National Courts Monitor

Police Skepticism Hitting L.A. In The Legal Fee Pocketbook

Updated: January 10, 2017

Photo credit: Los Angeles Times report 1/10/17

The Los Angeles city attorney is blaming distrust of police as a significant reason the city will have to borrow $70 million or dip into reserve funds. Those are the options laid out in a new city report.

The Los Angeles Times reports that “… the city paid out $110 million in legal cases last fiscal year, according to budget staff. In January 2016, the city agreed to pay out $24 million to settle lawsuits from two men who alleged that dishonest LAPD detectives led their wrongful murder convictions and caused them to spend decades behind bars… city lawyers concerned about the police misconduct allegations recommended the settlements, saying in confidential memos to the City Council that taking the cases to trial could be even costlier.”

In an interview with the Times on Monday, Los Angeles City Atty. Mike Feuer “… cited several reasons for the increased payouts. He said juries are more skeptical about law enforcement when it comes to police liability, and cited a “significant” amount of deferred maintenance of city infrastructure.”With payouts projected to total at least $135 million this fiscal year, budget officials said Monday that the city needs to immediately borrow up to $70 million to avoid dipping into its emergency reserve fund.

Read the story here: L.A. needs to borrow millions to cover legal payouts, city report says

President-Elect May Continue Lawsuits During Term

by NCM Staff

Updated: January 9, 2017

Leave a Comment

In this Dec. 28, 2016 file photo, President-elect Donald Trump listens to a question as he speaks to reporters at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla. Trump gave a videotaped deposition on Thursday, Jan. 5, 2017, for a lawsuit stemming from a clash with a celebrity restaurateur at his new Washington hotel. It was a rare legal proceeding for a president-elect or sitting president that highlights the legal woes that could follow Trump to the Oval Office. Photo Credit, San Francisco Chronicle file photo

President-elect Donald Trump may be the first president to conduct multiple lawsuits while in office. The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that Trump “… sat for an hour at Trump Tower to give testimony in a lawsuit he filed against Jose Andres after the chef cancelled plans to open a Spanish-themed restaurant at a new Washington hotel. Andres pulled out after Trump, in declaring his candidacy for president, called some Mexican immigrants “rapists” and said some were bringing drugs and crime to the U.S.”

The newspaper backgrounded that “… under the doctrine of immunity, presidents cannot be sued for actions they take in carrying out presidential duties. But anything outside that is open season. In its 1997 decision in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case against Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents can be sued while in office for actions unrelated to official acts.”

Given his vast business empire and several ongoing civil actions, its expected that the new president may be doing depositions fairly routinely.

What Trump Could Mean To Asbestos Lawsuit Scandals

by NCM Staff

Posted: January 8, 2017

Leave a Comment

Sara Warner, Founding Publisher of the National Courts Monitor & California Courts Monitor

What will the Trump administration mean in terms of reform for the nation’s longest-running injury lawsuit industry? Courts Monitor Publisher Sara Warner has some thought published in The Huffington Post:

The Year Ahead: Will Trump Tackle Asbestos Litigation Scandals?

A Good Place To Discover ‘Civil Gideon’

by NCM Staff

Updated: August 27, 2017

Leave a Comment

This isn’t a gap. It’s a chasm. Image Credit: TheLawyerist.com illustration, 8/27/16

Say what you will about president-elect Donald J. Trump, his election seems to have sparked interest in the concept of a “civil Gideon,” which would provide representation to people in non-criminal cases like eviction and child custody cases – and also, perhaps more to the point given the recent presidential campaign – in some immigration/deportation cases.

Immigration cases, often seen as “criminal,” are actually civil cases and do not include the same protections as criminal cases. For example, immigration “courts” are not part of the judicial branch but are actually functions of the Justice Department and the judges do not have the same power over prosecutors.

Our recent civil Gideon coverage brought some feedback, including some requests for background and some suggested reading, so we’ll refer you to a good website included in the feedback. Information will include the idea that a shocking number of civil cases involve somebody representing themselves:

The National Center for State Courts has released data about how often one side, neither side, or both sides have a lawyer in civil cases. The data, which is based on a representative sampling of 152 courts in 10 counties across the country examined in 2012-2013 (totaling over 900,000 cases) appears in the NCSC’s Landscape of Civil Litigation of State Courts report. The report found that “At least one party was self-represented (usually the defendant) in more than three-quarters of the cases.” As The Lawyerist website astutely observed, “This isn’t a [justice] gap. It’s a chasm.”
http://civilrighttocounsel.org

Trump’s Election Boosting Efforts For ‘Civil Gideon’ Style Reform

by NCM Staff

Updated: August 27, 2017

Leave a Comment

Photo Credit: LA Times video clip 1/3/2017

One impact of the pending Trump administration is already being felt as some states and cities are preparing funds to fight deportation. While it’s only one part of the issue, the funding is a boost to the movement for a “civil Gideon” policy that would provide a right to an attorney in some civil cases – like the right to an attorney for criminal cases. The Gideon case was the policy-setting decision for that criminal-case right.

Immigration advocates have long argued that some deportation cases should be among those requiring representation, especially when children are involved. Funding has always been part of the discussion, but some governments are finding cash in the wake of President-Elect Trump’s victory. For example, the Los Angeles Times reports that LA city and county leaders have “… unveiled a $10-million fund to provide legal assistance for residents facing deportation, the region’s boldest move yet as it prepares for an expected crackdown on illegal immigration by Donald Trump. If approved by lawmakers, Los Angeles’ two top government agencies could find themselves in the position of using public funds to challenge policies sought by the White House and Republican Congress.”

Similar efforts are under way in New York, San Francisco, Chicago and the state of New York.