An inspiration

I have just read "Advice from one who failed bar exam 47 times: Try again, again and again,"(February) and I found it to be the most inspirational article I have ever read in the California Bar Journal. It makes my own travails as an attorney seem small and irrelevant. More than that, Maxcy Filer's story is a story of the triumph of the human spirit and a beacon for those who see no light ahead.

Bravo to the California Bar Journal for putting a human face on the law profession.

Albert Harnois
San Diego

Hats off to Maxcy

I took the bar exam in 1951. I was one of the lucky guys who passed it the first time. I say "lucky" because a lot of guys who were smarter than me had to take it one or two more times. It's a lot like putting.

I say "one or two" because back then you could only take it three times, and then "out." I say "guys" because a woman in law school was pretty much an oddity then — there were only a very few.

My hat is off to Maxcy. The State Bar should give him a special award for perseverance, love of the law, devotion to it and guts. I suppose the giant law firms are one way to go, but what Maxcy is doing is what I consider real lawyering.

Way to go, Mr. Filer.

Donald B. Brown
Torrance

Deserving of contempt

This is to protest the unbelievable lapse of judgment that had you publish as your first-page lead article a laudatory story about someone who was allowed to practice law after failing the bar exam 47 times!

He might be a fine individual, overcame difficult times, etc., but I wasn't aware that those were a proper basis for admission to the bar. Instead of that foolish article, what you should have done is call for an investigation of how he could have been admitted after this impressive demonstration of unfittedness for the profession. (If the argument is that he is a fine lawyer after all, then what does this say about your bar exam?)

When someone attempts to access my online banking account and fails to get the password right after three attempts, the bank cuts off access because that person is obviously not qualified to gain admittance to the account. I'm sorry to see that my State Bar has a different standard.

And you wonder why the public holds lawyers in such deep contempt!

Jerry Rabow
Encino

A misleading opinion

Sen. Joe Dunn (January Opinion) says we can't cut a dime because every dollar in revenue is earmarked for a mandated expense. The only mandate the senator doesn't mention is the constitutional requirement to balance the budget — a requirement he has violated three years running.

Dunn didn't inform his readers that the legislature can suspend Proposition 98 with a two-thirds vote, or that education spending in 2002-2003 was 17 percent higher than required by Proposition 98. He misled CBJ readers in other areas as well, most notably in social spending.

As for cuts in education, police and fire being "political suicide," whatever happened to doing the right thing even if it meant not being re-elected? Whatever happened to the idea that our elected representatives were supposed to represent us?

Kurtiss A. Jacobs
Martinez

System is broken

The budget crisis isn't threatening the judicial system . . . it's the system itself. The public increasingly views California's (and the rest of the states') system of justice as a public detriment, unlike beneficial firefighters, police officers and mental health clinics.

Sen. Dunn and State Bar President Anthony Capozzi view California's current system of justice as a benevolent public service that shamelessly provides substantial income for attorneys. The general public understands the part about substantial income for attorneys but views the court system as a financial lottery rather than a reliable source of justice.

The public sees a system that rewards its officers for unnecessarily (and expensively) escalating conflicts. Social conflicts are inconsistently resolved along with associated inconsistent punishments and rewards. Flagrant abuses of the judicial system further bloat the pockets of plaintiffs' attorneys. Just one abuse of the system wipes out thousands of good lawyers' works.

In short, the public sees the judicial system as an erratic system that has badly damaged the social fabric of a friendly, gregarious society.

Attorneys, heal yourselves. Cast out and mightily punish the abusers of justice and the public trust. Make California's court system a true system of justice. The public would gladly support such a system.

Donald Keene
Bellingham, Wash.

Bounty hunter law

One would think that a legislator intimately familiar with the courts' funding squeeze would be the last person to be adding to court workload. Yet while Senator Joe Dunn was penning his Bar Journal forecast " . . . and half the of the trial courts across the state are dark . . ." he must also have been envisioning his plaintiffs' lawyer brethren lined outside those darkened doorways with fresh complaints authorized by his own SB 796.

This bounty-hunter law that took effect Jan. 1 lets any private attorney sue any employer for any Labor Code violation, regardless of the severity and regardless whether any employee has been harmed or disadvantaged, and collect 25 percent of whatever penalty the state could have collected, plus attorney fees. It gets worse from there.

A comprehensive concern for the courts would include emphasizing administrative remedies, not circumventing them. And, in a parallel situation, it would include expanding arbitration, not supporting the plaintiffs lawyers who want to eliminate it.

John H. Sullivan, President
Civil Justice Association of California