Compounding the problem

Terence Kilpatrick (October) pin-pointed the defects in the AB95/SB122 approach to stopping private lawyer shakedown operations under the Un-fair Competition Law. These ineffective bills fortunately were killed as the session ended. Unfortunately, the legislature on another bill (SB 515 — Kuehl) went 180 degrees from Mr. Kilpatrick's proposed alternative. The legislature adopted (and Gov. Davis signed) the plaintiffs' bar's plan, which selectively eliminated a business' ability to use the current anti-SLAPP special motion to win early dismissal of a 17200 suit attack-ing its statements made in public discourse.

So our elected representatives did as Mr. Kilpatrick observed they might, enacted something that compounds the problem.

John H. Sullivan, President
Civil Justice Association of California

Baffled by growth

I am sure I was not the only reader completely baffled by the exerpts from Chief Justice George's State of the Judiciary address (October). I thought there was a budget crisis affecting all state and county agencies. But George says nothing about such problems; only threatens more efficient means of coercing fees and sanctions out of litigants and attorneys.

The Administrative Office of the Courts continues to advertise scores of high-paying staff positions, while schools, health care and other public agencies are laying off teachers, nurses, etc. See the postings at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jobs.

The AOC has grown to over 500 employees, including many in high-paying jobs having little or nothing to do with legal and judicial affairs. Like the State Bar of old, it has taken on a life of its own, seeking its own funding sources independent of the democratic process.

I hope the new governor and his budget advisors do not exempt the Judicial Council, the courts or the AOC from the same strict budget review announced for the rest of state government.

Jerome Garchik
San Francisco

Military service isn't a crime

As an attorney representing an individual whose husband recently returned from duty in the skies over Iraq, I must take issue with suggestions of Dave Linn (September) that the actions of our servicemen and women are "crimes," or that all California attorneys serving as reservists are officers and "well paid." In fact, reservists serve in all capacities, both as non-commissioned officers and officers, and their modest pay for risking life and limb is anything but "generous."

Perhaps Mr. Linn should consider that the courageous service of these brave men and women is what assures him the right to express his views that they should be "punished" by a denial of a waiver of bar dues accruing while they are overseas de-fending his right to express this view. I, for one, think this to be the least we can do for our citizen-soldiers.

Richard G. Heston
Newport Beach

Waivers are a great idea

I have read the letters concerning bar dues waivers for active military duty lawyers (September and October). I think the waivers are a great idea. Lauryne Wright says the issue is one of duty, honor and integrity and that those serving are doing so "to serve their country as patriots." I have no idea whether those serving meet those standards for being considered patriots, but I would include the millions of Americans who marched against this war as patriots, too. I would also include those attorneys who have attempted to represent those people locked up without any recourse to due process as patriots. Perhaps Ms. Wright would join me in suggesting to the bar that waivers would be appropriate for such attorneys as well?

Alex Easterbrook
Redwood City

A reservist speaks out

Since the 9/11 attacks I have been on active duty (presidential recall) and have served with both the Coast Guard and the Navy. Everywhere I went I ran into outstanding reservists doing important jobs. They were all reservists who happen to be lawyers. 

The real question should be how that service affects the California lawyer/reservist upon his/her return from active duty.

After reporting for duty, some of your clients take their business to other lawyers or firms because you are not there to serve their individual needs. And you can't even tell them when you will be back. If you are in solo practice, years of client development are now gone. Good thing they might waive your bar dues. If you are in a firm, your future compensation is going down the toilet when you return unless all of your clients come back when you do. You already wrote a letter to all your clients pleading with them not to abandon you. Some do anyway — like my oldest and biggest corporate one.

There is a good percentage of bar members who will come back from the global war on terrorism to a completely different world from which they left. Usually it is a financial disaster at home (credit card now maxed out), a financial disaster at the firm ("we lost a lot of revenue while you were gone due to the loss of your clients"), and cases that were continued while you were gone all going to trial on the same day.

In addition, a very small percent-age, including myself, came back with something extra for consideration — a life-altering physical disability. Sadly, I know people that never came back.

Those that serve in the war do not ask for special recognition, awards or even ceremony. Many people have actually thanked me for my service. I think most returnees would simply like the ability to pick up their lives where they left off. I doubt that many can.

God Bless America! I've been gone a while. I can still say that can't I?

Paul Edmond Stephan
San Francisco