Letters to the Editor

     EMPOWERING JURORS
      Regarding Arturo J. González's May article in Expert Advice ["The Changing Rules for Jury Trials"], I was stunned and amazed by his criticism of each of four new rules that were promulgated effective January 2007. The rules provide an option for a "mini-opening statement" to the jurors in advance of voir dire, encourage use of notebooks for jurors in complex civil cases, indicate jurors should be allowed to ask questions, and allow an option of reopening argument at jury impasses if it appears to be of assistance to jurors.
      Mr. González attacks each one of these strategies, which are, in my view, enormously powerful tools to help litigators. Mini-openings are unhelpful, he writes, because they might "use up" the arsenal of the trial lawyer. Juror questions favor the least-prepared lawyers in civil cases. Notebooks distract jurors. Reopening arguments benefits prosecutors in criminal cases.
      I have been permitting lawyers to use these "new" strategies for over 20 years and have never seen, in any instance, validity in the objections raised by Mr. González. On the contrary, they have been used extremely effectively by trial lawyers to ensure that their messages and their positions are clearly understood by the fact finders. Each technique, historically, comes from recommendations made over a decade ago by a blue ribbon commission that consisted of some of the best and brightest trial lawyers.
      Allowing juror questions that otherwise remain underground, for example, permits the litigator to address misconceptions and omissions that are the result rarely of lack of preparation but most often lack of comprehension by jurors. Not allowing questions does not make them go away. It absolutely deprives all sides?criminal and civil, plaintiff, prosecutor, and defendant?from weighing in, and leaves all parties in the dangerous and frankly unprofessional position of hoping that speculation favors them.
      My last trial ended recently, and the comments from jurors in that case reflect what I hear almost daily. Said one: "I ... was moved from a rather negative 'selfish mindset' to a positive, hopeful attitude toward service. I was delighted to be chosen to serve on your jury. Your progressive concept of allowing the jury to directly ask questions helped me immensely. In fact, several of my questions made it into the 'mix'?sharpening my focus and enhancing my understanding of crucial points being argued. Having that ability to inject those specific questions into the proceedings ultimately made a major impact on the decision I helped render with my fellow jurors.... I felt comfortable, respected, and completely free of distraction. I truly believe that the combination of these components helped make me the best possible juror I could be."
      I think the soul of our democracy is looking pretty healthy. These new rules are helping lawyers be better advocates for their clients.
      Judge Jacqueline Connor
      Los Angeles Superior Court
     
      FAULTING FAMILY COURT
      Roderic Duncan gives good advice ["A Judge's Advice: Stay Out of Court," In Pro Per, May] but writes with a judicious circumspection that masks the true depth of dysfunction in the so-called family courts. These courts aren't just poorly run, they are a threat to the well-being of every child whose parents divorce.
      Perjury is rampant, if not encouraged. Overbroad restraining orders are stamped out en masse in unnoticed ex parte proceedings. These effectively terminate parental relationships, always with fathers. Making a mockery of the "no fault" concept adopted in the 1960s, divorcing men are routinely criminalized in myriad other ways, always without a fair trial. It is as if the Constitution had a "family court exception" written into each amendment. It doesn't.
      Blame for this atrocious state of affairs rests squarely with the Judicial Council, which has chronically neglected to fashion the rules needed to curb restraining-order abuse and otherwise bring family court proceedings in line with rudimentary due process. The silence of the State Bar is also deafening.
      Laurance S. Smith
      Sacramento
     
      LETTERS ON LETTERS
      I read Malaika Costello-Dougherty's article "We're Outta Here" in the February issue and all of the letters it engendered in the May issue. After 23 years as a solo practitioner in Los Angeles County, I got fed up and moved to Big Bear Lake, California, in 1996, where I hooked up with my partner, who had done the same thing only two years earlier. We now practice law in a small town as general practitioners, which means we have to know something about everything. There are only seven lawyers in town, and all of us are overwhelmed with work. My partner, who handles criminal, domestic-relations, and short-term cases, puts in six days a week. I handle the more complex civil litigation, and put in seven-day weeks. I am lucky to take one Sunday off each month. Fortunately, two of my children are grown and one is in boarding school. I only have to deal with an unhappy wife.
      About once a year we run an ad for an associate lawyer. Frankly, a woman with a few years' experience and a family life would be ideal. We just need someone to help with the workload, and we would be delighted with a person happy to work a 35-to-40-hour week. After we run the ad, we are always flooded with inquiries. However, when we mention that we are not able to pay the $100,000-plus salary that associates in large firms in major metropolitan areas expect, we are told that the job sounds interesting but the applicant cannot live on what we are offering.
      Life in a small resort town has its rewards. We have three ski resorts in the winter. We have a lake year-round. In the summer there is hiking, mountain biking, etc. We are located only a couple of hours from Los Angeles and Orange counties.
      If someone wants to work for the big bucks and the prestige of a big firm, then they should be prepared to pay the price. Otherwise, our offer for an associate at a fraction of the big-city salary and with a fraction of the big-city/big-firm hassles remains open.
      David Philipson
      Big Bear Lake
     
      Mr. Sandstrom's reference [Letters, May] to the author who wrote about the difficulties of women working in the legal profession and other such authors as "babes" shows how little progress women have made in our quest to be considered equals, thanks in large part to men like him. He should be ashamed of himself. I hope his mother sees his letter and slaps him upside his misogynistic head.
      Nancy Schons Smoke
      Riverside
     
      Critics of the term "special appearance" miss the point [Russell P. Nowell letter, May]. A phrase can have different meanings in different contexts and still be understandable. If, while reading a case file, I exclaim, "This case is a slam dunk!" I don't think anyone imagines that I will run across a basketball floor, leap into the air under the basket, and thrust the case file down through the hoop.
      A lawyer who states in court that he is appearing specially is using shorthand to say: I am not counsel of record; I am, however, a member of the bar, and counsel of record has asked me to come here because he or she (a) has an office far away, (b) has a schedule conflict, or (c) expects to be scolded and would rather have someone else take the brunt of the scolding.
      Michael Mahoney
      San Francisco
     

---