Letters to the Editor

     TOO MUCH, AND NOT ENOUGH
      I was surprised to see you name Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Warren Kato as one of the California Lawyer Attorneys of the Year ["The CLAY Awards," March] for winning a sentence of 1,210 years to life for my appellate client, David Robinson. Rather than a basis for an award, this case is a glaring example of the idiocy of "sentencing inflation" in an age where politicians are falling over each other to see who can propose the most draconian sentencing law and thus claim credibility with voters as the most effective crusader in the war against crime.
      To construct a case to achieve a sentence of 22 consecutive life sentences with a mandatory minimum of 1,210 years served before the defendant becomes eligible for parole is an act of total absurdity. And to praise Kato for saving the "overburdened Los Angeles criminal justice system many weeks of court time" is particularly ironic. This monster trial in pursuit of an apparent "Guinness Book of World Records" sentence was a ridiculous waste of court time and resources in a case where prosecution on just a few counts would have had the same practical effect, i.e., imprisoning the defendant for the rest of his natural life. Mr. Kato's odd approach to metaphysics was most clearly on display at the sentencing hearing, where he actually told the court, "So the total that the People are recommending is 1,210 years before the defendant is eligible for parole, and after ... he serves that, then it would be 22 consecutive life sentences."
      David McNeil Morse
      San Francisco
     
      Shame on you, California Lawyer. Your 2007 Attorneys of the Year included two criminal law attorneys?both prosecutors on big cases who undoubtedly had the benefit of enormous resources.
      Let's face it: Prosecutors have the easier job. Particularly in California, they enjoy pro-prosecution laws, vast financial resources, and lots of help from the cops. And more often than not, jurors walk into a courtroom wanting to see an accused prove his or her innocence.
      As a former national newspaper reporter, I was saddened and discouraged to see that type of pro-government bias. Many defense lawyers make a difference too?and they work outgunned, in a skewed system, and often against overwhelming odds.
      Next year, how about some balance in your coverage?
      Mary Ann F. Galante
      Riverside
     
      I read with interest your 2007 award choices. Your senior editor, Chuleenan Svetvilas, described these awards as "17 areas of legal practice that reflect the breadth and depth of the work performed by California lawyers."
      Noticeably missing was any consideration of the thousands of attorneys in the state who work in family law.
      It is not my intent to derogate in any way the accomplishments of the 43 attorneys reflected in your awards. I recognize that the work carried out in the family-law field is perhaps not as attention-getting as denying the Boy Scouts a rent-free berth in a city marina because they exclude gays and lesbians; imposition of liability for subjecting employees to ethnic slurs (new twist on an ancient concept); or a reversal of the Ninth Circuit (are we ever surprised by that?) in the Anna Nicole Smith odyssey.
      On the other hand, it is probably fairly easy to recognize that the impact of family law on the citizens of this state extends far beyond some of the foregoing. It may be a little harder to address the field of family law, but it seems to me that in 2008, you should expand the awards to 18 categories.
      Steven E. Briggs
      Newport Beach
     
      EDITOR'S NOTE: Award categories vary from year to year, depending on the nominations we receive. Although it is true that this year we did not give a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year Award in the criminal defense or family-law category, last year, for example, we recognized 47 attorneys in 18 areas of legal practice, including three attorneys in criminal defense and one in family law.
     
      There's something off-putting about the circular back-patting engaged in by California Lawyer. The serial self-congratulation indulged in by the legal profession-with the Attorneys of the Year Awards, the Angel Awards, and the numerous awards, plaques, and ribbons awarded by local and state bar associations-perpetuates the idea that lawyers are walking egos and self-promoters. Real accomplishment rarely requires such forced publicity.
      Carol F. Nowicki
      Castro Valley
     
      "I'm not in it for the money, I'm in it to serve humanity." How many times have we spouted that nonsense? How come the California Plumbers Association doesn't keep nagging its members to go out and fix poor people's toilets for nothing? When they fix a toilet, they get paid! I mean, why is the poor lawyer sent on a guilt trip if he doesn't give away his time?
      It's hard enough to make a living when you charge for it?unless you're in a 300-attorney firm and you get paid anyway. If I were in it to serve humanity, I'd have become a priest. If I were Catholic.
      Donald B. Brown
      Torrance
     
      ONE WAY TO BEAT THE CROWDS
      Reading your article on travel nightmares ["Business Travel Nightmares," March] reminded me of one of my own. I was in Los Angeles for the day, taking a deposition, in the early 1990s. My co-counsel drove me to LAX to catch my flight back to Oakland. When she dropped me off at the airport, it was wonderfully empty. No crowds at all, even though it was near 5 p.m. My flight was still two hours off, so I went to the Southwest ticket counter and asked if I could be put on an earlier flight. The ticket agent told me that there was no problem, a plane was leaving for Oakland in ten minutes. I got on the plane, and there were whole rows of empty seats. I pulled up the seat dividers as soon as the seat-belt sign went off and stretched out to take a nap. When we arrived in Oakland, I got in my car and tuned my radio to the news. It was then I learned that the Unabomber had threatened to blow up a flight out of LAX that day.
      Paul Glusman
      Berkeley
     
      THE FORGOTTEN SOUTH
      I just finished perusing the March issue. The immigration article ["Fed Up with the Feds," ESQ.] was about events in San Diego County, but the lawyers quoted in the article were from Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. The CLAY Awards honored 43 California attorneys for their achievements, but zero from San Diego County. There were no San Diego lawyers on the White-Collar Defense Roundtable. Surely, I thought, a San Diego lawyer has had a "Business Travel Nightmare," but once again I was disappointed.
      I was beginning to wonder whether I'm delusional. I could have sworn that I practice law in San Diego, along with several other members of the State Bar. Thank goodness, when I got to the Discipline Report, it listed a lawyer from San Diego who had been disciplined! I'm not going insane?there really are lawyers in San Diego (not that you would know it from reading California Lawyer).
      Bryce Willett
      Carlsbad
     
      ODE TO THE LANDLINE
      I look forward to reading Rosie's Ramblings in each edition of California Lawyer, probably because I am as far behind the technology curve as Rosie is ahead of it. However, her column for March covered a topic that even a dinosaur like me knows something about. She wrote, "[I]t looks to me so logical to relegate landlines to very specific uses while VoIP becomes the standard for consumer telephony ..."
      I have a question for Rosie: Other than telephony, is there any technology where the quality and reliability of the product was better 50 years ago than it is now? For instance, landlines, unlike cell phones, don't lose connection on a regular basis. (Have you ever been in the middle of a detailed explanation of a complicated settlement proposal only to learn that you have been dispensing your brilliance into the ether for the last two minutes, because your client's cell phone dropped out?)
      Cell phones are great for convenience and emergencies. VoIP is going to be great for convenience and cheapness. But your landline won't get a virus. Your landline's server won't go down. Your landline won't be at the mercy of any of a myriad of Microsoft products (shudder). Your landline won't go silent because some satellite malfunctioned. Your landline will continue to provide you with steady service you can trust, with acceptable sound quality.
      You know your stuff, Rosie, but give me a good ol' landline any day. Yes, let us relegate landlines to very specific uses?like, say, when you need to communicate something important. And while I'm at it, when did it become mandatory to be in instant and constant communication with someone else all the time? Isn't anyone left out there who enjoys their own company, or at least some solitude once in awhile?
      Tim Lashlee
      Long Beach
     
      LETTERS ON LETTERS
      Tony Serra should get an award [Letters, March].
      I remember attending his Halloween party several years ago. "You are my hero," I told him.
      He said not to have heroes, they let you down.
      Well, Tony was wrong. He is my hero. I admire him for being honest. I admire him for fighting for justice while wearing used suits and driving an old car. I admire him because he has more integrity than 90 percent of the lawyers I know.
      Good for you, Tony. Please don't ever grow up!
      Jayne Kelly
      San Francisco
     
      California Lawyer welcomes letters to the editor and publishes excerpts from as many as possible. Please include your phone number and city of residence. Write to us at 44 Montgomery St., Suite 250, San Francisco, CA 94104, fax 415/296-2482, or email letters_callaw@dailyjournal.com.
     

---