Santa Barbara Lawyer - Santa Barbara County Bar Association

Santa Barbara Lawyer 

Official Publication of the Santa Barbara County Bar Association 

February 2010 • Issue 449 

ORDER IN THE COURT

�� 

FINANCIAL EXPERTISE IN YOUR CORNER. 

These days, help from a one-on-one relationship with an advocate 

who knows you and knows where you want to go is more important 

than ever. A Merrill Lynch Financial Advisor, now with access to the 

resources of Bank of America, can help you plan, imagine, diversify, 

rebalance and believe. 

The Micheel - Gamberdella Group 

Merrill Lynch 

�� 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

Bruce Micheel, CFP® 

Marc Gamberdella 

John Spruill, CFP® 

(805) 963-6310 

http://fa.ml.com/micheel_gamberdella 

Investing involves risk. Diversification and rebalancing do not assure a profit or protect against loss in declining markets. Merrill Lynch Wealth Management 

makes available products and services offered by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (MLPF&S) and other subsidiaries of Bank of America 

Corporation. MLPF&S is a registered broker-dealer, member SIPC and a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. 

Investment products: 

Are Not FDIC Insured Are Not Bank Guaranteed May Lose Value 

© 2010 Bank of America Corporation. All rights reserved. 

2 Santa Barbara Lawyer

�� 

� � � � � � � � 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

McIvers&Slater_7.5x4.5.ad:McIvers&Slater 7/8/09 2:47 PM Page 2 

February 2010 3 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

� �� 

McIvers & Slater 

Mediation and Arbitration 

Kevin Thomas McIvers 

kmcivers@mciversandslater.com 

Hon. James M. Slater 

Judge of the Superior Court, Ret. 

jslater@mciversandslater.com 

Excellence in Dispute Resolution 

Business Disputes 

Real Estate 

Elder Abuse 

Professional Liability 

Medical Malpractice 

Insurance & Bad Faith 

Employment & Wrongful Termination 

Construction Contract & Defect 

Personal Injury & Wrongful Death 

(805) 897-3843 

www.McIversandSlater.com 

211 East Anapamu Street • Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Lynn E. Goebel 

President 

Ehlers, Fairbanks & Goebel, LLP 

15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 217 


T: 879-7513 F: 879-4006 

Mack Staton 

President Elect 

Bench and Bar Conference (2010) 

Events Committee 

Mullen & Henzell LLP 

112 E. Victoria Street 

Santa Barbara, CA, 93101 

T: 966-1501 F: 966-9204 

Catherine Swysen 

Secretary 

Sanger & Swysen 

233 E. Carrillo Street, Suite C 


T: 962-4887 F: 963-7311 

Donna Lewis 

Chief Financial Officer 

Attorney at Law 

789 North Ontare Road 


T: 682-4090 

Melissa Fassett 

Past President 

Special Projects 

Price, Postel & Parma LLP 

200 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 400 


T: 962-0011 F: 965-3978 

Santa Barbara County Bar Association 

www.sblaw.org 

2010 Officers and Directors 

Winnie Cai 


Editor-in-Chief 


7325 Elmhurst Place 

Goleta, CA 93117 

T: 636-0190 

Naomi Dewey 

MCLE Chair 

Hardin & Coffin, LLP 

1531 Chapala Street, Suite 1 


T: 963-3301 F: 963-7372 

Luis Esparza 


Esparza Law Group, PC 

1129 State Street, Suite 13 


T: 564-1018 F: 564-1437 

Herb Fox 

Liaison/Bench and Bar 

Law Office of Herb Fox 

15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 

211, SB 93101 

T: 899-4777, F: 899-2121 

Saji Gunawardane 

Special Projects 

Law In Motion, PC 

924 Anacapa Street, Suite 2-J 


T: 845-4000 F: 845-4867 

Mission Statement 

Santa Barbara County Bar Association 

The mission of the Santa Barbara County Bar Association 

is to preserve the integrity of the legal profession and 

respect for the law, to advance the professional growth 

and education of its members, to encourage civility and 

collegiality among its members, to promote equal access to 

justice and protect the independence of the legal profession 

and the judiciary. 

Jennifer Kruse Hanrahan 

Liaison, Legal/Community 

Relations 


285 Chateaux Elise, Suite B 


T: 636-5566 F: 966-6407 

Cristi Michelon 


Eaton, Jones & Michelon 

1032 Santa Barbara Street 


T: 963-2014 F: 966-2120 

John J. Thyne III 

Law Day/Law Week 

Bench and Bar 

The Law Offices of John Thyne 

2000 State Street 


T: 963-9958 F: 963-3814 

William Duval, Jr. 

Law Day/Law Week 


1114 State Street, Suite 240 


T: 963-9641 F: 963-4071 

Lida Sideris 

Executive Director 

SBCBA Office 

123 W. Padre Street, No. E 


T: 569-5511 F: 569-2888 

sblawmag@verizon.net 

4 Santa Barbara Lawyer 


A Publication of the Santa Barbara 

County Bar Association 

©2010 Santa Barbara County Bar Association 

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF 

Winnie Cai 

ASSISTANT EDITORS 

John Derrick 

Pauline Maxwell 

SENIOR EDITOR 


SENIOR ADVISOR 

Lol Sorensen 

MOTIONS EDITOR 

Justin Greene 

VERDICTS & DECISIONS 

EDITOR 

Lindsay G. Shinn 

COVER ART 


EDITORIAL SUPPORT 

Michael Lyons 

Adam Carralejo 

Jill Jackman Sadler 

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS 

Herb Fox 

Robert Sanger 

Submit all EDITORIAL matter to 

Winnie Cai at 

santabarbaralawyer@yahoo.com 

with “SUBMISSION” in the email 

subject line. 

Submit all ADvERTIsIng to : 

SBCBA, 123 W. Padre Street, #E 


phone 569-5511, fax 569-2888 

Classifieds can be emailed to: 

sblawmag@verizon.net


Official Publication of the Santa Barbara County Bar Association 

February 2010 • Issue 449 

Articles 

6 Judge J. William McLafferty 1939–2010, By Judge 

James W. Brown 

8 Ten Tips to Improve Your Success in the Courtroom, By 

Denise de Bellefeuille 

9 A Few Courtroom Tips, By Judge Thomas P. Anderle 

12 How to Annoy the Court of Appeal in 4 Easy Steps, By 

John Derrick 

14 Lesson in a Parking Lot, By Brad Ginder 

17 In Memoriam: Kimberley E. Montanaro, By Jennifer 

Raphael 

20 Santa Barbara Women Lawyers’ Annual Dinner and 

Meeting, By Naomi Dewey 

23 New Criminal Laws for 2010, By Robert Sanger 

24 New Rule 3-410: New Duties, Unresolved Issues, By 

Michael Colton 

26 A Few of Our New Year’s Resolutions 

29 Volunteer Attorneys Needed for 2010 Santa Barbara County 

Mock Trial Competition, By Josefina Martinez and Saji 

Gunawardane 

31 The Buck Stops Here, By Lida Sideris 

sections 

32 Verdicts & Decisions 

34 Motions 

35 Classifieds 

38 Calendar 


Editor’s Message 

By Wi n n i e Ca i 

We begin this month on a somber note: Judge J. 

William McLafferty and attorney Kimberley 

Montanaro both passed away in January. 

Judge McLafferty presided over Department 5 decisively 

and fairly for over 12 years. Pauline Maxwell, a legal research 

attorney for the court, fondly remembers Judge 

McLafferty’s “boyish sense of humor and joy for life.” You 

will find Judge James W. Brown’s warm memories of his 

fellow bench officer in the following pages. 

Kimberley was a partner at Anticouni & Associates, LLP 

where she specialized in class action lawsuits. I did not have 

the good fortune of knowing Kimberley, but it is obvious 

that she was an excellent attorney and wonderful person. 

Tributes from her friends and colleagues show that Kimberley 

made an indelible mark on everything she did. 

The profound sadness felt by the passing of these two 

well-respected colleagues is a reminder of the tight-knit 

nature of our community and that we should practice law 

with civility and integrity. As it turns out, these are the 

themes of the current issue. Judge Denise de Bellefeuille 

and Judge Thomas P. Anderle offer concrete advice on how 

to become better lawyers. It is advice based on many years 

of observing lawyers at their business, some successfully, 

some not. A few of these ideas may be familiar to you, but 

it is good to be reminded of them as we strive to perfect 

our craft. 

Due to Judge McLafferty’s untimely death and this publication’s 

production schedule, we were not able to celebrate 

adequately Judge McLafferty’s life in the February issue. 

We will dedicate the March issue to Judge McLafferty, 

featuring the words of his friends and colleagues. If you 

would like to share your memories of the late judge, please 

direct them to santabarbaralawyer@yahoo.com.

Judge J. William McLafferty 

June 14, 1939 – January 15, 2010 

The Santa Barbara legal community and 

particularly his colleagues on the bench 

and courthouse staff were shocked and 

profoundly saddened by the news of Judge Bill 

McLafferty’s sudden passing on Friday, January 

15, 2010, at Cottage Hospital. Although Bill had 

been hospitalized for more than a month and 

had undergone serious surgery related to longstanding 

pulmonary issues, he had appeared to 

be rebounding and we expected soon to see him 

back at his post in Department Five. The reality 

of his absence is slowly sinking in. 

His loss will be particularly felt in the South 

Coast Civil Division where he has long been 

the Supervising Judge, both before and after his 

term as Presiding Judge from 2007 through 2008. 

Bill strengthened the CADRe program and pio- 

neered the Case Management Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Early Settlement Session (CMADRESS) 

into a highly effective early settlement vehicle using 

civic minded and specially trained attorneys under 

Court supervision to resolve civil cases early at great 

savings of Court and litigant resources. 

Bill managed to bridge the gulf of isolation that 

can separate judges from the communities they 

serve by his active and often humorous participation 

in the William L. Gordon Inn of Court and a 

wide range of other community organizations. Although 

he maintained discipline in the courtroom, 

a warm heart of compassion, fostered perhaps by 

his own humble beginnings, was never far below 

the surface. He will be greatly missed. 


- Judge James W. Brown 

A full memorial spread on Judge McLafferty will be included in the March 2010 

issue of Santa Barbara Lawyer. Please refer to the Editor’s Message on page 5 to see 

how you can contribute to the commemoration of Judge McLafferty’s life.

I N ME MORI A M 

HON. J. WILLI AM MCL AFFERTY, JR. 

ACCOMPLISHED TRIA L L AWYER 

E S T EEMED PA RT NER 

R ESPECT ED JURIST 

SANTA BARB ARA SUPERIOR COURT 1997-2010 

A RCHBALD & SPRAY LLP 1975-1997 

�� 

�� 

February 2010 7

The Practice of Law 

Ten Tips to Improve 

Your success in the 

Courtroom 

By Ju d g e de n i s e d e Bellefeuille 

Atrial is a real life drama, and judges have the best 

seat in the house. Judges see all kinds of lawyers 

in court — charismatic, confident, well-prepared 

types, and those less so. Whatever your skills, it never hurts 

to think about the things you might do to improve them. 

So to that end I would like to offer the following ten tips 

for your consideration. 

First, when you are developing the theory of your case, 

look at the jury instructions applicable to your causes of 

action. The instructions contain all of the elements you 

must prove in order to win your case. 

Take the words of the instructions and 

match them to the testimony of your 

intended witnesses so that you cover all 

of the necessary bases. Remember, if you 

miss an element, you lose! This simple 

form of preparation helps you to evaluate 

the strength of your case and gives you a 

chance to consider what you will need to 

prove and how to do it. 

Second, read the California Evidence 

Code, cover to cover. Yes, it is not as 

thrilling as a good novel. But it contains 

everything you need to know about how 

to get evidence admitted in court, and how 

to prevent your opponent from admitting 

evidence. You might be surprised to discover 

the true definition of hearsay and its 

many exceptions. Most lawyers misunderstand 

the hearsay rule because few have 

taken time to read it and think about it, 

much less go through the precise analysis necessary to get 

an out of court statement either admitted or excluded. 

Third, learn how to authenticate evidence and do it 

crisply, succinctly, and clearly for the benefit of the judge, 

jury, and court reporter. To this end you might try the 

following magic formula, which works like a charm. You 

show a marked exhibit to witness. You announce in your 

question: “I show you exhibit one marked for identifica- 

Take a page from English 

barristers who simply state, 

calmly and in the King’s 

English, “I respectfully 

disagree with my learned 

friend.” Learned friend 

is code for any other term 

you’d like to call the other 

lawyer. But it sounds 

elegant and positive and 

you will earn points for 

decorum and politeness. 

tion: What is this? How 

do you recognize it? Did 

you create this? Where 

did you obtain this?” Or 

other questions along this 

line, to establish what the 

document is and to make 

a foundation for it to come 

into evidence. 

On a related note, please 

do not ever approach a 

witness with an unmarked 

document. The reason 

we have the clerk mark 

Denise de Bellefeuille 

exhibits is to keep track 

of them so that we have a 

clear record. Documents 

are easy to misplace. Everything shown to a witness must 

first be marked for identification by the court clerk. 

Fourth, think about how you are going to get documents 

into evidence. Are they business records? Are they hearsay? 

How do you overcome the hurdles 

to admission? Why not meet with your 

opponent and see if he or she will stipulate 

to the admission of key documents? It may 

save time and aggravation. Otherwise, 

have a theory of admissibility and be 

prepared to authenticate and lay a proper 

foundation for the thing to be admitted. 

Fifth, do not make speaking objections. 

A speaking objection sounds like a very 

long whine. The only correct way to object 

is to use one or two key words to clue the 

judge (acting as referee) — such as “objection, 

hearsay; asked and answered; vague 

and unintelligible; leading” and so on. It 

might be helpful for you to compile a list 

of correct objections and take them with 

you to court as a handy shorthand tool. 

Sixth, spend some time forming appropriate 

questions for your witnesses. Keep 

in mind the rule that only non-leading 

questions are allowed on direct examination. Non-leading 

means a question that is open-ended as opposed to a leading 

question, which suggests the answer in the body of 

the question. A good direct examination is one that lets 

the witness tell his or her story seamlessly. It is an art form 

that is often overlooked by the nervous lawyer. To cultivate 


Continued on page 10

A Few 

Courtroom Tips 

By Ju d g e Th o m a s P. an d e r l e 

F 

rom time-to-time I have shared some thoughts 

with lawyers about issues that confront me. Here 

are a few observations that might help you on 

your next court appearance. 

“Do you ever change a tentative ruling?” 

Not very often. Sometimes the law and motion calendar 

contains more motion than law. So if it is not in your moving 

papers, it does not exist. Remember I have read your 

papers and I have considered whatever you said and why 

you said it. Although I have no objection to any argument, 

you want to keep that in mind. I have already spent a lot 

of time on your case. 

“Do you think the quality of practicing lawyers 

has improved in the last 10 years?” 

Absolutely. The writing is certainly better. 95% of the 

lawyers in my courtroom work hard and do a good job. 

(Don’t “join” the other 5%.) The number of cases actually 

being tried seems to be down. Some of the reasons for 

that are: 

A) MICRA limitations, which made sense years ago, 

have now made the really big pain and suffering case too 

expensive to try. B) The insurance industry started to tell 

the lawyers who had relatively small cases that they had to 

try their marginal cases. C) The ADR system has put a big 

emphasis on settlement. D) The attitude toward “mediation” 

has changed significantly. We have far more lawyers 

who want to be mediators than trial attorneys. E) We are 

doing a better job with law and motion. The marginal cases 

and marginal causes of action are being cut out. Years ago 

we did not have the resources to really do good work in 

law and motion. 

“What does all that mean to a trial attorney?” 

When that case comes in the door if it is not winnable, 

don’t take it. You make money on the cases you don’t take. 

At the same time get your settlement cap on early and 

make sure your client recognizes the advantages of early 


settlement. 

Consider carefully if you 

want to get behind on your 

billing on the assumption 

that you will make it up 

by winning at trial. That 

can be very expensive 

learning. 


“How effective do you 

think Evidence Code 

§ 776 testimony is in 

a trial?” 

It is very commonly 

Judge Thomas P. Anderle 

done, and it is very commonly 

unproductive and 

repetitive. It is much overused. 

Get in and get out. You give the defendant an opportunity 

to tell their story in the middle of your case, and 

a second time in their case. It is rarely helpful when it is 

done exhaustively. 

“Do you think ‘evidentiary objections’ to 

the declarations submitted on a motion are 

helpful?” 

Lawyers must use some reasonable restraint in their 

submission of declarations that contain inadmissible statements 

and opposing counsel must use some reasonable 

restraint in making their objections. Lawyers often seem 

not to have even considered using such restraint in their 

case. Even though many of the objections made by a moving 

party are valid, (1) I ask counsel who are submitting the 

declarations to read them before filing them and eliminate 

the inadmissible testimony, and (2) I ask counsel who are 

objecting to the inadmissible testimony to resist exercising 

every conceivable objection, on the theory that in most 

cases there is virtually no harm done by the inadmissible 

statement and in every case I have to read and rule on each 

objection. 

“Is there a particular thing that we should work 

harder at?” 

a. Lawyers who cannot be civil. Keep in mind, it rarely 

helps your case to annoy the trial judge by not keeping your 

anger under control. 

b. Number your in limine motions. 

c. Limit your in limine motions. 

d. List your witnesses in alphabetical order. 

e. Please consider your settlement posture more than 5 

days before the mandatory settlement conference.

de Bellefueille, continued from page 8 

this art, try to ask simple, straightforward questions that 

begin with words like who, what, when, where or how. 

Here are some examples: Where were you on September 

11, 2001 at 8:42 am? What did you see? What happened 

next? How do you know that? 

Seventh, “Cross examination is not the art of examining 

crossly. It is the delicate task of gently leading a witness 

into a fatal admission.” (John Mortimer, English Barrister 

extraordinaire and author of Rumpole of the Bailey.) Cross 

examination is perhaps the most difficult skill to master as 

a lawyer. Personally, in 13 years of practice I think I did one 

really good cross examination. After 16 years as a judge, 

I have witnessed precisely two excellent cross examinations. 

Two, count them. Cross examination requires a high 

level of preparation and thoughtfulness, plus a little talent. 

I have an outstanding VHS tape of the late, great Cornell 

Law School Professor Irving Younger on the subject that I 

will happily lend out to anyone interested in getting some 

good tips in this department. Suffice it to say, you need to 

have a strategy for getting that fatal admission. An ineffective 

cross examination can damage your own case and 

strengthen your opponent’s! 

Court Furlough 

Days 2010 

January 20, 2010 

February 17, 2010 

March 17, 2010 

April 21, 2010 

May 19, 2010 

June 16, 2010 

Eighth, for you civil lawyers out there, could someone 

kindly tell me where you learned the bold move of calling 

your first witness in trial the opposing party “under 

776, your honor” (referencing Evidence Code 776)? This 

is always a HUGE mistake. First of all, you have not yet 

established any of the basic facts of your case through 

your own friendly witnesses (who will seamlessly tell 

their stories under non-leading direct examination). No, 

instead, you want to take the hostile opponent on cross 

examination before anyone knows anything about your 

theory of the case. 

Trust me, no matter how confident you are, you cannot 

do this well. Don’t do it. It’s not a good move. It usually 

results in a tremendous amount of read-back in the jury 

room. It’s confusing and counterproductive. It does not 

accomplish your goal of making the other side look small 

and unbelievable. It does the opposite, actually. 

Ninth, no matter how obnoxious or aggravating your 

opponent proves to be, do not ever, ever, ever, lower yourself 

to engage in any personal attacks against him or her. 

NEVER! This is exceptionally difficult when your opponent 

is doing this to you. It is all too human to want to respond 

to such bad behavior because we all retain the right of selfdefense. 

However, be warned that if you respond in kind, 

your case turns into a slug fest that is no longer focused 

on searching for the truth: the focus then shifts to how 

unprofessional and petty lawyers can be. Quite frankly, 

we can’t afford this as a group. Lawyers are already held 

in such low esteem by the general public. Why confirm 

stereotypes? 

Judges hate this behavior, jurors despise it, and it simply 

makes both lawyers look bad. It takes super human abilities 

to resist the temptation, but if you do, you will win major 

points with the people judging the merits of the case. So, 

the next time you are tempted to call your opponent’s argument 

ridiculous, a fantastic fabrication, or a lie, bite your 

tongue and count silently to ten until the urge to blurt out 

a criticism passes. 

Take a page from English barristers who simply state, 

calmly and in the King’s English, “I respectfully disagree 

with my learned friend.” Learned friend is code for any 

other term you’d like to call the other lawyer. But it sounds 

elegant and positive and you will earn points for decorum 

and politeness. 

Tenth, gratitude is an attitude. Remember how lucky we 

are to serve in this noble profession. It is such a privilege to 

earn a law degree and the right to pass before the bar, taking 

up the cause of the client in need of legal assistance. A trial 

is the search for the truth, and being part of the process is 

a marvelous opportunity to do the right thing. 


The Practice of Law

“Finally, someone my clients 

can count on just like they count on me.” 

Your relationship with your clients is all about trust. They trust your integrity and expert 

legal advice. And they value the personal and confidential relationship you share. 

It’s very much the same at Montecito Bank & Trust. Like you, we believe in longstanding 

client relationships. In offering creative solutions for each person’s unique needs. 

And especially in earning their trust with personal commitment and professional expertise. 

Whether it’s designing an investment portfolio, managing multiple real estate properties 

or planning charitable gifts, you can count on our Wealth Management team to provide 

your clients with a level of service that meets not just their needs, but your standards. 

Wealth advisory services – one of the many Paths to prosperity ® you’ll find 

at Montecito Bank & Trust. 

What’s your path? 

WEALTH MANAGEMENT 

Investment Management - Trust Services - Estate Administration 

Real Property Management - Philanthropic Services 

www.montecito.com 

Call for more information 

Santa Barbara: 1106-E Coast Village Road, Montecito, CA 93018 � 805 564-0219 

Solvang: 591 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang, CA 93463 � 805 686-8620 

Ventura/Westlake Village: 701 E. Santa Clara Street, Ventura, CA 93001 � 805 830-8005 Member FDIC 

February 2010 11


How to Annoy the 

Court of Appeal in 4 

Easy steps 

By Jo h n de r r i C k 

S 

tep 1: The guru of legal writing is someone called 

Bryan Garner. He edits Black’s Law Dictionary. He 

also presents legal writing seminars nationwide. 

(www.lawprose.org.) 

I’ve never been to one, although I’ve heard great things 

about them. But Garner gives out one piece of advice that’s 

really bad. It’s number-one on my list of how 

to annoy the Court of Appeal. 

The advice: “Put your case citations in 

footnotes.” According to Garner, citations 

mid-paragraph disturb the flow of prose and 

distract the reader. 

The flaw in Garner’s advice is that some 

people actually want to read the citations. 

The source and nature of authority may be of 

more than mere passing interest. And there’s 

nothing more giddy-making to the legal reader than making 

one’s eyes go up and down the page between text and footnotes, 

like someone watching a tennis game on paper. 

No doubt there may be some Justice or research attorney 

buried in the California appellate system who favors this. 

But I have heard scathing comments on the Garner footnote 

idea from members of the appellate bench at MCLE 

events. 

Step 2: How about refusing to stipulate to extensions 

of up to 60 days for principal briefs? As a practical matter, 

the Court of Appeal virtually always grants applications for 

such extensions — usually in two lots of 30 — if there is a 

vaguely plausible request. But stipulations save the Clerk’s 

Office time. Ones of up to 60 days are effective on filing 

and don’t require a Court order. (I’m talking about state 

court. The Feds do things differently.) 

Lawyers who don’t stipulate to extensions are making 

work for every one. And they’re probably making life difficult 

for themselves, because the chances are they, too, 

will need an extension. 

I know that clients sometimes don’t like it if their lawyer 

agrees to extensions. But this is an instance of where the 

lawyer should call the shots. I make it clear in my fee agree- 

And this guy droned 

on, seemingly oblivious 

to the irritation he was 

causing. Eventually, he 

was cut off. 

ments that I may enter into 

60-day stipulations. 

Step 3: Oral argument 

presents plenty of opportunities 

to annoy. Both 

sides are entitled to up to 

30 minutes. But except 

in rare cases, you’ll make 

yourself very unpopular 

if you insist on your full 

allocation. Fifteen minutes 

is generally a reasonable 

maximum — 5-12 minutes 

usually suffice. 

Probably the worst oral 

argument I’ve ever seen 

was at Division Six in 


John Derrick 

Ventura about a year ago. I was defending 

an appeal. It wasn’t a complex case. The appellant 

was funded by an insurance carrier, 

and the law firm seemed determined to milk 

the file. 

For a start, it sent two lawyers to oral argument. 

Both sat at the counsel table — and, no 

doubt, billed — although only one argued. 

He had put in a 30-minute estimate. And he 

literally started to read out long paragraphs 

from cases. 

Since arguments are called in order of time estimates, with 

the shortest first, we were stuck at the end of the morning 

calendar (resulting in both of those lawyers being able to bill 

to the max). It had actually gone past the noon hour. People 

wanted to go to lunch. And this guy droned on, seemingly 

oblivious to the irritation he was causing. Eventually, he was 

cut off. Surprisingly, he was a certified appellate specialist 

(not, I hasten to add, from Santa Barbara). 

Step 4: One often sees lawyers arriving for oral argument 

lugging piles of banker’s boxes containing the record. As 

though they’ll have an opportunity to do anything with it 

in the short span of their argument. 

But that’s their problem. What is annoying is when the 

record ends up much bulkier than it need be. All too often, 

lawyers put virtually the whole Superior Court file into 

a multi-volume Appendix or Clerk’s Transcript, but then 

cite to only a fraction of what’s there. Don’t bloat records 

(unless you want to annoy). Someone at the receiving end 

has to handle all that stuff. 

John Derrick is certified by The State Bar of California Board of 

Legal Specialization as a Specialist in Appellate Law.

Organize Eric discovers 

”bombshell” document, sends 

it to West Case Notebook ®, and 

annotates the key section 

Strategize Amy runs a Key Facts 

report to jump-start her summary 

judgment motion 

OUT-ORGANIZE. OUT-PREPARE. OUT-ANALYZE. 

West Case Notebook helps you analyze cases with unprecedented efficiency 

and thoroughness. Accessible anytime, anywhere – so that team members can 

easily gather, annotate, search and consult: 

• Key facts 

• Documents 

• Transcripts 

West Case Notebook: there’s no better way to analyze a case. 

For details, call 1-800-762-5272 or visit west.thomson.com/casenotebook. 


Find Bob uses five minutes at 

the airport to run a search for the 

evidence for tomorrow’s hearing 

• Pleadings 

• Legal research 

• And more! 

Draft Mary sends a clip from 

a pivotal case, along with the 

case citation, directly into her 

memorandum 

© 2009 Thomson Reuters L-353182/10-09 

Thomson Reuters and the Kinesis logo are trademarks of Thomson Reuters.

I Learned About Lawyering From That 

Lesson in a 

Parking Lot 

By Br a d gi n d e r 

W 

hen asked by John Derrick for a “war story” that 

taught me a lesson about lawyering, I thought of 

several humorous stories without much lesson 

and many tedious ones with too much lesson. Here’s one 

in between. 

I was walking to my car from a courtroom in Ventura 

after the final day of testimony in a wrongful-death jury 

trial. A colleague, Mack Staton, and I were representing, 

respectively, the husband of the decedent (“Mr. P”) and 

the decedent’s young sons from an earlier 

marriage. The potential for a possible conflict 

over verdict apportionment caused Mack 

and me to believe that the survivors would 

be best represented by separate counsel. We 

also thought that trying the case together 

would be fun. Trying cases should always 

be enjoyable. 

Mack was walking next to me discussing 

the day in court as I noticed that our clients 

were about 50 yards ahead of us and also 

walking to the parking lot through the courthouse 

corridor. As we walked, three jurors in 

our case emerged from the ladies’ restroom 

ahead of us. They turned down the corridor 

toward the parking lot, walking about 20 yards behind our 

clients. Mack stopped talking or I stopped listening. I don’t 

remember. I remember only silence, the uneasy silence that 

sometimes precedes disaster. The corridor seemed to get 

longer as the jurors — out of our hearing range — talked 

among themselves and appeared to recognize that the 

plaintiffs in their case walked ahead of them. They did 

not seem aware that we were in the courthouse exodus 

behind them. 

The parking lot was filled with cars. As we approached 

the end of the corridor, it seemed plain that very soon our 

clients and the three jurors would head in different directions 

in search of their automobiles and I would be enjoying 

again my conversation with Mack. That didn’t happen. 

The situation could 

have been avoided by 

discussing places for 

parking before trial, 

and then learning of 

the handicap permit 

and evaluating 

whether it was really 

necessary to use. 

I had never seen Mr. 

P’s car before that day. I 

had not talked to Mr. P or 

the boys about parking at 

the courthouse. A tall, fitlooking 

man in his early 

50s, Mr. P walked without 

a limp as he led the boys 

to his car — parked in the 

stall closest to the courthouse, 

reserved for the 

handicapped. 

The heads of the three 

jurors swiveled back and 

forth between each other 

as their surprised and 

annoyed expressions in- 

formed us that it may not be necessary to spend more time 

discussing how to apportion a plaintiffs’ verdict. It appeared 

that a healthy and limber Mr. P had cheated and had taken 

advantage of a reserved parking place to 

which he had no entitlement. Gamed the 

system. Not a good image while the jury is 

out. In truth, he had sustained a knee injury 

many years earlier (not relevant in the case) 

for which he had a handicap parking permit, 

which, he explained to us later, was on the 

dashboard. At the moment, I could have 

yelled, “Mr. P, that’s not your car!” But auto 

theft was neither true nor a better image. 

The situation could have been avoided by 

discussing places for parking before trial, 

and then learning of the handicap permit and 

evaluating whether it was really necessary to 

use. If so, address it during trial. 

The lesson: Jury trials for clients begin each day when 

they leave the house and continue until they return home 

and close the door behind them. It’s not just in and around 

the courtroom where you might expect jurors to see or hear 

clients. This lesson has informed me to instruct clients that from 

voir dire through verdict, they must assume that one or more 

jurors are watching whatever he or she does, wherever her 

or she is. I now take clients to the courtroom before trial so 

they are familiar with the setting. If possible, I have them sit 

in the jury box so that they can see the surroundings from 

the jurors’ perspective. And I discuss parking. 

Brad Ginder is a partner at Hollister & Brace and has been a 

trial lawyer for 35 years. 


Brad Ginder

February 2010 15


Kimberley E. 

Montanaro 

Kimberley E. Montanaro, a partner in the firm of 

Anticouni & Associates, LLP, passed away on January 

3, 2010. 

Kimberley spent her formative years in Malibu, California, 

graduating from Palisades Charter High School. She 

obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree in Journalism from 

the University of Colorado at Boulder 

in May 1995, and her Juris Doctorate 

from the University of Denver, College 

of Law, in May 2002. 

During her too-short life, Kimberley 

held a variety of truly interesting jobs 

ranging from Los Angeles County 

lifeguard to publicity assistant for the 

television show Baywatch. Following 

her admission to the California Bar, 

Kimberley worked as a civil litigation 

attorney with the Santa Barbara firms 

of Hill & Trager; Minehan, McFaul & 

Fitch; and Anticouni & Associates. At 

Anticouni & Associates, she was primarily 

responsible for the firm’s class 

action practice. 

In addition to her work as an attorney, 

Kimberley stayed true to her 

lifelong commitment to help disadvantaged 

children. Over the course 

of the last decade, she worked as the 

director of a non-profit foundation for 

homeless and disadvantaged youth, 

interned for the National Association 

of Counsel for Children, provided pro 

bono legal services at the Alliance for Children’s Rights, 

and was a Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) in 

Santa Barbara. 

Kimberley is survived by her parents, John and Susan 

Montanaro, her brother Jon, and her dog Casey. She is 

missed by a multitude of friends, colleagues and coworkers. 

In lieu of flowers, her family requests that donations 


In Memoriam 

be made in Kimberley’s name to CASA Santa Barbara, 118 

East Figueroa Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101. 

– Jennifer Raphael. 

In the words of her colleagues: 

“During her two years with Anticouni & Associates, Kimberley 

oversaw the complex class action litigation on behalf 

of California employees. She was incredibly organized, 

which allowed her to keep track of thousands of class members 

and tens of thousands of individual documents with 

ease and grace. While the loss of Kimberley the attorney 

is difficult, the loss of Kimberley the person is devastating; 

she will be missed every day. There are thousands of people 

who come and go in our lifetimes; Kimberley is one of the 

few individuals who will always be a part of our fondest 

memories. I believe she loved each of us at the firm. I know 

that we all loved her.” 

- Bruce Anticouni, Anticouni & 

Associates. 

“Working for Kim over the last two 

years has been nothing short of amazing. 

She was a brilliant attorney and 

one of the best writers I have ever 

known. She had an aura about her 

that just made everyone smile. I feel 

blessed to have worked for, and been 

friends with, such a beautiful person. 

She has undoubtedly made me a better 

person.” 

- Nichole Ricotta, 

Anticouni & Associates. 

“Kimberley was a kind, giving and 

generous person, almost to a fault. She 

also had an excellent sense of humor, 

uncanny timing, and a brilliant legal 

mind. I feel lucky to have memories 

to cherish that include random moments 

of pure enjoyment such as iPod 

Kimberley E. Montanaro 

music wars, as well as simple moments 

of camaraderie while working 

through cases. Her passing leaves me 

with a heavy heart, and yet I still feel the smile coming 

through that memories of time spent with her will always 

invoke.” 

- Kristi Rothschild, Anticouni & Associates. 

“Kimberley was a kind and generous soul. She always 

found time to help others, sometimes putting them before

In Memoriam 

herself. Her unique presence and sense of humor have left 

an indelible mark on the world. I cherish the good times we 

shared and I am grateful to have had her in my life.” 

- Jennifer Raphael, Anticouni & Associates. 

“I met Kimberley when she first came to Santa Barbara 

and she immediately started giving back to a legal community 

that she just met by joining the board of Santa Barbara 

Women Lawyers. She was a wonderful woman and lawyer 

and she will be greatly missed.” 

- Cristi Michelon, Eaton, Jones & Michelon. 

“I enjoyed working with Kimberley over the past several 

months. I enjoyed every interaction that I had with her. Not 

only did she always go above and beyond to contribute her 

efforts on the case, but she also always had kind words to 

impart in each and every interaction that we had. I will 

truly miss her. I would like to express my condolences to 

her friends, colleagues, and family.” 

- Lani Levine, Kingsley & Kingsley APC. 

“Kimberley spent a year as an attorney with our office. 

While here, she immersed herself in the often byzantine 

issues inherent in a practice devoted to the analysis and 

litigation of insurance coverage issues, and she did so 

with determination and good humor. As a lawyer, she 

could be counted on to work hard, to do good work, and 

to always strive to do better. As a person, she was simply 

delightful.” 

- James M. McFaul, Minehan, McFaul & Fitch, LLP. 

“During the short time of my acquaintance with Kimberly 

as ‘opposing counsel,’ I found her to possess the highest 

professional standards and to be reliable in fulfilling agreements 

and carrying out commitments on matters of joint 

interest. And on matters where we could disagree, I was 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

pleased to find that she was very professional in working 

through any such difficulties. I was very saddened on learning 

of her passing and realize that, not only will her law 

firm have difficulty replacing her, the State Bar has lost a 

wonderful officer of the court.” 

- John K. Skousen, Fisher & Phillips LLP. 

“I am the managing partner of Murphy Rosen & Meylan, 

LLP. Prior to starting our firm in 2003, I was a partner at a 

different law firm and Kimberley worked for that firm as 

a summer associate. I was able to work with Kimberley 

during her summer there and I immediately recognized 

her promise. I also felt her outlook and demeanor were 

refreshingly positive and optimistic. She was not only 

smart and diligent, but genuinely a joy to be around (which 

some consider a rare trait in our business). When I decided 

to start my own firm, I thought she would fit my new firm 

perfectly. During her stay here, she continuously met and 

exceeded our expectations. She would gladly pitch in on any 

task that needed to be accomplished, whether it was legal 

or management in nature. I will always be indebted to her 

for her contributions to our firm and the positive attitude 

she not just exuded but spread by her very presence. It was 

infectious, and when she left our firm to move to Ventura, 

she was greatly missed.” 

- Paul Murphy, Murphy Rosen & Meylan, LLP. 

“I saw Kimberley every day for about a year when we 

practiced in the same firm. My first impression — which I 

never lost — was that she was too nice to be an attorney, 

but too smart not to be one, and since we always seem to 

be short of attorneys who have both traits, I thought she’d 

be very successful. We befriended each other over our love 

of animals. We bantered over our differing tastes in music. 

I always envied how close she was to her family. I always 

expected that she would become a star in the local legal 

community, and I looked forward to watching that happen. 

My sadness is a drop in the bucket compared to the 

grief that her family and closest friends must feel, but it’s 

incomprehensible that she’s not here any more.” 

- Will Tomlinson, Attorney. 

“With great sadness The Santa Barbara Women Lawyers 

mourns the loss of one of our own. As a member of the 

SBWL Board of Directors, Kimberley was gracious and 

dedicated. As a friend and colleague, she was irreplaceable. 

She will be missed by SBWL and the legal community as 

a whole.” 

- The 2010 Santa Barbara Women Lawyers 

Board of Directors. 


� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

TERENCE TERENCE J. MIX, Esq. 

Mediation and Arbitration Services 

Former President, Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles 

Former Board Member, Consumer Attorneys of California (12 years) 

One of the Founders, Attorneys Special Arbitration Plan (Los 

Angeles) 

Former Member, State Bar Advisory Committee on Mandatory 

Arbitration Rules 

Former Member, Los Angeles Superior Court Arbitration 

Administrative Committee 

Former Superior Court Arbitrator (Los Angeles) 

Former Superior Court Settlement Officer (Los Angeles) 

Over 40 years of civil litigation experience, with special expertise in personal 

injury, drug product liability, medical malpractice, legal and professional 

liability, insurance bad faith, commercial and entertainment law litigation. 

(805) 681-1401 Phone P.O. Box 60908 

(805) 681-1403 Fax Santa Barbara, CA 93160 

Terry@terencemix.com 


Larry L. Hines 

Mediation Services 

“Where Experience and Knowledge Count” 

Limited to complex family law, probate/trust, 

business and employment law 

Serving Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara & San Luis Obispo Counties 

40 years of civil and appellate experience 

Practice devoted primarily to complex family law, probate/trust, 

business and employment law 

Participated in hundreds of mediation and settlement conferences 

Lead trial lawyer in over 100 jury and court trials 

Served as mediatator, arbitrator and temporary judge 

Attended the Strauss Institute for Dispute Resolution, 

Pepperdine School of Law 

Larry L. Hines, Of Counsel 

Nordman Cormany Hair & Compton LLP, 1000 Town Center Drive, Sixth Floor, Oxnard, CA 93036 

Call Marina at (805) 988-8336 for appointments 

See website for details and Curriculum Vitae at www.lhinesmediation.com

Legal News 

santa Barbara 

Women Lawyers’ 

Annual Dinner and 

Meeting 

By na o m i deWey 

The Santa Barbara Women Lawyers’ Annual Dinner 

and Meeting took place on December 14, 2009 — 

celebrating 21 years since the organization was 

founded. 

Held at the Canary Hotel, the evening began with rooftop 

cocktails at the Perch, with winter clothes de rigueur for 

attendees as they looked out over the city at night. Guests 

were able to meet and congratulate the Deborah M. Talmage 

Attorney of the Year, Commissioner Colleen Sterne, 

as well as past-president of the State Bar, Holly Fujie and a 

host of local judges and dignitaries. The rooftop reception 

was followed by dinner in the hotel ballroom. 

Welcoming guests to the event, 2009 SBWL President 

Naomi Dewey spoke about the importance of SBWL during 

Attorney of the Year Commissioner Colleen Sterne and 2009 SBWL 

President Naomi Dewey. 

tough economic times, not only as a professional association 

but also as an educational and mentoring resource for 

members. Connections in 2009 are as important as they 

were 21 years before when the group began, and the large 

number of former board members present was a fitting 

testament to the role SBWL continues to play. 

Introducing Guest Speaker Holly Fujie, SBWL Director 

Michael Colton recalled his days at law school with the 

future bar leader. Noting that she hadn’t changed since 

their days as students together in a civil procedure class, 

Mr. Colton indicated that he, in fact, had looked exactly 

like Jerry Garcia whilst at Boalt Hall — presumably because 

he was working too hard to keep up with Ms. Fujie in class 

that he did not have time to cut his hair. 

Guest speaker Ms. Fujie entertained guests with a spirited, 

off-the-cuff discussion about the joys of returning to work 

after a year as State Bar President. Sharing the satisfaction 

she had found in arguing a simple motion in the trial court, 

she spoke of the privilege we are all accorded as practicing 

attorneys. Ms. Fujie, who has returned to her previous position 

as a shareholder at Buchalter Nemer, also highlighted 

the fulfillment brought by raising children while practicing 

law, reminding guests that balancing the two roles was 

something that benefitted all concerned — parents, children, 

and the legal profession as a whole. 

The next speaker was Attorney-of-the-Year honoree 

Commissioner Sterne, who was nominated for the award 

because of her work promoting gender equality and 

women’s rights from the bench. Introduced by Naomi 

Dewey, Commissioner Sterne follows in the footsteps of 

the Hon. Denise de Bellefeuille, honored in 2003, and, prior 

to having the award named in her honor, Commissioner 

Deborah Talmage. 

Appointed in 2003 to hear child support cases, Commissioner 

Sterne also hears domestic violence restraining 

orders, civil harassment matters and family law cases that 

have their roots in child support issues. Accepting the 

award, Commissioner Sterne spoke about the importance 

of seeing, and doing, good in her work on a daily basis, 

comparing her work to what she does outside of the law, 

as an ordained minister. 

Rounding up the evening, Commissioner Talmage swore 

in SBWL’s 2010 Board of Directors and Brandi Redman, 

Supervising Attorney at the Legal Resource Center, was appointed 

President and Chief Executive Officer for 2010. 

The 2010 SBWL Board of Directors is as follows: Nathan 

Alley, Michael Colton, Laura Dewey, Gabriela Ferreira, 

Donna Geck, Alison Holman, Jessica Johnson, Wendy 

Kontos, Megan Liesz, Pauline Maxwell, Winnie Cai and 

Angela Roach. 


2010 SBWL President Brandi Redman, Janet Wolf, Hannah-Beth Jackson, and 

Hon. Denise de Bellefeuille. 

Jennifer Lee, Holly Fujie, and Sue McCollum. (Note: Holly was the third 

woman State Bar President and Sue was the third woman SBCBA President.) 

Former classmates Holly Fujie and Michael Colton. 

2010 SBWLF President Angela Roach and 2009 SBWLF President 

Stephanie Ball. 

Dewey. 

Laura by captions and 

Janet Vining Mitchell and Ann Anderson. 

Stephanie Ball, Betty Jeppesen, Christine Kopitzke, and Brooke Cleary. 

February 2010 21 Photos

Did you keep 

your new Year’s 

Resolution? (See 

page 26.) 

The Editorial Board of 

Santa Barbara Lawyer has 

resolved to welcome your 

feedback, comments and 

suggestions. Write us at 

santabarbaralawyer@ 

yahoo.com. 

White, Zuckerman, Warsavsky, 

Luna, Wolf & Hunt, LLP offers much 

more than accounting expertise. Our 

creative ideas and new strategies 

give our clients a competitive edge. 

In family law, you need professionals 

who can analyze financial situations 

and provide unimpeachable analysis 

and expert testimony. With decades 

of experience, we are highly qualified 

in all areas including: 

Business & Professional Practice 

Valuations 

Cash Flow Available for Support 

High Earner Child Support Situations 

Lifestyle Expense Analysis 

Community/Separate Property 

Balance Sheets 

Tax Effects of Divorce & Tax Planning 

Asset Tracing 

Reimbursement & Misappropriation 

Analyses 

Call us today so you can focus on 

what’s important – your clients. 

To attend our Santa Barbara Family Law 

Study Group, e-mail llasseube@wzwlw.com. 

There is no charge for the dinner or program 

and you will receive one hour of MCLE credit. 

We recently opened our Santa Barbara office, 

located at 831 State Street, Suite 291. 

Our three California locations include: 

Santa Barbara 

805-648-4088 


Los Angeles 

818-981-4226 

Orange County 

949-219-9816 

E-mail: expert@wzwlw.com www.wzwlw.com 

Certfied Public 

ACCOUNTANTS 

Expert Witnesses 

Forensic Accountants 

Business Appraiers 

Marital Dissolution 

Lost Earnings & Profits 

Wrongful Termination 

Fraud Investigation

new Criminal 

Laws for 2010 

By ro B e r T sa n g e r 

I 

t is that time of year that we have to catch up with 

the new laws passed during the last legislative 

session. This last year has been frustrating with 

regard to criminal legislation but more for what was not 

done than what was enacted. As a result, criminal practitioners 

are not in the usual position of having to memorize 

a plethora of substantive and technical changes. 

As to what was not done, the federal courts have stated 

the obvious: the state correctional system is far beyond 

capacity and the state government needs to fix it. There is 

an order, pending review en banc, from a three judge federal 

panel requiring the State of California to reduce the State 

Prison population by 44,000 people. 

This should have set the legislative agenda for the year. 

For the last few years everyone involved in analyzing the 

criminal justice system in California has recognized the 

mounting crisis. There is no way that this state can keep 

incarcerating people at the rate we are; we cannot pay for 

the people who are there right now; and it is only getting 

worse. Everyone recognizes that the reason that we are in 

this crisis is that politicians do not believe that they can stop 

sponsoring bills, no matter how foolish, that make them 

appear “tough on crime.” And, this session, the lesson was 

reinforced that no one can take up the cause of sensible 

sentencing reform or they will be political toast. 

The Biggest Jail Break in California History 

As we have discussed in prior Criminal Justice columns, 

the overcrowding in California’s prison system has been 

long and well documented. We had reported on the Little 

Hoover Commission Report of 2007 and Joan Petersilia’s 

study of 2006. As we also reported in this column, there 

have been numerous attempts over the last few years to 

convene a Sentencing Commission. People are doing life on 

non-serious and non-violent third strikes and others are doing 

obscenely long sentences on some drug and gang cases 

— not the hard core ones, but the ones where the numbers 

just add up on paper. There are anomalies in punishment 

of which everyone in the system is aware. 


Criminal Justice 

So, this year, one would 

have thought that there 

would be a Sentencing 

Commission and that 

there would have been a 

serious legislative effort 

to deal with the excess 

prison population. As this 

legislative session started 

up in earnest in January 

of last year, there were 

plans from all sides to try 

to do something about it. 

Let’s face it, we pay these 

Robert Sanger 

people and their massive 

staffs to do this kind of 

work. We expect there to 

be some effort at bipartisan planning and a general exercise 

of responsibility in dealing with this problem that is causing 

so much harm to our state. After all, we spend more on 

prisons than schools, we do not have the money for basic 

services for our communities and, we all know that the 

costly prison system is only costly because the opportunistic 

politics of fear and hatred have resulted in excessive 

sentences. Did the legislators earn their pay? No — in fact, 

they failed miserably. 

As the discussions about sentencing reform started, there 

was an early consensus on some basic changes. The Sentencing 

Commission was seen as a vehicle to accomplish 

these reforms. But then, the politics of who would control 

the Sentencing Commission resulted in the whole idea being 

scrapped. In the midst of the crisis, the legislators could 

not make the simplest compromises to get the Commission 

off the ground. 

Similarly, the general agreement that mandatory sentences 

and certain life sentences were too harsh gave way 

to partisan politics. The humane and reasonable amendment 

to the three strikes law which would only allow a life 

sentence to be imposed if the new offence was a serious or 

violent offense was too hot to handle. 

There was also a conclusion that there needed to be 

some better mechanism for releasing people from prison 

who were going to be released eventually. The process 

came to a halt in the summer when one of the political 

parties started to threaten members of the opposing party 

by saying that they would not participate in any criminal 

justice or sentencing reform. They put out the word that 

anyone who proposed such legislation would be met in 


Legal News 

new Rule 3-410: 

new Duties, 

Unresolved Issues 

By mi C h a e l a. Co lT o n 

The first part of this article (see January 2010 Santa 

Barbara Lawyer at pp. 16-17) discussed the contours 

and requirements of new Rule 3-410 of the 

Michael 

California Rules of Professional Conduct, effective January 

1 of this year. Despite the seeming clarity and simplicity of 

the Rule, its adoption and surrounding publicity raise issues 

and create potential pitfalls, not only in the area of attorney 

discipline, but also potential civil tort liability–and not just 

for lawyers who do not have, or lose, lawyers professional 

liability (“LPL”) insurance coverage. Indeed, several issues 

will directly concern lawyers who already have, or subsequently 

obtain, LPL coverage. 

In what circumstances will the Rule apply? 

New disclosure duties apply to each member who either 

does not have LPL insurance, or who “no longer has” such 

insurance. The Rule also imposes a new duty, applicable to 

each member under an objective, “reasonable lawyer” standard 

(“knows or should know”), to know whether or not the 

member has (or ceases to have) LPL coverage, and therefore 

whether disclosure of lack of coverage is required. 

Curiously and remarkably, the Rule does not appear 

to cover situations where, e.g., the lawyer has some LPL 

insurance at the time of engagement but (1) the proposed 

engagement would be in a subject area enumerated in an express 

Policy exclusion (a variety of the so-called “dabbling” 

problem that is a leading cause of malpractice claims); (2) 

the LPL Policy limits are minimal and not likely to cover a 

bad result; or (3) the LPL Policy limits have been diminished 

or depleted, or soon may be, by other claims, defenses, 

and/or indemnity expenses. (The drafters may well have 

concluded for simplicity’s sake that it is much easier and 

perhaps less consequential to require non-covered lawyers 

to disclose the lack of LPL coverage, rather than require the 

much larger pool of covered lawyers to explain, or bear a 

risk of non-explanation, regarding details of coverage.) 

LPL insurance policies generally cover all employed attorneys 

at a law firm. Where the firm’s managing partner 

or management committee does not routinely provide 

confirmation of LPL coverage 

on an annual basis, the 

prudent partner, associate 

or “of counsel” will of 

course seek to obtain such 

confirmation. 

What about the “contract 

attorney,” or independent 

contractor who contracts 

to provide specific projects 

or tasks, e.g., research and 

drafting of motions? In 

that situation, identifying 

the “client” is important. 

A. Colton 

Is the “client” the ultimate 

beneficiary of the completed 

project assignment, that 

is, the client of the firm/lawyer who contracted out the task? 

Or is the “client” of the contract attorney, the contractingout 

firm or lawyer? Is the contract attorney covered under 

the firm’s policy? Does the contract attorney have his or 

her own coverage? Do both owe duties of disclosure to the 

ultimate client, if one or both do not have coverage? 

Similar issues will be presented in situations involving 

joint venturing of matters among law firms or lawyers; 

engagement or association of associated or co-counsel; and 

engagement of lawyers as expert consultants and/or expert 

witnesses. The exceptions provided in the Rule are limited, 

and do not cover these situations. Take, for example, a 

matter where a practicing lawyer consultant is retained for 

specific legal expertise. 

Lawyer A directly retains and agrees to compensate Lawyer 

B to provide specific tax advice, or to be a consulting 

or testifying expert on a matter Lawyer A is handling for 

a client, and Lawyer B’s services are likely to exceed four 

hours. Lawyer B may owe duties of disclosure under the 

Rule to Lawyer A as the client. If Lawyer A receives such 

a disclosure from Lawyer B (his retained expert), Lawyer 

A probably should inform his client, since it is material 

to the representation. But does Lawyer B owe duties of 

disclosure directly to Lawyer A’s client? Resolution of 

this issue is uncertain. It may turn on the structure of the 

expert’s retention–is Lawyer A acting as his client’s agent? 

Do Lawyer B’s services constitute Lawyer A’s work product? 

On the other hand, if Lawyer B commits an error or 

omission, the structure of the retention agreement won’t 

insulate Lawyer B from a direct civil damages claim by the 

ultimate client. 



Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County 

presents 

6th Annual Taste for Justice 

2 nd Annual 

Gourmet Gavel Awards 

��Chefs’ Competition 

Featuring Celebrity Judge 

Chef Bradley Ogden 

Raffle Drawing for 

52 Weeks of Fine Wine 

�� 

�� 

Tickets $45 in advance, $50 at the door. Send in payment with this form to: 

Legal Aid Foundation, 301 E. Canon Perdido Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101. 

NAME(S):_____________________________________________________________________ 

ADDRESS:_____________________________________________CITY____________________ 

STATE:__________ ZIP: ______________________ PHONE: ________________________________________ 

EMAIL:___________________________________________________________________________________ 

______ x $45 = $_______________ (CHECKS PAYABLE TO LEGAL AID FOUNDATION) VISA MASTERCARD 

CARD NUMBER:____________________________________________________ EXP: ___/____ CVV: _______ 

SIGNATURE:________________________________________________________________________________ 


Santa Maria 

Wine ~ Food ~ Beer ~ Auction 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

Allan Hancock College 

Anonymous 

Blue Sky Coff ee Company 

Th e Brewhouse 

Byron Wines 

Cambria Winery 

Central City Market 

Core Wine Company 

Costa de Oro 

Sponsors�(at print time) 

Giessinger Winery 

Hallauer Vineyards 

J. Kerr Wines 

Jovi’s Delights 

Lucas and Lewellen Vineyards 

Mi Cielito Lindo 

Mint Properties 

Orcutt Brew Company 

Rancho Alamo Vineyards 

& Winery 

Riverbench Winery 

Rooney’s Irish Pub 

Santa Barbara Winery 

Sculpterra Winery - Paso Robles 

Th ai Hut 

Trattoria Uliveto 

Westerly Vineyards 

William James Cellars

Legal Community 

A Few of Our new 

Year’s Resolutions 

Joyce Dudley, 

Senior Deputy 

District Attorney, 


District Attorney 

To spend quality time 

with my tireless and 

devoted husband, John, 

and our four sons; take 

care of myself through 

physical activity and nutrition; 

remember that 

life is not a sprint but 

a marathon; and surround 

myself with people that motivate and uplift me. 

Justin Greene, 

Attorney 

To participate in the Santa 

Barbara Athletic Association 

Grand Prix running race 

series, spend as much quality 

time possible with my family, 

and to not take for granted the 

opportunity to live and work 

in Santa Barbara. 

Michael Colton, 

Attorney, Hill, Trager 

& Colton LLP 

To see, honor and respect 

the nobility in each and 

every person. 

Rob Egenolf, Attorney, 

Egenolf & Associates LLP 

Several years ago I made a 

New Year’s resolution to never 

make another New Year’s resolution. 

I have continued to live 

up to that resolution ever since. 

Daria Boxer, 

Attorney, Mitchell, 

Silberberg & 

Knupp LLP 

· To go out for lunches, 

rather than eating it at 

my desk. 

· To not read new 

emails from clients 

while running. 

· To keep my desk as 

clean as it was after the 

major end-of-the-year clean up on December 31... Wait, 

was it really my desk? One would not recognize... 

William Makler, 

Attorney, Law Offices 

of William C. Makler 

To start shameless selfpromoting 

in Santa Barbara 

Lawyer. 


Barbara Liss, Paralegal, 

Eaton, Jones & Michelon 

· To work on being healthier 

· To use my time wisely 

· To focus on the present! 

· To make the Santa Barbara 

Paralegals Association 

Autumn MCLE conference 

a screaming success!

2010 Membership Application 

Member Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Check here if you do not want your name and office address disclosed to any buyer of Bar Assoc. mailing labels. 

Check here if membership information is the same as last year. If so, the rest of the form may be left blank. 

Office Address: ______________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

City: _____________________________________________________ State: ______________ Zip: _____________ 

E-mail Address:_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Phone Number: ____________________________________________ Fax Number: ___________________________ 

Home Address:_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

City: _____________________________________________________ State: ______________ Zip: _____________ 

State Bar#: ________________________________________________ Year Admitted to Bar: ____________________ 

Your member dues include a subscription to Santa Barbara Lawyer. 

SCHEDULE OF DUES FOR 2010 

Active Members $130 

Student Members $30 

New Admittees (First Year Attorneys Only) $00 

Affiliate Members (non-Attorney members only) $65 

Santa Barbara County Bar Foundation donation $_______.__ 

Total amount enclosed $_______.__ 

AREAS OF INTEREST OR PRACTICE (check box as applicable) 

ADR Family Law 

Civil Litig. In-House Counsel & Corporate Law 

Debtor/Creditor Intellectual Property/Tech. Business 

Elder Law Real Property/Land Use 

Employment Law Taxation 

Estate Planning/Probate 

Mail completed form along with check to: 

Santa Barbara County Bar Association, 123 W. Padre St., #E, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Tel: (805) 569-5511 

Donations to the Santa Barbara County Bar Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent provided by law 

to a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. 

February 2010 27

Lawyer Referral service 

of santa Barbara County 

Your next client could be a LRs Referral 

• Want to build your practice? 

• Want to find new clients in your concentration? 

• Want to develop a new practice area? 

As a member of the Lawyer Referral Service of Santa Barbara County, you’ll enjoy 

receiving potential clients who already have been screened by Lawyer Referral Service 

staff. Not only will you receive potential clients in need of legal help, but you can be 

assured that anyone referred to you will have the type of legal problem that you have 

indicated as fitting within your practice areas. 

You won’t be wasting your time listening to people who need help, but who don’t need 

legal help. Join the Lawyer Referral Service of Santa Barbara County, and you can look 

forward to being part of an efficient service that benefits the public and Santa Barbara 

County legal community. 

Member service and compliance with State Bar Rules are top priorities. Contact us for 

specifics and an application. Email Lida Sideris at director@sblawyerreferralservice.org, 

(805) 569-9400. 


Attorney volunteers 

needed for 2010 

santa Barbara 

County Mock Trial 

Competition 

By Jo s e f i n a ma r T i n e z a n d sa J i gu n aWa r d a n e 

The 2010 Santa Barbara County High School Mock 

Trial Competition will be conducted at the Santa 

Barbara County Courthouse on Saturday, February 6 

and on Saturday, February 27, 2010. Assistant Presiding 

Judge Brian Hill will preside over this year’s program by 

recruiting judicial officers, attorney scorers and arranging 

courtroom assignments. Judge George C. Eskin will lead 

the training of volunteer attorney scorers. 

Volunteer Attorney Scorers and Judges Are Key 

Volunteer attorney scorers and bench officers are essential 

to the success of the Santa Barbara County Mock Trial 

Competition, and in past years have been key to assuring 

that the student teams obtain the best, most rigorous and 

realistic courtroom experience possible. 

“Participating as a volunteer coach or scorer provides a 

great opportunity for pro bono service to the community by 

contributing to the education of high school students,” said 

Judge Hill. Josefina Martinez, Legal Secretary to Judge Hill, 

continues in her dedicated role as this year’s Mock Trial 

Coordinator to facilitate in the recruitment and scheduling 

of attorney scorers. “To ensure that the competition is of 

the highest quality and the team that ultimately prevails 

does so in the fairest possible scoring system, I am hopeful 

that members of the bar will volunteer their services,” said 

Judge Hill. “Serving as a volunteer attorney is a rewarding 

experience and it is a relatively simple commitment. 

Attorneys need only call my secretary, Josefina, at (805) 

882-4580, or simply e-mail.” (See schedule and volunteer 

information below.) 

Santa Barbara County Schools Successfully 

Compete Statewide and Nationally 

This is the 27th year for the local high school competition 

and trial advocacy program. Added Judge Hill: “The 


Legal Briefs 

members of the Santa Barbara County Bar Association have 

been unstinting in the time, zeal and effort they dedicate on 

behalf of Santa Barbara County’s students in this program. 

And it has made all the difference: Santa Barbara County 

schools have been among the top performers in both the 

state and national competitions in recent years.” 

Judge Hill acknowledged the key role of local attorneys 

in this success. “I hope that local attorneys will volunteer 

some time in this worthy effort,” said Hill. “On behalf of 

Assistant Superintendent Susan Salcido and the Santa Barbara 

County Superior Court, I extend my thanks to each of 

you who volunteer to participate. With your participation, 

we know that this year will be another remarkable year for 

our talented students.” 

The 2010 Santa Barbara County Mock Trial Competition 

schedule is as follows: 

Preliminary Rounds 

Saturday, February 6, Morning (9 a.m. – 12 noon) 

Saturday, February 6, Afternoon (1 p.m. – 4 p.m.) 

semifinals 

Saturday, February 27, Morning (9 a.m. – 12 noon) 

Finals 

Saturday, February 27, Afternoon (1 p.m. – 4 p.m.) 

Volunteering is Simple, Here’s How: 

Members of the Santa Barbara County Bar Association, 

Santa Barbara Barristers, Santa Barbara Women Lawyers 

and other local attorneys are urged to volunteer as attorney 

scorers. Simply contact Ms. Martinez at jmartinez@ 

sbcourts.org or call her at (805) 882-4580 and provide the 

following: 

Attorney’s name, email address and telephone number; 

and Attorney’s availability to volunteer on: Saturday, February 

6 Morning Shift (9 a.m. – 12 noon); and/or Saturday, 

February 6, Afternoon Shift (1 p.m. – 4 p.m.); and/or Saturday, 

February 27, Morning Shift (9 a.m. – 12 noon) and/or 

Saturday, February 27, Afternoon Shift (1 p.m. – 4 p.m.). 

State which day and shift you are available to serve as an 

attorney scorer. If you are available for more than one day 

and/or shift, please state so — your service will be greatly 

appreciated. 

The Santa Barbara County Superior Court, local mock 

trial coaches and others affiliated with this remarkable 

program thank all participating attorneys in advance for 

their service to the students in our community.


The Buck starts 

Here 

By li d a sideris 

To the general public, the Lawyer Referral Service is 

the face of the County Bar. This same general public 

often harbors, at a minimum, a casual prejudice 

toward lawyers. According to a 2006 Harris poll, in a review 

of twenty-three professions, Americans found the top three 

most trustworthy to be doctors, teachers and scientists. 

Actors, lawyers and stockbrokers sat squarely at the bottom. 

Of all possible criteria, a lawyer is perhaps 

most critically judged by what others 

say about him or her. According to How 

to Build Your Reputation – The Secrets of Becoming 

the ‘Go To’ Professional in a Crowded 

Marketplace by Rob Brown, reputation is 

an important silent partner and necessary 

asset in any profession. It’s not enough to 

be the best; a professional must be viewed 

by others as being the best. 

A reputation may be developed by accident, 

by doing a great job on a consistent 

basis, or by hiring a public relations team 

to strategically and systematically decide 

what the professional should be known 

for and to create that perception accordingly. 

Why go to all the trouble of developing an exemplary 

reputation? Because it’s worth it. 

There are numerous positive outcomes of a favorable 

reputation in business. For one, it helps a professional 

stand out from the crowd. This is, after all, the age of a 

“surplus society” where many individuals exist with similar 

qualifications and experience. When someone needs what 

you do, you want to be thought of first. You want to be 

the number one professional choice. A strong reputation 

safeguards this. 

To influence the public perception of the Lawyer Referral 

Service and to build a favorable reputation, we do our best 

to personify the following: 

Courtesy: This often overlooked, underestimated at- 

Courtesy immediately 

elevates a professional to 

the status of a thoughtful, 

conscientious, intelligent 

person, all of which are 

necessary partners of a 

positive reputation.... 


Lawyer Referral Service Spotlight 

tribute is so simple it’s 

forgotten more than followed. 

Dr. Gary Wood, 

social psychologist and author, 

says manners provide 

an easy way to get along 

with others, especially 

during tough economic 

times. He states: “There is 

great power to be found in 

the fine detail. Good manners 

and social courtesy 

cost nothing and can have 

a profound effect on other 

Lida Sideris 

people. We can literally 

make someone’s day and 

help to reduce their stress by paying attention to these 

little things, which then has a knock-on effect in our own 

lives. A smile or a kind word can actually set us up for the 

day, making it more likely that we focus 

on the good things rather than the doom 

and gloom.” 

Courtesy immediately elevates a professional 

to the status of a thoughtful, 

conscientious, intelligent person, all of 

which are necessary partners of a positive 

reputation; 

Communication: No one likes to be 

ignored. LRS calls are promptly returned 

and callers receive periodic updates after 

the initial call so that they can rest assured 

the LRS is working to find them the right 

attorney. The LRS also follows up with 

callers after they’ve been matched with an 

attorney to insure satisfaction; 

Competence: We do our best to understand and meet 

our callers’ and our attorneys’ needs. The Lawyer Referral 

Service is not a sales organization, yet we do not underestimate 

the value of customer service. 

The Santa Barbara County Bar Association Lawyer Referral 

Service is State Bar certified and sponsored by the Santa 

Barbara County Bar Association. For more information, 

please call (805) 569-9400 or e-mail director@sblawyerreferralservice.org. 

Lida Sideris is the new Executive Director of the Santa Barbara 

County Bar Association. Previously, she served as Director of Business 

Affairs for Lorimar-Telepictures and attorney for the Alliance 

of Motion Picture & Television Producers.

Legal News 

verdicts & Decisions 

Progressive Environmental Industries, Inc., vs. El Cap Ranch, LLC et al. 

Santa Barbara Superior Court, Anacapa Division 

CASE NUMBER: 1266837 

TYPE OF CASE: Breach of contract and fraud 

TYPE OF PROCEEDING: Jury trial 

JUDGE: Hon. Thomas P. Anderle 

LENGTH OF TRIAL: 4 ½ weeks (October 2, 2009 – November 4, 2009) 

LENGTH OF DELIBERATIONS: Initial damages phase: 3 hours; Punitive damages phase: 2 hours 

DATE OF VERDICT OR DECISION: November 4, 2009 

PLAINTIFF: Progressive Environmental Industries, Inc. 

PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL COUNSEL: William Clinkenbeard of Clinkenbeard, Ramsey & Spackman, LLP and Bruce 

W. Hogan of Kingston, Martinez & Hogan, LLP 

DEFENDANTS: El Cap Ranch, LLC and Lester Knispel, Trustee of The BP 10 Trust dated November 

14, 2005 

DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL COUNSEL: Joseph A. Yanny and Kim Ashley of Yanny & Smith 

ExPERTS: For Plaintiff: Sheila Lowe (handwriting and document examination), Robert 

Muraoka and Arturo Gonzalez (landscaping arborists), and James Hammock 

(real estate appraisal); For Defendants: James Dean and Greg Santamaria (landscaping 

arborists), and Leonard Liston (engineering and land use) 

FACTS: Plaintiff Progressive Environmental Industries, Inc. (PEI) is a local business owned by Arturo Gonzalez that provides 

large-scale estate landscaping services in the Santa Barbara area. From August 2006 through January 2008 plaintiff 

provided and billed approximately $3,000,000 worth of landscaping services to defendants El Cap Ranch, LLC and The 

BP 10 Trust, two entities owned and controlled by Jon Peters. All services were provided at Peters’ request on a 200-acre 

horse ranch known as El Capitan Ranch. 

In December 2007, Arturo Gonzalez and Jon Peters had a meeting at El Capitan Ranch to discuss payment of plaintiff’s 

outstanding bill, which at that time was over $500,000. Peters demanded a reduction of the bill. Gonzalez refused. 

CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended it was entitled to payment in full for services rendered. Cross-complainants contended 

that on January 20, 2008 the parties entered into a written settlement agreement reducing the charges by $400,000. 

Mr. Gonzalez testified he never agreed to the terms of the alleged agreement, did not sign the agreement, and in fact had 

never seen it until the “signed” agreement was faxed to PEI’s and its counsel’s office by the Ranch manager, Kim Goto, on 

February 29, 2008. A xerox copy later was mailed to plaintiff’s counsel. 

Plaintiff contended that it received three copies of the alleged settlement agreement and that the signatures on the three 

copies, though very similar, were different from each other. Peters and Goto testified in their depositions and during 

interviews with the Santa Barbara Sheriff (who investigated plaintiff’s forgery complaint) that only one document was 

signed. During Peters’ second deposition session he contended two documents were signed. At trial he testified three 

documents were signed. 

Each version of the agreement contains a signature purported to be that of Mr. Gonzalez that closely matches, both in 

size and character, his genuine signature on a proposed maintenance agreement that was faxed to the Ranch by PEI on 

or about January 18, 2008, just two days before the date on the alleged settlement agreement. Other exemplars of Mr. 


Gonzalez’s signature vary significantly from the closely matched signatures on the proposed maintenance agreement and 

the differing versions of the settlement agreement. Both of plaintiff’s expert document examiners (only Ms. Lowe testified 

at trial) opined with a high degree of certainty that Mr. Gonzalez did not sign the purported settlement agreement. 

Defendants did not have a handwriting expert. 

Cross-complainants also contended they were entitled to extensive damages attributable to plaintiff’s work. Plaintiff 

contended its work was of the highest quality, that Peters often complimented Gonzalez on his work, and that crosscomplainants 

never made a single written complaint to PEI until after January 2008, when PEI stopped providing landscaping 

services because of non-payment and threatened litigation. 

Among other claims, cross-complainants alleged at trial that the vast majority of the ~200 large olive trees planted by 

plaintiff were dead or dying and would need to be replaced. Plaintiff countered that, at the time of plaintiff’s last inspection 

during trial, only 12-15 of the large olive trees showed some effects from transplanting and needed either special 

care or replacement, and one of eight large transplanted palm trees had died and needed to be replaced. (The total cost 

to replace all of these trees would be less than $60,000.) 

SUMMARY OF CLAIMED DAMAGES: At trial plaintiff claimed damages of $502,949, which was the total of unpaid 

invoices after October 29, 2007, plus punitive damages of $1,500,000 - $2,000,000 based on defendant’s alleged false promise 

without intent to perform. Cross-complainants claimed damages of over $9,000,000 for replacement of olive trees and 

bedding plants, damages related to landscaping and grading around a pond, and concerns regarding rock retaining walls 

constructed by plaintiff throughout the Ranch, among other things. 

RESULT: In the initial damage phase the jury, with a 12-0 vote, awarded $502,949 to plaintiff and $60,000 to cross-complainants. 

The jury also found in plaintiff’s favor on the false promise cause of action, which triggered the punitive damages phase. In 

the punitive damage phase the jury, with a 9-3 vote, awarded $1,000,000 to plaintiff. 

After trial plaintiff was awarded pre-judgment interest of $86,048.08 and attorney fees of $225,000 as the cost of proving 

matters that defendants denied without good cause in response to requests for admission. On December 22, 2009 the 

Court denied defendants/cross-complainants’ motions for a new trial and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. 

This will be your last issue of 

Santa Barbara Lawyer if your 

membership is not renewed 

by the end of this month 

The 2010 Membership Application 

for the santa Barbara County Bar 

Association can be found on page 27. 


Legal News

Legal Community 

Alison Holman is 

a new associate at 

Hager & Dowling. 

Ms. Holman 

graduated from 

the University of 

California at Santa 

Barbara, with a 

Bachelor of Arts in 

Business Economics 

and Law & Society. 

She earned 

her law degree 

from Pepperdine 

University School 

of Law. 

The santa Barbara County Bar Foundation has 

elected its officers, added five new directors, and has 

had three directors retire. Serving in 2010 will be John 

Thyne, President; Brandi Redman, Vice-President; 

John Derrick, Secretary; and naomi Dewey, Treasurer. 

The Bar Foundation has also added new directors: 

Tim Boris, Robert Curtis, vanessa Kirker, Pauline 

Maxwell, and Eric Woosley. Three directors retired 

from the Board of Directors after having served the 

maximum ten years in office: Marilyn Anticouni, 

Heather georgakis, and David K. Hughes. The 

Santa Barbara Lawyer Magazine Editorial Board thanks 

Ms. Anticouni, Ms. Georgakis, and Mr. Hughes for 

their dedication and long standing service to the local 

legal community. 

Philip W. Marking of Fell, Marking, Abkin, Montgomery, 

granet & Raney LLP has recently joined St. 

Francis Foundation Board of Directors. The mission of 

the St. Francis Foundation is to promote and support 

healthcare in the South Coast community, with particular 

attention to those most in need. Mr. Marking’s 

practice is primarily focused on complex estate and 

trust matters. 

Join santa Barbara Barristers (www.sbbarristers.com) 

for a lunchtime MCLE with Dr. Jamie Rotnofsky on 

Thursday, February 25. The topic: Psychology Matters. 

Learn how to identify when your case can benefit from 

a psychological perspective. This event will be held at the 

santa Barbara College of Law and will cost $25 for SBB 

members or $30 for non-members to attend. Please RSVP 

by Monday, February 22 to gary semerjian at gary@sbbarristers.com. 

The santa Barbara Paralegal Association (www. 

sbparalegals.org) has elected its 2010 Board of Directors. 

The SBPA hosts monthly MCLE luncheons 

for paralegals, attorneys, legal secretaries and any 

other interested individuals in the legal arena. Serving 

the association in 2010 will be: Barbara Purdue, 

President; Jackie Quinn and Kimberly Litherland, 

Co-Vice Presidents of Programs; Jane Endacott, 

Secretary; Lori sneddon, Treasurer; stephanie 

Fry, Vice President of Membership; Debra Wheels, 

California Alliance of Paralegal Associations Liaison; 

and April Henderson, National Association of Legal 

Assistants Liaison. 

If you have news to report — e.g. a new practice, a new hire or 

promotion, an appointment, upcoming projects/initiatives by local 

associations, an upcoming event, engagement, marriage, a birth in 

the family, etc… — The Santa Barbara Lawyer Editorial Board 

invites you to “Make a Motion!” Send one to two paragraphs for 

consideration by the editorial deadline to our Motions editor, Justin 

Greene at justin@greenelaw.com. If you submit an accompanying 

photograph, please ensure that the JPEG or TIFF file has a minimum 

resolution of 300 dpi. Please note that the Santa Barbara 

Lawyer editorial board retains discretion to publish or not publish 

any submission as well as to edit submissions for content, length, 

and/or clarity. 


�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

JACKMAN SADLER INCORPORATED 

CONTRACT PARALEGAL SERVICES 

� Trial Preparation 

� Trial Support 

� Document Management 

� Summation Proficient 

� Case Chronologies 

� Deposition Summaries 

� Financial Declarations 

� Motions to Compel 

Call today to find out how your practice can benefit from 

the assistance of experienced, capable contract paralegals. 

Visit us on the Web for a comprehensive list of services, 

fee information, and answers to FAQs. 

(805) 560-7674 � www.jackmansadler.com 

Santa Barbara and Ventura paralegals available 


Classifieds 

OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE 

Executive corner office. Prime location on the corner of 

Anapamu and Santa Barbara Street. Office has a nice view 

overlooking the sunken gardens. $1,100.00 per month. 

Contact Rachel Schaff (805) 683-2736. 

santa Barbara Lawyer 

seeks to publish jury verdicts 

and court decisions involving 

Santa Barbara County 

practitioners. 

Are you interested in submitting your recent verdict 

or decision? Please email Lindsay G. Shinn 

(lshinn@mullenlaw.com) and she’ll provide you with 

the information and format needed to submit your 

case. We look forward to hearing from you!

Criminal Justice 

Sanger, continued from page 23 

their re-election campaign with a catch phrase, “(S/he) led 

the biggest jail break in California history.” 

Little Progress, Indeed 

What eventually happened was that the legislature did 

nothing at all about prison overcrowding by the end of the 

summer. Not even some very simple things. It was not until 

the three extraordinary sessions were called that some little 

progress was made. Still, the big, sensible ideas never got off 

the ground and there still is no Sentencing Commission. 

So, what did happen? Well, due to the good work of 

the Public Safety Committee, at least bills that just mindlessly 

increased sentences were shelved. In that sense, the 

legislature did not make things much worse. Typically, 

multiple bills get through with some legislator’s name on 

them adding more prison or jail time to some offense or 

another. And, typically, that legislator promotes her or his 

role as author in the next campaign, saying s/he is tough on 

crime. That type of nonsense was stopped this last session 

for the first time in decades. 

However, the affirmative steps taken to slow the intake 

into the prison system were few and watered down by the 

time they were passed. One was the increase in the jurisdictional 

amount required to make some property crimes 

felonies. The fact is that the change will probably have 

very little effect on the prison population. The property 

crime limits theoretically delineate the difference between 

a felony and a misdemeanor but most prosecutors draw the 

line at a much higher number absent some really aggravating 

circumstances. Furthermore, most theft cases are not 

affected. Still, the limits have been raised on several other 

offenses, like receiving stolen property, from $400 to $950 

and not sufficient funds checks from $100 to $400. 

By the end of the third extraordinary session, there were 

a couple of measures that will have some effect on releasing 

some people a bit earlier and not returning some technical 

parole violators. Just as a mechanical matter, the credits for 

“good time/work time” have been increased for some, but 

not all, crimes. Currently, the standard county jail credits 

are two days for every four served which is changed for 

most crimes to two days for every two days served. Not 

all cases qualify for this, but it works out that a person 

serving a jail sentence or awaiting transportation to prison 

may qualify to do two thirds of the sentence. The savings 

in county jail are probably not that significant since most 

jails are overcrowded and local sentences result in early 

releases anyway. And the extra credits that are given on 

prison sentences for time spent in the county jail has no 

effect on the length of the county jail commitment. 

There is also a very modest early release for state inmates. 

Up to six seeks off of the commitment can be earned by 

prisoners for participation in certain programs. But this does 

not pertain to serious or violent felonies, registerable sex 

offenses, recidivists, or parole violators. It is a good idea 

but the effect of this will be minimal. 

Of course, it is not clear that yearly increases in inmates 

caused by the present inconsistent patchwork of sentencing 

laws will not still overtake the reductions. 

In addition, there have been some good, though watered 

down, efforts to avoid what has been called California’s 

“catch and release” program. Parole is a formula for failure. 

Inmates are released directly from prison with no rehabilitation 

and no re-entry assistance. They are given a bus ticket 

and told to report to their parole officer within two weeks. 

They are cited for the inevitable technical violations and 

sent back to prison to try the whole experiment again in a 

year. There are some new rules on parole violations for certain 

limited cases and there are other re-entry provisions. 

So, the extraordinary session produced two major laws 

that will incrementally help. Unfortunately they were 

primarily limited to non-serious and non-violent felonies. 

There is provision to allow early release by up to six 

weeks if the inmate completes a program. There is also 

a provision for early release programs and alternatives to 

re-incarceration for technical parole violations. 

Miscellany 

There were other changes in the laws that pertain to 

criminal practice. One heads up for practitioners is that 

the rule on notice and response for criminal motions has 

been changed from days to court days. So a noticed motion 

requires ten court days and the response is due five court 

days before the hearing. 

A statute that will have to be tested in the courts also 

purports to reverse the California Supreme Court in Verdin v. 

Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1096. That case had prohibited 

court ordered psychiatric examinations by government 

experts when a defendant placed his mental state in issue. 

This statute will allow that again and in circumstances 

expanding beyond the pre-Verdin law. 

And, in the face of crisis, and as a triumph of legislative 

focus on the needs of this state in that time of crisis, it has 

been legislated to not be illegal to ride a bicycle without a 

seat if it was manufactured that way. 

Conclusion 

We have to see what, if anything, the governor and the 

legislature of this state can do in the future. So far, politics 


Criminal Justice Legal News 

as usual has resulted in a financial and social disaster in 

California. Will we ever have a Sentencing Commission? 

Will we ever have a coherent sentencing scheme? Will we 

ever really deal with the conditions of incarceration or an 

intelligent plan to rehabilitate people and reintegrate them 

into society when they finish their prison sentences? Are 

we going to continue to pay the salaries of legislators and 

their massive staffs to just secure their own political futures 

as opposed to govern in the people’s best interests? Will 

pigs fly? 

Robert Sanger is a Certified Criminal Law Specialist and has been 

a criminal defense lawyer in Santa Barbara for over 36 years. 

PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE WITH 

EDWARD JONES TRUST COMPANY. 

Determining who will handle your �nancial a�airs when you are 

no longer able to do so is an important decision. One option is to 

name Edward Jones Trust Company as trustee to carry out your 

wishes. As a professional trustee, Edward Jones Trust Company 

has an experienced team of attorneys, accountants, trust administrators 

and �nancial professionals. 

It’s never too early to start preparing for the future and security 

of loved ones. 

Call today for more information on how Edward Jones Trust 

Company can work with you and your tax and legal advisors to 

develop a strategy best suited to meet the needs of you and 

your family. 

Edward Jones, its employees and �nancial advisors are not estate planners and cannot provide tax or legal 

advice. Please consult your attorney or quali�ed tax advisor for guidance in these areas. 

Trust and/or investment-advisory services are provided by Edward Jones Trust Company, an af�liate of Edward 

D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones), a registered broker-dealer. Edward Jones Trust Company and Edward Jones 

are subsidiaries of the Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. Edward Jones Trust Company may use Edward Jones 

or other af�liates to act as a broker-dealer for transactions or other services. Payments of such services generally 

will be charged as an expense to the trust and will not reduce the amount of fees payable to Edward Jones 

Trust Company. 

Daniel J De Meyer 

Financial Advisor 

. 

125 E De La Guerra St Ste 101 


805-564-0011 

www.edwardjones.com/trustcompany 

TRU-2912-A OCT 2009 


Colton, continued from page 24 

How is the Rule enforced? Are there civil tort 

consequences? 

Presumably the drafters of the Rule considered the “negative 

impression factor” an important aspect of the new regimen, 

which apparently is completely self-policing. That is, 

lawyers are not required generally to report either existence, 

or lack, or loss, of LPL coverage to the State Bar. 

The duties of disclosure are, however, of two aspects: 

(1) non-performance will subject the lawyer to State Bar 

discipline; and (2) because these newly created professional 

duties run to clients, non-performance where required may 

arguably lead to expanded civil tort liability, e.g., breach 

of professional and/or fiduciary duty—at least where the 

former client/claimant can show causation and resulting 

compensable damage. 

If so, arguably breach of that duty need not be intentional 

(“should have known”) to be actionable. But, if intentional 

or reckless, the door also may have been opened to intentional 

tort liability for breach of fiduciary duty, possible 

punitive damages exposure, and even the survival of a 

claim for intentional wrongdoing, not dischargeable in 

bankruptcy! 

What language should be in the written 

disclosure? 

Discussion [2] and [3] (see side bar at page 17 of January 

2010 issue) provide the answers — at least as to sole 

practitioners (note the use of the singular pronouns). The 

language should be adapted for partnerships and law firms 

by replacing “I” with “we” — e.g., “…we are informing 

you in writing that we no longer have professional liability 

insurance.” Note, however, that the obligation of disclosure 

is personal to each member. 

The Discussion and the Rule itself provide no further 

guidance. Deviating from, altering or expanding upon the 

recommended disclosure language will invite unintended 

consequences and should be avoided. 

The new Rule potentially creates yet additional pitfalls, 

which may well affect lawyers who already have LPL insurance. 

Those issues will be addressed in next month’s final 

part of this article. 

Michael A. Colton, a past President of SBCBA, is with Hill, 

Trager & Colton, LLP; his practice emphasis is counseling and 

representation of lawyers and other professionals in civil trial and 

appellate litigation.

Calendar 

SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 


February 2010 

Jan. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Santa 

Barbara Lawyer 

Submission 

Deadline 

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 

28 March 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

David C. Peterson 441-5884 

davidcpeterson@charter.net 

Bench and Bar Conference 2010 

Mack Staton 966-1501 

mstaton@mullenlaw.com 

William Clinkenbeard 965-0043 

wclinkenbeard@bhcrlaw.com 

Paul Roberts 963-7403 

paroberts@hbsb.com 

Bench & Bar Relations 

Richard Lee 966-2440 

rlee@rppmh.com 

Civil Litigation 

John C. Eck 965-5131 

eck@g-tlaw.com 

Eric A. Woosley 897-1830 

ericw@zwlegal.com 

Client Relations 

Thomas Hinshaw 729-2526 

th2@mindspring.com 

Court Furlough 

Day 

SBCBA 

Family Law 

Section Morning Coffee 

SB Barristers MCLE: 

Psychology Matters 

SBCBA SECTION HEADS Family Law 

Client Relations, cont. 

Lol Sorenson 649-1389 

lol@rsmediate.com 

Nicole Champion 963-4110 

nchampion@sbfamlaw.com 

Debtor/Creditor 

David B. Commons 899-1222 

Elder Law 

Denise Platt 604-7130 

denise@jodymoorelaw.com 

Jody Moore 604-7130 

jody@jodymoorelaw.com 

Employment Law 

Rafael Gonzalez 966-1501 

rgonzalez@mullenlaw.com 

Paul Wilcox 966-1501 

pwilcox@mullenlaw.com 

Estate Planning/Probate 

Lori Lewis 966-1501 

llewis@mullenlaw.com 

Jennifer Drury 879-7523 

jdrury@drurypullenlaw.com 

Vanessa Kirker 964-5105 

vk@kirkerlaw.com 

In-House Counsel & Corporate Law 

Betty L. Jeppesen 963 -8621 

BtJpps@aol.com 

Intellectual Property/Tech. Business 

Christine L. Kopitzke 845-3434 

ipcounsel@cox.net 

Real Property/Land Use 

Marcus Bird 963-6711 

msbird@hbsb.com 

Bret Stone 898-9700 

bstone@paladinlaw.com 

Taxation 

Peter Muzinich 963-9721 

pmuzinich@rogerssheffield.com 

Joshua P. Rabinowitz 963-0755 

jrabinowitz@fmam.com

� �� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

�� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

• �� 

THE OTHER BAR 

Free confidential assistance to those in the 

legal community with substance abuse problems. 

Weekly Other Bar recovery Meetings are 

held in many areas, and others are being 

established. For times and locations, or 

to start a meeting in your area, contact the 

number or website below. 

Provider of Certified MCLE Instructors 

MCLE courses available on our website 

www.otherbar.org 

Confidential Hotline: 

(800) 222-0767 


SFSB_SBLaywers_OLeary 9/9/09 3:04 PM Page 1 

Scott O’Leary 

died in 2003. 

This fall, he will 

send a local student 

off to college. 

WHAT LEGACY WILL YOU LEAVE? 

You or your clients can establish a scholarship fund now or 

for the future. Contact Colette Hadley, Executive Director 

at (805) 687-6065 or chadley@sbscholarship.org. 

Scholarship Foundation of Santa Barbara 

www.sbscholarship.org 

Named a 2010 Southern California Superlawyer ®! 

www.santabarbaraappeals.com 

For 34 years Scott O’Leary 

was a teacher, coach, and 

athletic director at Dos Pueblos 

High School. To continue 

Scott’s legacy, family, friends, 

and former players established 

a scholarship fund in his 

memory. Each year a memorial 

scholarship is awarded in his 

name to a student athlete 

graduating from Dos 

Pueblos High School. 

hfox@foxappeals.com


The Santa Barbara County Bar Association 

123 W. Padre Street, #E 


Change Service Requested 

Gary Goldberg 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 


Prsrt std 

U.s. Postage Paid 

santa Barbara, CA 

Permit #734 

For Your Real Estate needs, choose 

carefully and choose experience! 

I’ve been a Lawyer for 17 years and a Real Estate Broker with 

my own company for 14 years. 

“As a real estate company owner beginning my 15th year of serving Santa Barbara, I look 

forward to helping you buy or sell real estate property, and as always, personally dedicating 

myself to striving for excellence in every transaction. My expertise and detailed knowledge of 

properties includes Montecito, Hope Ranch, Carpinteria, Summerland, Goleta, Santa Barbara, 

and all the surrounding beach communities.” 

Over $390,000,000 

Sold Since January 1, 2000 

Among the top 10 agents in 


(per MLS Statistics in Gross Sales Volume) 

2008 - over $49 million sold 







��O�ce 805 969-1258��Cell 895 455-8910 

��gary@coastalrealty.com

Santa Barbara Lawyer - Santa Barbara County Bar Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?