Recent Articles
Judge Briseño honored by Hispanic Bar Association
Published: March 8, 2010
By RON GONZALES
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
The organization also installed its new officers for 2010, including President Carlos X. Colorado.
About 415 people attended the dinner at Disney's Grand Californian Hotel in Anaheim.
Besides honoring Briseño with the award, the association decided to name the lifetime achievement award for the judge, Colorado said.
"He is held in very high regard for his civility and humanity," Colorado said.
According to Judge Frederick P. Aguirre, Briseño is the longest serving Superior Court judge in the history of Orange County. Briseño was appointed in March 1977 to the Municipal Court bench, and was elevated in April 1979 to the Superior Court.
Along with Briseño, honorees included:
Bob Cohen of the Legal Aid Society of Orange County, attorney of the year.
Gladis Molina of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), for the Guardian de Justicia award.
The Walt Disney Company, for the corporate citizen award.
Other officers for 2010 included Genoveva Meza Talbott, president-elect; José González, vice president; Theresa C. López, secretary; Leo R. Paredes, treasurer. Monica E. Lukoschek is immediate past president.
Judge Frances Múñoz, the first Latina trial judge in the United States, according to the association, and now retired, installed the new officers.
The keynote speaker was U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared via video.
The association, with more than 150 paid members, is the largest and oldest ethnic-interest bar association in Orange County.
The association awarded Wally Davis Memorial Scholarships to Daisy Sanchez ($3,500, Stanford Law School), Brenda Montes ($3,500, UCLA School of Law), Joel Crespo ($3,500, Boston University School of Law), Elisa Briseño ($3,500, Chapman School of Law), and Flor de Maria Tataje ($2,300, UCI School of Law).
"These scholarships help even the playing field so that needy but deserving students from working class roots can have an opportunity to go to law school and I have never seen a more effective tool for empowerment in the legal community," said Colorado, of Jones Day in Irvine, in a prepared statement. Thirty-three of the 43 recipients have been women.
"Our scholarships are a crucial part of the HBA's contribution to social justice, as they are awarded to students who can demonstrate a commitment to public service," said Colorado, who immigrated from El Salvador as a child and is the association's first president of Salvadoran background. "Therefore, it is no surprise that five scholarship recipients have gone on to become public defenders; three others work for public agencies; and four more have come back to serve on the HBA board, including one who even rose to become HBA president."
"Hola El Salvador"
On March 6, 2010 OC HBA President Carlos X. Colorado appeared on CTN-TV's "Hola El Salvador" hosted by Antonio Ayala, broadcast on local channel 27, DISH network/DIRECTV channel 20, and a TV channel in El Salvador, discussing his role as the first Salvadoran president of the HBA.
It’s a Gray Area:
Exploring new worlds: the Peace Corps
Published Sunday, November 1, 2009 12:18 AM PDT
By James P. Gray
As seen in the Daily Journal
Between graduating from college in 1966 and entering law school in 1968, I served as a
Peace Corps volunteer in Costa Rica.
Many times since my return, people have told me that they always had wanted to be in the Peace Corps.
My response almost always has been, well it was a great experience, and it’s not too late for you to do it now.
But invariable the people then come up with some sort of explanation as to why they can’t do it, at least not now.
Well, in 2011, the Peace Corps will be celebrating its 50th birthday, and it is continuing to do
good work. In fact, according to its website, the number of applicants grew by 18% more
than a year ago, although I recognize that the economy might have had something to do with
it.
The mission statement is in three parts: 1) Helping the people of interested countries in
meeting their need for trained men and women; 2) Helping promote a better understanding
of Americans on the part of the people served; and 3) Helping promote a better
understanding of other people on the part of Americans.
Obviously, the Peace Corps is certainly not for everyone. In fact, if you even have to ask why someone would want to be involved in such a thing “for two whole years,” you probably would never understand. People either have an intuitive understanding about what it is to be a volunteer, or they don’t.
When I went to Costa Rica, I requested the smallest town in the country that had a high school, and they gave it to me.
The reason was in part that it was completely inconsistent with my vision of a Peace Corps experience to take a bus to work, like some of my colleagues did in the capital city.
My town of Palmar Norte was on the Inter-American Highway, about half way from the point south of the capital city of San Jose where the paving on the highway ended, and the Panamanian border, where it resumed.
It is amazing to me that Costa Rica is now a tourist destination, because when I was there
people were mostly ignorant of even where it was — often confusing it with Puerto Rico.
But I was a “profesor de educación física” in the high school, and I also taught physical
education in the local elementary schools, as well as general health and community
recreation in my extended community.
In fact, I probably still hold the world’s record for brushing my teeth in front of more elementary school classes than anyone else in history.
My biggest tangible success sometimes seemed to be teaching some of the elementary school students to take turns while “up at bat” in our kickball games, because mostly everyone was first in line, all of the time.
But actually, my most general success probably was being able to show the people in my small community that North Americans could work hard at a project, perspire and get dirty.
Clearly my biggest failure was my inability to establish the practice with most families of boiling their drinking water.
When I was there, Costa Rica was believed by many actually to lead the world in birth rates per capita. Nevertheless, their population generally was not expending because of the high infant mortality rate.
And the reason for that mostly was the parasites in their drinking water.
Thus, it was not unusual for me to see a funeral service for an infant in an open casket, in
which the mother or someone else had to brush aside the worms that were crawling out of
the mouth and nose of the deceased child (I am sorry if this offends, but it’s true — and I
grieve about it).
I also tried to spread information about natural birth control to the adults in my town by
handing out literature, and encouraging the female home economics teacher in our high
school to help me with the discussions.
But that was right at the time that the Papal Encyclical was issued that forbid Catholics even
from discussing this subject.
So after this was issued, Padre Samuel Stewart, who was our community’s Catholic priest and a friend of mine, told me that if I didn’t stop, he would take the pulpit against me. What could a Peace Corps volunteer do against a force like that? So I stopped.
By the time my two-year term was completed, I think I was able to make a contribution in keeping with the mission statement.
I helped our Peace Corps group teach a clinic in San Jose that was able to pass along some needed skills and approaches to virtually all of the physical education professors in the country; I led some of my students into various careers that they might not otherwise have pursued; and I became friends and colleagues to quite a few Costa Ricans, with whom I communicated for decades.
For my part, I believe that I learned more from the Costa Ricans than they did from me.
And I also learned to speak a second language, such that years later as a judge I was able to try some of my small claims court cases in Spanish. And you should have seen the eyes of some of the litigants grow large when this gringo started talking Spanish.
Since the Peace Corps began, about 195,000 volunteers have served in 139 host countries.
But over time the Peace Corps has changed substantially. When I was involved, there was a virtual prohibition against a volunteer being married, and if those who were married ever were expecting children, they were sent home immediately. In addition, most of the volunteers were like me: recent college liberal arts graduates who had lots of idealism, but few skills.
And most of our assignments were either to teach English, or to be involved in “community
development.”
So look at it this way: Most of us were young, without real practical skills, not adept in the
local language or really understanding the local culture or history, and were being sent down
to other people’s countries to help them “develop their communities.” So all of this was a bit
arrogant of us back then, if you think of it in that context.
Fortunately, many of those things have changed over time, because more older and wiser volunteers are being recruited, and are serving. And these are people who not only have more life skills, but they also can pass along much of their practical experience, maturity, and demonstrated abilities to the locals.
So if you are one of those people who have frequently thought to yourself that you would like
to join the Peace Corps, or a similar domestic program like Teach for America, give some
serious thought about doing it now. And if you are married or even if you have children, so
much the better.
From my own personal experience, I can tell you that it is one of the most gratifying
experiences that you could ever have.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the
author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s
Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at
jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com.
------------------------------------
**All these photos above were taken by members of the OC HBA delegation to Quepos during our trip in May 2009.
The Ins and Outs of E-Discovery
December 08, 2009
By Theresa Lopez and Mark DeSouza
On June 29, 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the California Electronic Discovery Act into law. The Act closely tracks the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, like the Federal Rules, will have a significant impact on discovery of electronically stored information. Given the sheer volume of electronically stored information in commercial and class action lawsuits these days, electronic discovery can be a minefield for litigants if not carefully navigated. But if properly and thoroughly understood, the Act can provide the tools for managing the costs and burdens of discovery.
The Act, like the Federal Rules, broadly defines electronically stored information as "information that is stored in an electronic medium." California Civil Code of Procedure Section 2016.020(e). If applied similarly to the Federal Rule, it will encompass all data stored on computers or other digital media. Despite this broad definition, though, the Act does place some limits on the discovery of electronically stored information. For example, if the electronically stored information "is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense," the producing party may avoid production on that basis, but must state which sources it will not search. California Civil Code of Procedure Section 1985.8(d). However, unlike the Federal Rules, under the Act, the producing party has the burden of demonstrating that the requested information is not reasonably accessible. Nonetheless, subject to any limitations set by the court, a requesting party may still obtain an order requiring production of some or all of the electronically stored information sought if good cause is shown-even if the producing party has established the information is not reasonably accessible.
The court may also limit production where the information is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, it is available from less expensive or more easily accessible sources, or the likely benefit is outweighed by the burden and expense of production. These exceptions are based on the idea that the cost of discovery should be proportionate to the overall case. It is worth noting, however, that objections to discovery based on the burden and expense of production generally have not been successful under the Federal Rules unless substantiated with specific facts and evidence of the burden. The California Act will likely be similarly applied.
Another significant change found in the Act is the so-called "Safe Harbor" provision. Prior to the Act, courts had the power to impose sanctions against a party for failing to maintain relevant evidence. Now under the Act, courts may not impose sanctions against a party for electronically stored information that is lost "as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system." California Civil Code of Procedure Section 1985.8(k)(1). A similar safe harbor clause is found in the Federal Rules, which protects parties using systems that automatically alter and overwrite electronic information. Based on the Federal Rule, the Act, if interpreted similarly, should protect against sanctions for the inadvertent loss of ephemeral data such as temporary caches, system logs, and other information that is routinely deleted for the efficient operation of a computer system. It is important to note, however, that the protection of the safe harbor provision only extends to the deletion of such data up to the point at which a legal duty to preserve is triggered. After preservation, or "legal hold," obligations are triggered, parties must take measures to suspend the automatic deletion of all relevant information and the failure to do so may subject them to sanctions for spoliation.
Because the amount of electronically stored information available is often voluminous, its discovery greatly increases the risk of inadvertently producing privileged information. In an apparent attempt to address this issue, the Act includes a clawback provision that allows a party to seek the return of any privileged electronically stored information inadvertently produced by notifying the receiving party. California Civil Code of Procedure Section 2031.285(a). Based on the text of the Act, however, the clawback provision appears only to apply to the physical return of the inadvertently produced documents, but does not address whether there has been a privilege waiver. Under the Federal Rules and the recently amended Federal Rule of Evidence 502, inadvertent disclosure is generally not a waiver of privilege as long as reasonable steps have been taken to prevent disclosure or the parties have an agreement entered by the court to such effect. Unfortunately, California does not have an analogous rule of evidence to clarify this issue. It remains to be seen how California courts will interpret this new rule, but it is important for parties to understand the limitations of the clawback provision.
Under prior California law, parties were already generally required to meet and confer regarding discovery disputes in connection with discovery motions. Despite this general requirement, though, many anticipated the Act would amend California Rule of Court 3.724 to include specific meet and confer requirements relating to electronic discovery; however, it did not. Recognizing this omission, the Judicial Council has now amended Rule 3.724 (effective Aug. 14, 2009).
Under the amended Rule 3.724, parties must engage in the meet and confer conference at least 30 days prior to the initial case management conference. Among other things, parties will now be required to discuss issues relating to preservation of electronically stored information, the form in which it will be produced, when it will be produced, the scope of discovery of electronically stored information, the method by which parties will be able to make claims of privilege or confidentiality, and - most importantly - how the costs of production will be borne or shared by the parties. Parties and their attorneys should be cognizant that this change to Rule 3.724 now means that parties must understand their information technology systems and capabilities much earlier in the case. They will need to be prepared to discuss those capabilities with the opposing side to flesh out any related discovery issues before they are in front of the judge at the case management conference. Under the new rule, parties cannot simply delay addressing issues relating to electronic discovery until they have a discovery demand in front of them or it is raised at a hearing. This rule forces parties to be proactive, not just reactive.
Electronic discovery can be expensive and burdensome. This is especially true in light of the new Act, which makes it clear that the scope of discovery includes all forms of electronically stored information. At the same time, though, the Act provide a framework for litigants and the courts to cope with the ever-increasing amount of electronically stored information. Companies that embrace the new rules and take steps to understand their information systems will be best positioned to reap the Act's benefits.
Mark DeSouza, a law student and summer associate at Crowell & Moring, contributed to this article.
Theresa C. Lopez is counsel at Crowell & Moring. Mark DeSouza is a law student and summer associate at Crowell & Moring.
----------------------------------------------------------
DAILY JOURNAL NEWSWIRE ARTICLE
http://www.dailyjournal.com
© 2009 The Daily Journal Corporation.
Luz Herrera: ‘Low Bono’ Pioneer
LegalRebels.com
Oct 14, 2009
by Stephanie Francis Ward
Federally funded legal aid is free, and that needs to change, says Luz E. Herrera, a Harvard Law grad who focuses on access-to-justice issues for low- and moderate-income people.
She allows that those with incomes at the bottom of federal poverty guidelines often can’t afford to pay anything and shouldn’t have to. And for some issues, like domestic violence, she says there should never be a fee. But Herrera believes that in many practice areas, clients would appreciate the choices they’d get by paying something—and that it’s patronizing to assume they can pay nothing.
“The answer is not $300 an hour, but it’s also not $0,” says Herrera, an assistant professor at San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson School of Law. “We can’t look at providing legal services to the poor and assume they’ll always be poor. The current legal aid model is for people who really need help and assumes that’s all there is.”
Herrera’s idea about charging something isn’t well-received by some legal aid advocates, which she finds surprising.
“I think pro bono actually haunts us,” says Herrera, 36. “It minimizes the representation of the legal profession to an aspirational 50 hours a year.”
A former sole practitioner, Herrera is developing a community-based legal clinic for low- and moderate-income clients. And in 2005 she founded Community Lawyers Inc., a Compton, Calif., nonprofit that helps attorneys and paralegals serve low- and moderate-income clients. She pays out of pocket the office’s $1,200 monthly rent.
“It’s hard,” she says, “but I believe in it.”
Hear Herrera talk about her clinic and working with students.
Herrera doesn’t expect all her students to do legal aid work, but she does hope the clinic experience will give them a strong understanding of access-to-justice issues. And she hopes they will use that knowledge in whatever capacity they can.
After a brief, not-so-pleasant experience as a real estate associate at San Francisco’s Heller Ehrman, Herrera opened a storefront law office in Compton in 2002. She says she was the only full-time, Spanish-speaking lawyer in the southern Los Angeles suburb, which has a median household income of only $32,000.
She charged flat fees in some cases; in others, her hourly rate was $150. Consultations were $75. The first year Herrera earned $26,000 and lived with her parents at their home in Whittier.
‘VERY LUZ-LIKE’
Many lawyers dream of opening a storefront office in an underserved neighborhood, and that Herrera actually did it doesn’t surprise some who know her.
“It was very Luz-like,” says her friend Wendelyn Killian. The two met as undergraduates at Stanford University and attended Harvard Law School together. “She’s seen people of color get the short end of the stick, and she wanted to try and fill that void in any way she can,” says Killian, development director at the Community Coalition in Los Angeles. “She also wants financial security, like all of us.”
An only child of Mexican immigrants, Herrera says she has never been poor “because we always worked a hundred jobs.”
“Sometimes when she’s really fixed on what she wants to do, you might misread how flexible she can be—and open to ideas,” says Jeanne Charn, director of Harvard Law School’s Bellow-Sacks Access to Civil Legal Services Project.
Herrera received an alumni award named after Gary Bellow, Charn’s late husband who directed the school’s clinical law programs. Charn was so impressed that, when Herrera was selected for a one-year fellowship at the school’s Community Enterprise Project in 2006, she invited Herrera to live with her.
“You can sort out the people who kind of have a grip on life, deal with their mistakes, and own up to what they should do,” Charn says. “She’s just one of those people.”
Herrera’s accent is one common among people who, like herself, grew up in Los Angeles’ Spanish-speaking communities. She’s a petite woman who often pairs conservative business-casual wear with unique necklaces.
She closed her practice in December 2008 because it was difficult to provide direct legal services and advocate on issues close to her heart.
And Herrera wanted to encourage more lawyers to practice in underserved communities.
“I felt I needed to step out of the role for others to step into it,” she says. “If it was just about me and my practice, that was never enough.”
Cruz Reynoso honored as a ‘legal giant’
CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL
October, 2009
By Kristina Horton Flaherty
Staff Writer
Cruz Reynoso |
As a child, Cruz Reynoso thought it was unfair that the mail carrier’s route ended just two blocks short of his poor Orange County barrio. His parents and neighbors had to trudge more than a mile into town just to pick up their mail.
So the middle school-aged boy, who would someday become the first Latino to serve on California’s Supreme Court, did something about it. He penciled out a petition, collected signatures from all over the barrio and successfully appealed to the U.S. Postmaster General in Washington D.C. for rural mail delivery.
That early success, Reynoso says now, helped fuel his determination to keep “doing things that needed to be done.”
Last month, Reynoso, now 78, was awarded the State Bar’s Bernard E. Witkin Medal for his “significant contributions to the quality of justice and legal scholarship” in California. The medal, established in 1993, is presented each year to “those legal giants who have altered the landscape of California jurisprudence.”
Known as a civil rights champion, Reynoso has worked as a lawyer, community organizer, law professor, legal services program director, appellate court justice and state Supreme Court justice. He has served three California governors and four U.S. presidents. In 2000, President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, in recognition of his “compassion and work on behalf of the downtrodden.”
“Justice Reynoso has been a champion on the side of providing full access to justice to all throughout his career,” said former State Bar President Holly Fujie. “This medal simply celebrates his unfaltering commitment to the justice system and his extraordinary efforts to obtain equal rights for all of us.”
One of 11 children raised in a family of farmworkers, Reynoso was introduced to segregation, discrimination and other injustices at an early age. He once watched a police officer kick his father. He spent his childhood summers picking fruit in the San Joaquin Valley, once becoming too exhausted and dehydrated to move, and once facing a traumatic delay in the entire family’s summer pay.
But from early on, Reynoso also tried to make a difference. As a teenager, he once stood up for two boys barred from a service club-sponsored middle school dance because they were Mexican. Reynoso later tracked down the club’s officers to complain and had his first experience of being asked to leave someone’s office. “They weren’t happy to hear from me,” he recalls. “On the other hand, I never heard of a segregated dance after that.”
By the end of high school, Reynoso was convinced that maybe he could “do some good” as a lawyer. And after earning a bachelor’s degree at Pomona College in Claremont and spending two years in the U.S. Army’s Counterintelligence Corps, he headed for UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall. He was the only Latino in his 1958 graduating class.
“I had never met a Latino lawyer,” said Reynoso, whose sole ambition was to practice law in a small town. He and his wife chose El Centro in California’s Imperial Valley, where he built up a private practice and also helped negotiate improvements to the poor, predominantly Latino part of town. “The lesson I got from that,” he said, “was that quite often there’s just a lack of communication.”
In the mid-1960s, several governmental appointments took him to San Francisco, Sacramento and Washington, D.C. He served as assistant director of the state’s Fair Employment Practices Commission, then as staff secretary to Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown. He also worked as associate general counsel to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In 1968, California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), a pioneering nonprofit legal services program for the rural poor, recruited Reynoso and quickly elevated him to executive director. It was a highlight of his career. At CRLA, he says, he saw firsthand what a difference lawyers can make. “We made a lot of law and protected a lot of people,” he recalls.
With Reynoso at the helm, CRLA took on cases that stopped the placement of non-English speaking Latino students in classes for the “mentally retarded” based on their low English-only test scores; that invalidated a policy requiring young children to work in agriculture as a condition of eligibility for welfare benefits; that forced the federal government to begin hearings that led to a ban on the pesticide DDT; and that prevented then-Gov. Ronald Reagan from slashing some $210 million in funding from California’s Medi-Cal program.
Jose Padilla, CRLA’s current executive director, credits Reynoso with providing “a legacy of leadership” and setting an example for other Latinos.
Padilla, the son and grandson of farm workers, still recalls the revered “Attorney Reynoso” from his childhood in Imperial Valley. As the only Spanish-speaking attorney in the valley, Reynoso gained a reputation for being a disarmingly humble “person of his word” who even dispensed “legal aid” from his home. And he was known, Padilla says, as someone who could mend strife as well — taking a group of picketers outside his office to lunch on one occasion and, on another, taming an unruly crowd at a town meeting by lecturing them on the example they were setting for their children.
“He also taught me that you never ‘retire’ from justice work,” Padilla said. “Among his pursuits, he continues to be a voice for those in poverty.”
Early in his career, Reynoso saw himself as an unlikely candidate for a judicial appointment. But in 1976, he became the first Latino appointed to a California Court of Appeal. Six years later, he made history again as the first Latino appointed to the state Supreme Court.
Reynoso brought a new perspective to the high court. In one instance, for example, his experiences as a lawyer for Spanish-speaking clients played a role. At issue was whether a non-English-speaking defendant had the constitutional right to an interpreter during his trial. Reynoso stressed the due process importance of having the accused understand the proceedings, and then described how difficult it had been for him to represent such clients and translate testimony for them at the same time. “It was very difficult for me as a lawyer to both listen to the witnesses and respond to my client,” he recalls. The Supreme Court ruled that such defendants do have the right to an interpreter in court — and the ruling became law.
Then, in 1986, Reynoso, Chief Justice Rose Bird and fellow Associate Justice Joseph Grodin all failed to win confirmation at the polls following an intense, high-profile campaign against them. Reynoso briefly returned to private practice, then joined the UCLA School of Law faculty.
Other highlights of Reynoso’s 50-year career include an 11-year stint as vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and service on the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the California Postsecondary Education Commission. In 2001, Reynoso joined the UC Davis School of Law as the inaugural holder of the Boochever and Bird Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality.
These days, Reynoso, who recently remarried and has four children and 17 grandchildren, remains a professor emeritus at UC Davis. Last fall, he was tapped to serve on a justice and civil rights agency review team to assist President-elect Barack Obama in his transition to the White House. And currently, he serves on the leadership council of California Forward, a bipartisan organization seeking to transform state government “through citizen-driven solutions.”
Describing himself as an “operational optimist,” Reynoso says he has “long lamented” those who work tirelessly on a particular issue for a year or two and then cease all efforts. He stresses the importance of trying to lead a balanced life and not giving up. “Particularly with tough social or legal issues,” he says, “persistence is half the battle.”
