Contra Costa Lawyer - Contra Costa County Bar Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A Year of Great Change, Challenge and Opportunity for Our ADR Programs by Mindy Morgado, Deputy Executive Officer This past year has seen significant change in our Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program. In April of 2009, Mimi Lyster, who greatly enhanced our Court’s ADR program and supervised it with great success for many years, transitioned into her current role as Director of Business Planning, Information and Programs. Magda Lopez was then called upon to absorb the ADR Program Administrator responsibilities as part of her ongoing duties as Director of Court Programs and Services and she has done an outstanding job as well. The burgeoning budget crisis also forced us to make significant staffing reductions in the ADR program. Change continued, as Presiding Judge Mary Ann O’Malley expressed a desire to make service on the Court’s panel of civil mediators as attractive as possible for experienced litigators. Judge O’Malley worked with the Court’s ADR Committee - which is chaired by Hon. Judith Craddick and includes Hon. Barry P. Goode, Hon. Cheryl Mills, Magda Lopez and CCCBA attorney members Thomas Beatty, Andy Schwartz, Peter Mankin, David Miller, Kelly Balamuth, John Warnlof, and Lynn Yerkes - to determine the appropriate education and experience requirements for civil mediators. In late May of 2009, Judge O’Malley hosted a forum open to all CCCBA members to discuss this topic. By January of 2010, Local Rule 203 had been amended to allow persons with alternative qualifications to join the court’s civil mediation panel. The Court’s ADR Committee is completing the cycle by collaborating with the CCCBA’s ADR Section to create a fair and efficient process for evaluating these applications. The efficacy of the Court’s partnership with the CCCBA and its members, coupled with the ADR program’s well-deserved reputation for excellence, has ensured the ongoing success of the program. Our ADR panel has 300+ members who offer specialized expertise in 47 different subject areas. The overall settlement rate for cases referred to mediation remains in the 50% range and referrals to ADR continue at the rate of more than 1,000 each year. Surveys completed by participants in the ADR process routinely include comments such as this recent one: [our mediator] “was intelligent, thoughtful, concerned, compassionate and very effective.” In short, this has been a year of great change, great challenge and great opportunity for our ADR programs. u Law Offices of Candice E. Stoddard 1111 Civic Drive, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Candice E. Stoddard Personal Injury Real Estate Litigation Trust and Estate Disputes Mediation n 925.942.5100 • fax 925.933.3801 cstoddard@stoddardlaw.com Practicing law in the East Bay for over 25 years — Wanted — Conservatorships think Matt Toth as in Pedder, Hesseltine, Walker & Toth, LLP oldest partnership in Contra Costa County (since 1955) p 925.283-6816 • f 925.283-3683 3445 Golden Gate Way, P.O. Box 479 Lafayette, CA 94549-0479 AV Martindale-Hubbell 20 September 2010
Doing Less with Less Impact of the State Budget Crisis on the Court Kiri Torre, Court Executive Officer The judicial branch faced a second full year of significant economic challenges in 2010, and it’s not over yet. The Court began to address the significant $7.46 million budget gap by completely restructuring the top administrative team, instituting technology solutions to create more efficient operations, and enhancing its Court collections program. In addition, the Court instituted a hiring freeze to reduce personnel costs, renegotiated two of our three labor contracts, canceled the 3% scheduled salary increase for managers and unrepresented employees, renegotiated several vendor contracts to reduce the cost of services, and eliminated all non-essential office expenses and equipment purchases. We cancelled various court building leases and consolidated those operations into the recently vacated office space at the Wakefield Taylor Courthouse, thus allowing the Court to eliminate building lease payments and reduce Court Security costs. After having eliminated all discretionary spending, however, it became evident that the Court would be forced to lay off staff to help meet the mandated budget reductions. The Court first eliminated all temporary worker positions through layoffs. Next, the Court made the very difficult decision to downsize its management ranks by eliminating four executive management positions and downsizing 19 staff positions in virtually all classifications through layoffs. Through staff attrition, the Court continues to reduce personnel expenditures in order to help meet the mandated budget reductions. We started the 2010-11 fiscal year with 16 fewer managers, 53 fewer permanent staff and 39 fewer temporary workers, a total reduction of 108 court personnel (over a 20 percent reduction). The clerk’s office hours were reduced by one hour, with the office closing at 2 p.m. each day to allow staff quiet time to process the work previously filed with the Court. Clerical backlogs formed in the areas of Misdemeanor Criminal, Limited Civil and Family 2336 Judgments. A plan to eliminate the backlogs was implemented by authorizing staff overtime in these targeted areas to bring the Court current. Over the past several years, the Court has been prudent in its expenditures building a modest reserve to allow the Court to provide a financial safety net, thus allowing the Court to address areas such as our clerical backlogs to help facilitate the timely adjudication of cases. Our plan will allow the Court to address the backlogs before the holidays, thanks to the dedication of our hard-working staff. The Court is now facing a remaining $2.8 million budget deficit in its operating budget, and is in desperate need of fiscal relief. In addition to the Court’s general operating budget, we have separate budgets for Court Security, Court Interpreters and Court Appointed Dependency Counsel. We were advised that these program areas will also face a budget shortfall, although no details have been provided as of yet. As of mid-September, the state has not yet adopted a budget for the current fiscal year. What does that mean for the Court? Since July, the Court has been receiving funds from the state to make staff payroll and has been drawing from its reserves to pay key vendors to maintain critical services to the Court, until the state adopts a budget. We are anxiously awaiting adoption of a state budget so we can plan our budget strategy for the remainder of the fiscal year, with the hope that some fiscal relief is provided to allow the Court to meet its mandates. u Contra Costa Lawyer 21
Page 1 and 2: Contra Costa Lawyer Volume 23, Numb
Page 3 and 4: Contra Costa Lawyer Volume 23, Numb
Page 5 and 6: We gratefully acknowledge the follo
Page 7 and 8: “After calling hundreds of attorn
Page 9 and 10: 2010 Review from the Presiding Judg
Page 11 and 12: criminal law Hon. John W. Kennedy S
Page 13 and 14: Hon. Joyce Cram Supervising Judge F
Page 15 and 16: Richmond Court The George Carroll C
Page 17 and 18: MCLE Spectacular CONCURRENT MORNING
Page 19: Business Planning, Information and
Page 23 and 24: 2011 JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENTS Diana Bec
Page 25 and 26: Why a Strong Bench-Bar Relationship
Page 27 and 28: Immigration Lawyer • Permanent Re
Page 29 and 30: Mr. Acuña knows that he not only h
Page 31 and 32: Will & Trust Litigation Elder Abuse
Page 33 and 34: 2011Membership Renewal starting Nov
Page 35 and 36: Contra Costa Lawyer 35

Contra Costa Lawyer - Contra Costa County Bar Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?