Budget Cutting Disrupts Work At Courthouses By SHELLY GARCIA Senior Reporter Already crammed court calendars could be facing even greater pressure if another round of budget cuts hits California courtrooms as expected. So far, no one really knows how the revised mid-year budget due shortly will shake out, but with several anticipated sources of additional revenue for the state now in question, many think it’s a sure bet that the courts will be forced to make additional cutbacks in staffing and operations. If so, the civil courts will feel the greatest pain, perhaps facing fewer courtrooms for trials and longer waits for resolutions when the mid-year budget is revealed sometime in January. “I represent smaller companies and they’re impacted greatly because it’s money out of their pocket,” said Christine Lyden, a business and real estate litigation attorney in Woodland Hills. “If we lose judges, that’s obviously going to fall on clients. There’s nothing worse than waiting three or four hours to find out if there’s going to be a courtroom and finding out there’s not.” The courts recently moved to increase filing fees in an attempt to raise additional funds, but few think the move will be enough to cover the shortfall. “The news is more negative than positive,” said Larry Grassini, whose Woodland Hills firm, Grassini & Wrinkle, specializes in representing plaintiffs on major personal injury and product liability cases. “What’s happening is the budget compromises reached with the legislature and some of the fees that were supposed to be brought in are not covering, so there may be additional budgetary cuts that will need to be made by the courts.” Courthouses in the San Fernando Valley, including Van Nuys, Glendale, Burbank, Chatsworth, San Fernando and in Santa Clarita Valley, like many across the state, have already been strained by cuts made last year in anticipation of the 2003-2004 fiscal year budget. Countywide, some $57.3 million was sliced from the operating budget; 29 courtrooms were closed; 250 employees were pink slipped and another 300 to 400 jobs that became open were not replaced. About $20 million or $25 million alone came out of services and supplies, said Allan Parachini, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Superior Court. “Sometimes one wonders where the Post-its are,” Parachini said. “Toner cartridges are particularly precious.” Some courtrooms now share court reporters on Fridays, reducing the number of cases that can be heard, and judges in Van Nuys now share one research attorney. Painful as they were, the cuts were made with the hope that the courts could “avert catastrophic pain this year,” Parachini said. But developments since then may mean that all bets are off. Fund challenges A plan to raise funds to cover California’s deficit with a bond issue is under challenge in the courts and may not come to pass. Another challenge underway may reduce the property taxes the state collects. And Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to repeal the car registration tax increases once he is sworn in on Nov. 17. “Regardless of what he may conclude about expenditure levels, when you throw in vehicle license taxes and the $12.9 billion at risk in these bond challenges, we’re talking about $16.5 billion,” said Parachini. “That’s a huge unknown to plan around.” Parachini said the court’s “worst case” scenario calls for additional cuts in the neighborhood of $27 million. But no one knows how Schwarzenegger, with no political history behind him, will rank the courts among the many pressing priorities, nor is it clear how the cuts would be apportioned to the L.A. courts, which account for about 40 percent of the statewide trial court expenditures with a total budget of about $670 million, including judges’ salaries. Complicating matters even more is that many of the court’s costs healthcare and retirement, for instance are fixed. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has already agreed to a $10 million reduction in its contract to supply bailiffs and other security personnel to the courts and negotiations with the other unions involved in the system are underway, but those contracts do not include clauses that allow wages re-opened. What’s especially troubling to attorneys and judges is that, with all the pressing needs throughout the state and the shortage of funds, politicians may find it easier to sacrifice the courts, said James R. Felton, president of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association, which has launched a letter-writing campaign. “It’s a whole lot easier to cut from the court system than from, say, parents of autistic children seeking more services, because the court system doesn’t have eyes and ears and a pretty smile,” Felton said. “I’m not suggesting that those services aren’t important. But it’s so easy to cut things that don’t have a face on them, and it doesn’t mean they’re any less important. So what we’re trying to do is make sure that the governor-elect and the legislature knows that they have to be careful.” If more cuts are in the offing, the likelihood is that the number of bailiffs, court reporters and a myriad of other support staff needed to run a courtroom will be reduced, in effect decreasing the number of courtrooms that can be utilized at any given time. The brunt of the pain will be felt by civil trial attorneys because the laws governing criminal actions lay down specific timetables for the process, and available manpower would have to be diverted to the criminal courts in order to meet those deadlines. Forcing settlements? Civil attorneys worry that the resulting delays would not only interfere with trials, they could also force more clients to settle their cases out of court. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” Grassini said. “When you start taking cases and changing the time from one year to two, three or four years, a lot of things happen. People die. Witnesses move away. It’s more difficult to move cases.” Attorneys say that the increased filing fees have already placed an additional burden on small businesses that are seeking redress through the courts. Effective in August, the cost to file a limited civil case seeking damages from $10,000 to $25,000, increased to $277.50 from $128 previously, for instance. Probate filings for estates valued between $250,000 and $499,999 increased to $316 from $224.50 previously. For estates between $1 million and $1,499,999, the fee rose to $1,141 from $224.50 previously. Motions, stipulations or requests for continuance will now cost attorneys $110, up from $23 previously. “That stuff adds up,” said Lyden. “If you have an electrician, and let’s say he’s owed $15,000 on a job and this happens a lot he’s out this big chunk of money and now he’s got to come up with two-hundred something dollars plus pay me to file a complaint. It makes it much more difficult for small business.” The end result, these attorneys say, is that more than ever clients with few financial resources will be forced to settle their cases out of court. That already happens in the majority of cases, but attorneys say they worry about those lawsuits that are brought, not because of the potential financial reward, but rather to prove a point. “Some people feel it’s critical to them psychologically that they have their day in court,” said Alan Oberman, a civil litigator with offices in Woodland Hills. Oberman and others say that, already, many clients are often forced to settle out of court for economic reasons, and the settlements are always far less than what these attorneys believe they would have received had the case proceeded to trial. That trend, they say, is likely to become more prevalent in the coming year. “They’re pushing more and more outside the courtroom, and trying to get more cases resolved outside the court,” said Oberman. “I think that’s more of what you’re going to see.”
