Not the practice of law

Your November edition reports that the State Bar will attempt to force lawyers who act exclusively as mediators and arbitrators to pay dues as active members despite the fact that they do not practice law.

There is no legal or factual justification for this attempt, since it is absolutely clear that mediation and arbitration are not the “practice of law” as defined by the Business and Professions Code and State Bar rules. Hundreds of people who are not lawyers act as mediators and arbitrators every day in California, and their activities in this regard are perfectly legal. I have attended many mediations and arbitrations, and I have never heard a mediator or arbitrator give legal advice to anyone. Most start the session by admonishing the parties that nothing the mediator or arbitrator says should be construed as legal advice.  

Starr Babcock says that “you cannot be around or participate in law-related work without being an active lawyer.” My paralegal certainly participates in law-related work every day, but no one is suggesting that she must be an active member of the bar to do her job. Judges are always carried on inactive status and they perform essentially the same function as arbitrators. Legislators and members of Congress who are also lawyers are inactive, but they “pass upon the legal effect” of acts, documents, and laws all the time. No one is suggesting that they pay active member dues.

This is the proverbial “solution without a problem.” The bar should drop the matter and seek revenue elsewhere.

Steven S. Kane
La Mesa

Mediators do practice law

Mediator Chip Rose declares that “the art of mediating has nothing to do with the law” in order to support his position that mediators do not need to have active licenses.

Mr. Rose may be a fine mediator, but his statement is absurd. Unfortunately, Mr. Rose expresses the opinion and approach of many mediators: ignore the facts, ignore the law and focus solely on pummeling the defendant to pay money, and pummeling the plaintiff to accept an amount which he/she does not want.

Good mediators cannot ignore the law and the facts, because they define liability and damages. Good mediators are experienced and knowledgeable practitioners whose true value is very often in their ability to quickly evaluate a case. Good lawyers know that a mediator who simply tries to beat up on them and ignores the law and facts is doing them and their clients a disservice.

There can be no doubt that good mediators are truly practicing law.

Kenneth Coronel
Los Angeles

Made him sick

The award of the Bernard Witkin Medal to Judge Henderson and your laudatory article about him in the last issue make me want to throw up.

If Mr. Henderson wanted a forum to advance his personal political agenda, he should have run for office, not gone on the bench.

John Alspach
San Francisco

Impartiality is paramount

I don’t know Judge Henderson. I’m sure he’s a fine man and a fine judge. But I object to judges who believe that their role is to “defend the underdog,” rather than to be impartial adjudicators of the law. Every judge should assure that everyone who appears before him/her receives a fair hearing. If the judge wants to defend a person or persons he/she considers to be “the underdog,” or wishes to advocate a particular position, he/she should resign from the bench and openly go into politics.

This applies to judges of all political persuasions.

Hyman Sisman
Los Angeles

GOP is pro-consumer

As a member of the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, I was disappointed but not surprised that the president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, James A. Sturdevant, would miss a golden opportunity to make a cogent argument against the passage of Prop. 64 (October). Instead, he launched an irrelevant and unsubstantiated attack on Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republican President George W. Bush. What does Schwarzenegger’s supposed goal of “maintaining the types of jobs that the Bush Administration has been creating or maintaining — minimum wage jobs at companies like McDonalds” have to do with the passage of Prop. 64, an initiative designed to curb abuses of California’s Unfair Competition Law?   

“Consumer attorney” organizations will continue to lose elections and the support of the public and of fellow attorneys until their leadership realizes attorneys do not have to be Bush-Haters or Yellow Dog Democrats to be consumer advocates.

Alfred G. Rava
San Diego