Economic woes hit attorneys and courts

By Nancy McCarthy
Staff Writer

If you think gas prices are high, wait until you have to pay a parking ticket or go to traffic school. Under a bill pending in the state Assembly, penalties for those infractions will more than double, and filing fees in civil cases and penalties in criminal convictions also will rise.

The money generated by the increases — an estimated $5 billion — will fund renovation or replacement of as many as 40 deteriorating courthouses.

“Everyone is guaranteed a day in court, but in California that right is jeopardized by inadequate facilities that threaten the safety of everyone in the building,” said Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, author of SB 1407. “It is time to invest in this critical area of the state’s infrastructure in a way that does not hurt the state’s general fund.”

Faced with a $15 billion budget deficit, lawmakers are struggling with ways to boost revenue without increasing taxes. Perata’s plan authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds, to be funded by the increased fines and fees, that will finance the construction projects. Such bonds do not require voter approval.

The added fees are:

• A $40 penalty imposed on all criminal convictions
• A $35, $30 and $25 increase in filing fees in civil cases, depending on the value of the case
• A $2 increase, from $1.50 to $3.50, on parking tickets
• A $40 increase, from $24 to $64, in the traffic violator school fee.

Chief Justice Ronald George told legislators in March that conditions are so bad in some courthouses that innocent bystanders, as well as court employees and law enforcement personnel, are sometimes at risk because of security problems. Some buildings are so crowded that judges conduct hearings in parking lots and have insufficient juror assembly space, others are seismically unsafe, and still others have little or no access for the disabled.

“The physical condition of California’s courthouses has reached a state of crisis,” George said. “Some court buildings are in such desperate shape that they no longer provide a safe and secure environment for conducting everyday court business.”

The Judicial Council has estimated that 90 percent of the state’s courthouses need improvements and has identified 68 as critical need projects. The improvements would be phased in over four years, starting with courthouses in Butte, Los Angeles, Tehama and Yolo counties.

The California Public Defenders Association opposes SB 1407, arguing that the additional fees will disproportionately affect indigent clients. The measure also has drawn opposition from the Teamsters, because their members are more likely than the general public to rack up parking tickets.

Because Perata’s measure authorizes the issuance of lease revenue bonds, it requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature. The Senate approved the measure in May by a 28-8 margin. Some amendments were expected in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Although the courthouse issue may succeed, the courts failed in an effort to add 50 more judges when the Senate Appropriations Committee blocked a bill to fund the new positions. Since 2006, 100 new judgeships have been approved and funded, but court officials say at least 50 more are needed to handle burgeoning caseloads throughout the state.

Riverside County, the hardest-hit, focuses almost exclusively on criminal cases because of a dearth of judges, but it still has been forced to dismiss felony and misdemeanor cases.

On another front, Capitol watchers last month were talking about the notion of taxing services, including legal services, as a way to reduce the deficit. The Board of Equalization has broad authority to define a “product” and to determine if it is tangible. Sales taxes currently are limited to tangible products, but, the argument goes, if the definition can be expanded to include services, they too could be taxed.

In April, board chair Judy Chu wrote to six lawmakers and noted that the projected deficit offers “an opportunity to pursue sales tax reforms.” A 5 percent tax on “a broad base of services in California,” including construction, legal, accounting, engineering, health care and transportation, could generate as much as $45 billion annually, she suggested.

Two years ago, Assemblyman Joe Coto, D-San Jose, introduced AB 9, which would have applied the state sales tax rate to various services, such as accounting, legal, consulting, engineering and management fees. The money would have been used to fund education. The State Bar opposed the measure, which was defeated.

So far, no serious proposals are on the table.