group, will quickly come to understand the challenges faced by litigants in family court. More importantly, we will then determine how we can put in place rules, practices, and procedures to better serve the people of California.

“The Supreme Court and the Judicial Council have asked us to deal with important and challenging issues, and I am confident that we will discharge our responsibilities well,” Justice Zelon continued. “We need to ensure that the interests of all parties in family law cases can be served and that justice and due process for all remains paramount. In recent years, the number of parties who are self-represented in family law proceedings has increased dramatically. This fact adds complexity to the issues, but also creates an opportunity for innovation and new approaches.”

The task force was appointed in response to a California Supreme Court opinion, Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 1337, filed August 6, 2007. Authored by Chief Justice George, the unanimous opinion held that marital dissolution trials should proceed under the same general rules of procedure that govern other civil trials.

The ruling further provided: “We recommend to the Judicial Council that it establish a task force, including representatives of the family law bench and bar and the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Family and Juvenile Law, to study and propose measures to assist trial courts in achieving efficiency and fairness in marital dissolution proceedings and to ensure access to justice for litigants, many of whom are self-represented. Such a task force might wish to consider proposals for adoption of new rules of court establishing statewide rules of practice and procedure for fair and expeditious proceedings in family law, from the initiation of an action to postjudgment motions. Special care might be taken to accommodate self-represented litigants. Proposed rules could be written in a manner easy for laypersons to follow, be economical to comply with, and ensure that a litigant be afforded a satisfactory opportunity to present his or her case to the court."

Members of the legal community and public who wish to share ideas with the Elkins Task Force may do so by writing to Elkinstaskforce@jud.ca.gov.