Sacramento Lawyer-Summer 2020 by Sacramento County Bar Association

Lawyer SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION MAGAZINE

SUMMER 2020

2020 SCBA Judge of the Year

Stacy Boulware Eurie Best Practices as Employees Return to the Workforce A Look inside Virtual Court Externships Photo by Mark Long-Eleakis & Elder Photography

www.sacbar.org

POWERING

PAYMENTS FOR THE Trust Payment IOLTA Deposit Amount

$ 1,500.00 Reference

NEW CASE

LEGAL INDUSTRY

The easiest way to accept credit card and eCheck payments online.

Card Number

**** **** **** 4242

Powerful Technology

Developed specifically for the legal industry to ensure comprehensive security and trust account compliance

Powering Law Firms

Plugs into law firms’ existing workflows to drive cash flow, reduce collections, and make it easy for clients to pay

Powering Integrations

The payment technology behind the legal industry’s most popular practice management tools

15 years of experience and the only payment technology vetted and approved by 110+ state, local, and specialty bars as well as the ABA

SCBA

S A C R A M E N T O C O U N T Y B A R A S S O C I AT I O N

ACCEPT MORE PAYMENTS WITH LAWPAY 877-759-4525 | lawpay.com/sacbar

INDEX SACRAMENTO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION MAGAZINE

SUMMER 2020 VOLUME 120, NUMBER 3

Lawyer SACRAMENTO

COVER STORY

18 Judge Stacy Boulware Eurie: SCBA's Judge of the Year is a Tireless Advocate for Change in the Judicial System

FEATURE ARTICLE 8 Paying for Public Records 14 Best Practices as Employees Return to the Workforce 24 The Summer of the COVID-19 Court Externships 30 Retired Sacramento County Superior Court Judge James L. Long Remembered EDITORIAL 10 Why Lawyers Should Care About the California Bar Exam 28 Lawyers and Justice in a Time of Chaos VLSP 22 Volunteering in the New Normal EVENTS 26 International Women’s Day Celebration DEPARTMENTS 7

EDITORS Ellen Arabian-Lee Arabian-Lee Law Corporation Kim Garner Duggan Law Corporation Editor@sacbar.org

President’s Message

PRODUCTION DESIGN Milenko Vlaisavljevic (916) 604-9682 milenko@sacbar.org ADVERTISING SALES EVENTS - MEMBER CLASSIFIED ADS Cecilia Uribe (916) 604-9667 cecilia.uribe@sacbar.org

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

SCBA OFFICERS Shanāe Buffington - President Trevor Carson - 1st Vice President Bryan Hawkins - 2nd Vice President Andi Liebenbaum - Secretary/Treasurer MEMBERSHIP & FEE ARBITRATION Martha Fenchen (916) 604-9726 mfenchen@sacbar.org

18 Sacramento Lawyer welcomes letters and article suggestions from readers. Please e-mail them to editor@sacbar.org. The Sacramento County Bar Association reserves the right to edit articles and letters submitted for publication. Please contact the SCBA at 916-564-3780 for deadline information or fax 916-564-3787. Web page: www.sacbar.org. Caveat: Articles and other work submitted to Sacramento Lawyer become the copyrighted property of the Sacramento County Bar Association. Returns of tangible items such as photographs are by permission of the Editors, by pickup at the SCBA office only.

30 Sacramento Lawyer (USPS 0981-300) is published quarterly by the Sacramento County Bar Association, 425 University Ave., Suite 120, Sacramento, CA 95825. Issn 1087-8771. Annual subscription rate: $6.00 included in membership dues, or $24.00 for nonmembers. Periodicals postage paid at Sacramento, California. Postmaster: Send address changes to Sacramento Lawyer, 425 University Ave., Suite 120, Sacramento, CA 95825. Copyright 2020 by the Sacramento County Bar Association.

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

YOUR SUPPORT IS CRITICAL FOR THE SCBA’S SUCCESS Dear Valued Members, As we continue to navigate this year’s challenges, I’m hopeful that someday soon we will have the opportunity to reflect on how collaboration helped us overcome turbulent times, both personally and here at the Sacramento County Bar Association, to create a better and stronger community. I am particularly appreciative for the heroes who, supporting the bar association during our time of need, exhibit tremendous value by donating their time and expertise to ensure the longevity of the association and the programs we offer. And I continue to be inspired by the work of those who are dedicated to improving access to justice, locally and throughout the country. Despite the many challenges we face, here is another edition of the Sacramento Lawyer magazine. In this issue, we highlight the accomplishments of our Judge of the Year, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Stacy Boulware Eurie. We will recognize Judge Boulware Eurie on Thursday, October 29, 2020 at our reimagined and all-virtual BenchBar Reception and Annual Meeting (joined into a single powerhouse event) for her work in implementing profound changes in the delivery of resources to youth in the juvenile justice system. Thank you to Judge Christopher Krueger for writing the cover story featuring Judge Boulware Eurie. Over the past few months, we have organized and co-hosted vir-

Shanāe Buffington, President, Sacramento County Bar Association. She can be reached at Shanae.Buffington@edd. ca.gov.

tual town hall meetings with Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Russell Hom, Assistant Presiding Judge Michael Bowman, Supervising Civil Judge Richard Sueyoshi, and Supervising Family Law Judge Bunmi Awoniyi. These wouldn’t be possible without the active indulgence of our superior court leaders and association volunteers. A special thank you to moderators Karen Jacobsen of the Sacramento Superior Court Civil Law Advisory Committee, Jennifer Mouzis, Chair of our Criminal Law Section, and Ian McGlone, Secretary of our Civil Litigation Section, for facilitating these panel discussions. We remain committed to working with the judiciary to organize additional town hall sessions providing you, our members, with opportunities to inquire about changes to court operations, and to learn of the latest developments as court leaders plan for the transition back to in-person proceedings. Like many of you, the Sacramento County Bar Association has suffered during the pandemic. The in-person services our association previously offered, such as luncheons, networking events and receptions, have been converted to a digital format. In addition, approximately 20 percent of our members found themselves unable to renew their membership this year. As a result, our association has seen a reduction of nearly 60 percent of our operating revenue, owing to the pandemic. Because of these economic changes, the board of di-

rectors made the incredibly difficult decision to lay off staff, including the executive director. We hope the association’s time without an executive director will be brief, and remain hopeful that our financial outlook will improve as infection rates in our region decline. During this time, we trust your engagement and support of the Sacramento County Bar Association will remain a professional priority. Please continue to join and support our sections, divisions, and affiliate bar associations, all of which are committed to advancing the scholarship, diversity, and inclusion of our profession. In 1918, the Sacramento County Bar Association was born, created during the last century’s pandemic. While this may be unprecedented times for us, our bar association has weathered a similar storm. I’m confident we will survive this one but, to do so, your support is critical. Please support by registering for webinars, and attending this year’s combined Bench-Bar Reception and Annual Meeting. Sponsorship opportunities are also available. And, if you haven’t been able to renew your membership, please contact Martha Fenchen at mfenchen@sacbar.org. Thank you for your leadership, your membership, and support of our 102-year-old bar association. Be Safe and Stay Well, Shanāe S. Buffington

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

FEATURE ARTICLE

PAYING FOR PUBLIC RECORDS By Christine N. Wood

Christine Wood is the Director of PRA Services and e-Discovery Counsel at Best Best & Krieger LLP. She can be contacted at christine.wood@bbklaw.com.

ithin California, the Legislature has provided a constitutional guarantee that the public can access a municipality’s records through the California Public Records Act (PRA), which is codified at Gov. Code § 6250, et seq.1 “Modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act, the PRA was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to records in the possession of state and local agencies.”2 This right to access is broad, but not absolute. The PRA contains specific and narrow exemptions to protect an individual’s privacy interests; for example, personnel or medical records are exempt from disclosure if their release would result in an unwarranted invasion of someone’s privacy.3 Additionally, the PRA allows an agency to collect the direct costs of duplication, such as the direct cost of making copies, (i.e., paper and toner).4 Otherwise, the public should be able to scrutinize the work of public agencies without the worry of costs. As you can imagine, technology has reduced the need to photocopy records when providing them to the public. Hence, in 2000, the Legislature amended the PRA to make it easier for agencies to get records to the public and to clarify when the public may need to pay for access to electronic records. Gov. Code § 6253.9 was added to allow an agency to charge the public for the cost of programming and computer services necessary to produce a copy of the records, if a request requires data compilation, extraction, or programming to produce the record.5 Interestingly, twenty years after this provision was enacted, the California Supreme Court recently pro-

vided guidance as to what the Legislature meant by “extraction” such that the public would have to pay for the public record. In National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward (2020) 9 Cal.5th 488, the California Supreme Court considered whether the City of Hayward could recover its costs to acquire and utilize special computer programming (e.g., Windows Movie Maker software) to extract exempt material from otherwise disclosable body camera footage.6 Here are the facts. In 2014, the Hayward Police Department provided aid to the City of Berkeley in policing demonstrations to protest the murder of unarmed black men at the hands of law enforcement.7 After the demonstrations, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) submitted two public records requests for, inter alia, the body camera footage from the Hay-

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

ward officers policing the demonstrations.8 Hayward identified 141 videos totaling 90 hours of footage that were potentially responsive to the NLG request.9 In cooperation with Hayward, NLG narrowed its first request to six specific hours of footage.10 Using Windows Movie Maker, Hayward spent 35.3 hours to remove exempt audio and video material and charged NLG roughly $3,000 for the time spent searching for and editing these six hours of video.11 NLG paid, under protest, for the footage that was responsive to the first request.12 After the City charged NLG for the footage responsive to the second request, NLG filed a writ of mandate seeking a determination that the City improperly charged it.13 Since the issue was one of statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court looked to the statutory language and the legislative intent to determine whether “extraction”

as used in Gov. Code § 6253.9(b) included the extraction of exempt material from otherwise disclosable electronic records.14 The Court found that the Legislature drafted Gov. Code § 6253.9 specifically to make it easier for the public to gain access to electronic records.15 Since it was a long-standing and well-accepted principle that public agencies cannot charge for the cost of removing exempt material from traditional records,16 the Court inferred from the legislative intent that the Legislature did not intend to make it more costly to obtain electronic records.17 Therefore, it would have been incongruent with the Legislature’s intent to allow Hayward to charge NLG for the cost of using Windows Movie Maker to extract exempt material from the requested body camera footage.18 “Just as agencies cannot recover the costs of searching through a filing cabinet for paper records, they cannot recover comparable costs for electronic records.”19 Once the Court determined what was not meant by “extraction,” it began to offer some guidance about what the Legislature intended by the term. According to the Court, since the term extraction was “sandwiched” between technical processes, such as data compilation and programming, it was reasonable to assign a more technical meaning to the term.20 “In the field of computing, the term ‘data extraction’…is generally used to refer to a process of retrieving required or necessary data for a particular use.”21 Hence, extraction as used in Gov. Code § 6253.9 would involve constructing a new record after retrieving responsive data from an unproducible government database.22 Hayward argued that this holding by the Court would not comport with established precedent because, as a general rule, the PRA did not require agencies to create records in order to satisfy a records request.23 The Court addressed this directly by distinguishing between creating a record and constructing a record from public data.24 “[T]he PRA does not relieve agencies of the obligation to retrieve data to construct disclosable records; it instead protects them from any obligation to generate new substantive

content for purposes of public release.”25 In fact, Gov. Code § 6253.9 specifically provides that a “requester shall bear the cost of producing a copy of the record, including the cost to construct a record.” This language would be meaningless if agencies were not required, in appropriate circumstances, to construct records.26 National Lawyer Guild v. Hayward was an incredibly important case to public agencies because it clarified a unique provision in the PRA that provide for cost-shifting. The Court’s decision may not have affirmed the City of Hayward’s fees for redacting the body camera footage, but it spells out clearly how agencies can shift costs to requesters—a very rare opportunity within the PRA.

5. § 6253.9(b). 6. National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward (May 28, 2020, S252445) ___ P.3d ___ [p. 4] (hereinafter “NLG”). 7. Id. at p. 3. 8. Id. 9. Id. 10. Id. 11. Id. at p. 4. 12. Id. 13. Id. 14. Id. at p. 5. 15. Id. at p. 7. 16. North County Parents Organization v. Department of Education (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 144, 146. 17. NLG (May 28, 2020, S252445) ___ P.3d ___ [p. 7] 18. Id. 19. Id. at p. 8. 20. Id. at p. 5. 21. Id. 22. Id. at p. 6.

1. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the California Government Code. 2. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 290. 3. § 6254(c). 4. County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1336.

23. § 6252(e); Sander v. Superior Court (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 651, 665; Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1075. 24. NLG (May 28, 2020, S252445) ___ P.3d ___ [p. 6 (citing Sander, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at 669)]. 25. Id. 26. Id. at 5.

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

EDITORIAL The opinions in the below editorial do not necessarily reflect the views of the SCBA or the Editors of the Sacramento Lawyer magazine. The Editors welcome the submission of articles reflecting other views on this important topic in a future issue.

WHY LAWYERS SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA BAR EXAM By Karen M. Goodman

he COVID-19 pandemic has created unwanted changes for everyone. In the case of the state bar exam, it has highlighted a bad situation and made it worse. And the State Bar, beset on all sides by interested parties who for years have pushed for modifications that suit their own needs, has made one bad decision after another leading up to the next exam administration this October. Should the exam we all had to pass in order to be certified as attorneys test professional responsibility? They say no. Should it test minimum compe-

Karen Goodman is the principal of Goodman Law Corporation, served as Chair of the Committee of Bar Examiners and was a member of the California State Bar Board of Trustees. She is currently Vice Chair of the CLA Ethics Committee. She is a certified specialist in Legal Malpractice Law.

tence to practice law in our state? The Bar doesn’t even have a definition of minimum competence. In fact, encouraged by some of California’s leading law school deans, they are leaning toward use of a maximum incompetence standard. Should the minimum passing score be downgraded? The State Bar has been working toward that for years. Now the pandemic has prompted the Supreme Court to approve an on-line version of the Bar Exam for this Fall. With the State Bar’s urging, the Court is now considering abandoning the California focused one

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

day testing consisting of essays and practical skills in favor of the generic exam offered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (known as the Uniform Bar Exam). If you ask the State Bar where public protection should fall in the equation, it appears to have been forgotten. The Bar Exam has been a gauntlet that must be navigated before a lawyer can obtain a license to practice law. In California, the Bar Exam has been attacked by politicians, Law Schools Deans, unsuccessful applicants and more recently, State Bar executives. The Bar Exam has changed dramatically since the 3 days of essays to the now trimmed down 2-day exam. Now, with the COVID-19 pandemic prompting the Supreme Court to move the July 2020 bar exam to October and have it exclusively “on line,” it is clear that the Bar’s admission standards are under attack. Since I served as chair of the Committee of Bar Examiners in 2016-2017, the self-interested stakeholders have been clamoring to weaken admission standards under the false guise of promoting diversity. Every time the test results hit a new low, the cries get louder that the Bar Exam is unfair, denies “good people” the privilege to become a lawyer and undermines access to justice for poor communities. This was illuminated most recently when the results of the February 2020 bar exam were published

in May 2020. Reportedly, only 26.8% of the test takers passed the February bar exam1. A low pass rate does not mean that the Bar Exam is too hard; but it has increased the loud cries to make it easier. How lowering the admissions standards promotes public protection is doubtful. The State Bar continues to appease the stakeholders who ignore that the pass rate has been under 50% since 2014. In essence, the goal post has remained in the same place, but there are a lower number of applicants able to kick the ball through the goal posts. So, the Bar is attempting to “move up the goal posts” so that less qualified applicants can become licensed lawyers. That should be scary to everyone associated with the legal profession. The Bar Exam is supposed to test minimum competence of an entry level attorney. This is not a difficult concept and is generally considered to be defined as follows: A minimally competent applicant will have basic knowledge and understanding of core subject matters in law and legal practices, fundamental principles and theories of law, as well as their limitation and relationships to each other. The applicant will be able to: 1) distinguish relevant from irrelevant information of critical importance to the underlying issues, assess the reliability of facts and determine the need for additional facts; 2) analyze the basic legal rules and important principles applicable to a problem; 3) apply elemental problem solving skills to diagnose a problem and generate a common alternative solution; 4) formulate conclusions with limited justification, and communicate effectively the key issues and solutions. 2 The State Bar has attempted to ignore the “minimum competence” requirements in its efforts to appease many of its conflicted stakeholders, including Law School deans.3 The California Attorney Practice Analysis (CAPA) working group defined “minimum competence” as the “le-

FREE SERVICE FOR ATTORNEYS! Need a case or law review article? Want a Shephard’s or KeyCite Report? Law Library Card Holders can access our free document delivery service at: https://saclaw.org/document-delivery-cardholders/ Limit 5 documents per day, per attorney

609 9th St Sacramento, CA 95814 | 916-874-6012 | www.saclaw.org

Available in California & Nevada for: • Settlement Conferences • Mediations • Special Master

Over 40 Years of Judicial Experience As a Federal and State Court Judge, Mediator and Settlement Conference Judge

AREAS OF EXPERTISE: • Employment Litigation • Personal Injury

• Complex Business Disputes • Civil Rights Litigation

Call (916) 558-6185 for appointments and questions www. ramsadr.com for resume & rates 400 Capitol Mall, Eleventh Floor, Sacramento, California 95814 judgeramirez@ramsadr.com

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

EDITORIAL gal knowledge, competency areas, and professional skills required for the entry-level practice of law and the effective, ethical representation of clients.”4 The Law School Deans are fully aware of their students’ shortcomings but because of the economic need to fill seats, law schools have diluted admissions standards and softened graduation requirements. What the Bar leaders overlook is that watering down the Bar Exam is contrary to public protection. Once the applicant passes the Bar Exam, he or she has a general license to practice law in California. Consumers assume that lawyers are competent to handle legal problems. This assumption is misplaced even for many who successfully pass the Bar Exam. Unfortunately, what stakeholders refuse to admit is that many licensed applicants are not “minimally competent” under the well-established standard after they have spent 3-4 years in law school and invested many thousands of dollars in pursuit of legal education. Contrary to many legal educators’ claims, merely graduating from law school does not ensure “minimum competence.” This is particularly true in a state with 18 ABA accredited schools and another 23 “California accredited” law schools and another 18 unaccredited, “registered” law schools. The standards for admissions from school to school vary widely. The oversight—whether at the ABA or California State Bar level is suspect. The knowledge, skills and abilities of law students vary dramatically. A standard exam is necessary in order to ensure “minimum competence,” before those individuals can hold themselves out to practice law in the state of California. I hear a lot of complaints that the California bar exam “cut score” is higher than New York and many other states. In fact, all but Delaware has a “lower cut score.” But California

needs a meaningful bar exam since it permits applicants with non-traditional backgrounds to take the exam. A college degree is not required for California “accredited” or registered law schools. Law school isn’t even required. In fact, as Kim Kardashian is attempting to do, a person can simply “study with a lawyer” and sit for the Bar. The California State Bar set a cut score (the difference between passing and failing) at 1390, which is scaled with each exam to take into account differences in the exam from year to year. It is the equivalent of a “C student.”5 When we invested countless hours in 2017 in the cut-line study, the report issued indicated that the current cut score appropriately measured minimum competence.6 It could be set a little higher or a little lower, but there certainly isn’t any basis to conclude that the Bar Exam is “unfair,” or that dropping the cut score down to 1330 (New York standards) promotes the Bar’s mission of public protection.7 In July, the Supreme Court announced it was reducing the cut score to 1390, citing "bar exam studies." “Passing” incompetent lawyers hinders public protection because consumers won’t know that their lawyers are incompetent until it is too late. By the time the marketplace catches up with the “incompetent” lawyers, many consumers will be victimized by deficient lawyer work by the licensees who are not minimally competent. This is most certainly true since the Bar has failed to require any “practice ready” requirement for admission to become a lawyer. The Bar Exam has been historically difficult, but that is not a bad thing. The Bar Exam requires preparation and diligence. It certainly could be improved, but it is not “unfair” to applicants. While the research has shown that women do better on the essay and practical skill portions of the exam than men, the converse is

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

true for the MBE portion. Given the importance of “communication” as a critical competency for lawyers, it would make sense to include an “oral” component to the exam. However, that has proven impractical; particularly in California, which tests a large number of applicants two times a year. The attack on the Bar Exam has focused on the Committee of Bar Examiners, the graders and the exam itself. None of these targets are “wrongdoers” in the story. The Committee of Bar Examiners was created by the California Legislature to work under the auspices of the Supreme Court to oversee the Bar Exam. However, over the past several years, significant inroads were made by the State Bar leadership to reduce the Committee’s role in overseeing the Bar Exam. When the State Bar Board of Trustees voted on May 15, 2020 to accept several reports, the Committee was largely excluded from active participation in any of the working groups that developed these reports. The Committee of Bar Examiners’ role has been surreptitiously replaced by secret working groups heavily influenced by biased stakeholders who want to reduce the standards for the Bar Exam. This is perhaps best illuminated by the results of the CAPA working group, which was formed in 2018 and presented its report to the Board of Trustees on May 15, 2020. When I was on the Committee of Bar Examiners, I heard many Law School Deans complain the Bar tested on too many subjects. This working group was supposed to conduct an intensive analysis of the required competencies for a California lawyer. Despite the increased complexity of the legal world and the conclusions from the 2017 content validation study (which found the subjects tested to be appropriate for California applicants)8, the CAPA working group recommended reducing the number

of subject matters tested from 13 to 8. The CAPA working group recommended that Professional Responsibility be excluded from proposed tested subjects despite the Bar’s express mission of public protection. This was also in spite of the results of the surveys conducted in California and by the NCBE which ranked professional responsibility as the number one subject newly licensed lawyers had to master in their first 3 years of practice.9 Also on the proposed cutting block now is family law, trusts and estates and business associations. All these subjects have been tested on the Bar Exam for years. All these California focused subjects are the frequent source of questions California consumers ask California lawyers. Even if the answer is to refer the consumer to a “specialist,” each California lawyer should have some basic knowledge of these areas even if not specifically practicing in them. If minimum competence requires a basic knowledge of applicable law, including California subjects such as community property, then these subjects should be tested. If they are not tested, they won’t be taught. The sole beneficiaries of reducing the number of subject areas are the law schools who refuse to take responsibility for their relaxed admissions standards, “supportive” teaching methods (including the widespread abandonment of the Socratic method) and unwillingness to fail students who are unlikely to ever achieve minimum competence. Moving to an online exam for the fall 2020 Bar Exam is not going to do anything to assure us that successful applicants are minimally competent. This seems to simply be moving the Bar Exam down the road to a mere “check the box” to obtain a license. The Department of Consumer Affairs’ evaluation of the Bar Exam reported that the California Bar Exam meets acceptable standards for test-

ing and grading.10 However, one of the required standards, is that all applicants are comparably treated the same way for the exam.11 That can’t occur when each applicant is taking the test in a different environment. Moreover, the testing environment needs to provide “reasonable” comfort for the applicants with minimal distractions.12 What we have learned from the “Shelter-in-Place” environment in 2020 is that it is very easy to become distracted when working from home. There isn’t any reason why the Bar couldn’t have located either more testing facilities or larger facilities so that social distancing guidelines could be observed. Finally, simply resorting to the Uniform Bar Exam doesn’t answer the question of how to determine whether an applicant is minimally competent. The UBE tests on the same 7 broad subjects that the MBE does. It doesn’t address the many California subjects that are critical for a California lawyer. If each state controls its admissions process and each state has their own substantive laws, there must be testing on California specific subjects. New York went to the UBE a few years ago, but reportedly is reconsidering it due to a perception that the Bar Exam has become too watered down and does not test minimum competence. In order to promote public protection, every California lawyer needs to be concerned about the future lawyers in our state. Lowering standards for admission does not advance the future of the legal profession. We need our lawyers to be critical thinkers and good communicators. Those future lawyers will be our associates, partners and eventual successors. They will represent our clients, our parents, our siblings and us. They will have the ability to transform lives—for good or bad. We need them to start their careers as “minimally competent.” We cannot assume that merely because they

have a law degree they should be licensed to practice law.

1 5/8/20 State Bar Press Release where Acting Executive Director Donna Hershowitz announced: “Meanwhile, we are moving forward on both near-term and long-term efforts that will affect the future of the bar exam.” 2 Chad W. Buckendahl, Phd, ASC Ventures, Standard Setting Workshop, California State Bar 5/17. 3 For the 2017 State Bar Standard Setting study, “minimum competence” was defined as an applicant being “able to demonstrate the following at a level that shows meaningful knowledge, skill and legal reasoning ability, but will likely also provide responses that reveal incompleteness, significant imperfection, and errors of both fact and judgment.” (Buckendahl, Final report, Conducting a Standard Setting Study for the California State Bar Exam (7/28/17), p. 11) 4 4/20/20 Report, The Practice of Law in California: Findings from the California Attorney Practice Analysis, p. 13. 5 Klein, 2011 Report, History of General Bar Examination Structure and Pass/Fail Rules. 6 Buckendahl, Final Report, Conducting a Standard Setting Study for the California Bar Exam, p. 4. 7 Buckendahl, Final Report, Conducting a Standard Setting Study for the California Bar Exam, p. 4. 8 Buckendahl, (10/4/17) Final Report, Conducting a Content Validation Study for the California Bar Exam, p. 21 (finding the current bar exam measures important knowledge, skills and abilities consistent with the expectations of newly licensed lawyers). 9 NCBE (3/20) Testing Task Force Phase 2 Report, p. 22). 10 DCA (1/20) Review of the California Bar Examination Administration and Associated Components, p. 17. 11 American Education Research Association (2014) Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 3.4. 12 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 6.4.

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

FEATURE ARTICLE

BEST PRACTICES AS EMPLOYEES RETURN TO THE WORKFORCE

By Jennifer Duggan and Susanna Matingou

he workplace has been transformed as a result of COVID-19. Employers must balance new requirements, staffing changes, safety and hygiene concerns, and managing their operations, all while avoiding management missteps and liability. Now that some or all of the workforce is returning to work, it is more important than ever to think proactively. As lawyers, we may be employers, employees, and trusted counsel for the same. This article highlights key strategies and a checklist for employers as their workforce returns. Have a Plan! And Be Willing to Amend It Pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), all employers have a legal duty to maintain a “hazard-free workplace,” and if employers are voluntarily exposing employees to hazards in violation of published guidance, they are at risk for infected employees as well as litigation. On May 7, 2020, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued COVID-19 Industry Guidance - Office Workspaces which includes comprehensive guidance and steps to take as employees return to the workplace.1 Savvy employers will become familiar with the OSHA guidance. Overall, employers should be adaptable, recognize when certain strategies are not working, and be willing to adjust. First, employers should continue the key prevention strategies which most everyone is already familiar with: maintain physical distancing to the maximum extent possible; provide/facilitate use of face coverings for employees and customers/clients; and implement frequent handwashing and regular cleaning and disinfection. There are a number of other measures that employers should be prepared to take: • Prepare a worksite-specific COVID-19 prevention plan that includes a risk assessment of all work areas, and a designated person at each location to implement that plan. Train employees on the plan. • Develop an exposure-response plan that addresses: isolation, containment and contact tracking procedures; stay-at-home requirements; and exposure communications to affected staff.

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

Jennifer Duggan is a Shareholder at Duggan Law Corporation. She can be reached at jennifer@duggan-law.com. Susanna Matingou is Of Counsel at Duggan Law Corporation. She can be reached at susanna@duggan-law.com.

• Provide personal protective equipment (PPE) such as: masks, gloves, face shields, and personal hand sanitizer. • Detail cleaning procedures and procure supplies. • Establish physical distancing measures within the workplace, such as staggered shifts and meal/rest breaks; rotate weeks in the workplace and working remotely; move workstations to increase separation distance; implement one-way traffic patterns throughout workplace. • Consider staggered and/or voluntary returns -- welcome back a smaller “test group” of employees. If feasible, let employees choose their return date out of several staggered return dates. • Restrict business travel: start with essential travel only and define what that is. Follow government guidance to ease restrictions over time. • Define customer and/or visitor contact protocols such as: directing customer traffic through workplace, limiting the number of customers in any area at one time, prohibiting handshake greetings, using video or audio conferencing instead of in-person client meetings, and providing contactless pickup and delivery of products. • Be aware of how the workers’ compensation framework might interact with workplace COVID-19 infection. Worker’s compensation will usually pre-empt claims by an employee for injury at work, but there are exceptions to this, such as if the employer is grossly negligent. Employee Screening Do’s and Don’ts YOU MAY: take employee temperatures at work. Temperature checks should be reliable, performed consistently, and respect employees’ privacy. All employees entering facilities should be checked only by trained personnel and the results should be treated as confidential. YOU MAY ASK: employees if they have tested positive for or been diagnosed with COVID-19, if they have symptoms of COVID-19, (e.g., fever of or over 100.4 F, cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, or loss of taste

or smell); if they have had close contact with any person who has tested positive for, or has otherwise been diagnosed with, COVID-19 infection in the past 14 days; if they have been asked to self-quarantine by a health official within the past 14 days; and whether they have traveled to, or stopped over in, a country for which the CDC has issued a Level 3 travel health notice. YOU MAY NOT ASK: an employee if they have any underlying health condition that would make them more vulnerable if infected by COVID-19. This would be a violation of the employee’s privacy. If you do ask such a question, any employment decision you later make about that employee could be scrutinized as potentially discriminatory, based on the employee’s disability, or the employer’s perception of the employee as having a disability. If an employee has tested positive for COVID-19, there are key steps employers should take immediately. These steps involve the employee and all others who may have been exposed. Advise your clients to consult with experienced employment counsel to implement these steps properly. Consider Handbook or Policy Changes We are not back to business as usual. Employers will likely need to update or create policies to reflect our new reality, including some of the following: • Paid-leave policies adjusted to reflect new requirements and actual business needs.

• Attendance policies relaxed to encourage sick employees to stay home and which take into account potential increased childcare obligations. • Time-off request procedures clarified to indicate when time off can be required by the employer, should sick employees need to be sent home. • Flexible scheduling options implemented allowing for compressed workweeks and flexible start and stop times. • Meal and rest break policies adjusted to stagger times and processes implemented to encourage physical distancing. • Telecommuting policies detailed to reflect the type of work that is able to be done remotely and the procedures for requesting telework. • Information technology policies revised to reflect remote work hardware, software, support, and employee reimbursements. Avoid the Appearance of Bias in Employment Decisions If the workforce returns in waves, employers should not specifically designate younger employees, or employees without chronic underlying conditions, to return first. This could invite an age or disability discrimination suit, even if the intention was to protect vulnerable employees. Also, employers must beware of the potential disparate impact that their decisions could have. If the

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

first work unit permitted to return consists solely of employees under 40, and there are older employees in other departments still at home, an employer could be exposed to liability for the discriminatory impact of that decision, even if it had nothing to do with age. Employers must not retaliate against employees for taking COVID-19 protected leave, or because employees might need extra leave in the future. For example, employers must not decide not to re-hire an employee because she has significant caretaking obligations due to COVID-19. In short, employers should ensure they have a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for every employment decision. Employers can be advised to test their reason by articulating it in a way that they would not mind saying aloud in front of a jury. Finally, employers should ensure they have clear documentation of the reasons for their decisions. Childcare In the COVID-19 Era With the closure of schools and daycares, childcare has been one of the biggest issues impacting both employers and employees. Although it remains unclear whether schools will open again, almost nothing is, or will be, the same. Some schools are planning scheduled days off, online learning options, and modified schedules. Some parents might opt for homeschool or other alternatives. It is important that employers understand their duties and obligations toward their employees with child-

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF BUSINESS DISPUTES

care needs. The Family First Coronavirus Relief Act (FFCRA), which applies to businesses with fewer than 500 employees2 and certain government entities, provides the following leave for all employees of a covered employer, regardless of tenure: two weeks (up to 80 hours, depending on full or part-time status) of paid sick leave at twothirds the employee’s regular rate of pay if the employee is unable to work because of a bona fide need to care for a child under 18 years of age whose school or child care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19. For employees who have worked for the employer for at least 30 days, the employer must provide up to an additional ten weeks of paid expanded family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay, for the same reason. Small businesses with fewer than 50 employees may qualify for exemption from the requirement to provide leave due to school closings or child care unavailability if the leave requirements would jeopardize the viability of the business as a going concern. However, what if a school has opened up, such that the FFCRA does not apply, but employees are afraid of sending their child back to school based on the child’s or another household member’s underlying health condition? How far must employers accommodate COVID-19-related childcare needs? The short answer is, there is no specific legal requirement to accommodate an employee’s childcare needs. Being a parent in and of itself is not a protected

California's court filing solution for professional filers File documents into eFiling & paper courts Simplified billing & invoicing

Ken Malovos

Top-rated support Permanent document storage

Mediator Arbitrator Referee Business, Commercial, Construction Claims and Defects, Employment, Insurance, Intellectual Property, Malpractice, Probate, Product Liability and Real Estate Disputes.

(916) 974-8600 3620 American River Dr. Suite 260 • Sacramento, CA 95864 Calendar and further information online at: www.malovoslaw.com

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

A member benefit of the Sacramento County Bar Association onelegal.com/sacramentobar

class. However, gender and marital status discrimination are both illegal, so employers must treat their married and unmarried employees of all genders equally with regard to leave and accommodation requests. As discussed below, anxiety about returning to work could be considered a disability requiring accommodation under the ADA. And, of course, if a child is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19, the FFCRA will allow an employee of a covered employer to take paid leave to care for the child. Some employers are considering temporary or permanent on-site childcare. Obviously, this solution raises liability concerns, including the potential for children in the workplace to interfere with COVID-19 exposure control efforts. However, with some workers still at home, employers have found themselves with extra space at the workplace. Employers could subsidize this solution by providing extra insurance coverage and employees can pool the funds they typically allocate toward childcare to the on-site facilities and hiring of childcare personnel. Most employers are implementing flexible scheduling and incorporating more work-from-home options, both of which should assist parents with childcare issues. Ultimately, employers should continue to be guided by existing employment law as well as the knowledge that flexibility serves everyone. Practically speaking, the employer with a stable workforce has a better chance of long-term success in the COVID-19 era. Therefore, even if accommodating employees with challenging childcare situations is not legally required, best practices dictate versatility, creativity, and common sense.

or the Fair Employment and Housing Act? The short answer is: maybe. If the anxiety substantially limits one or more life activities (such as working), it may indeed qualify. If employment counsel determines that the anxiety reported by the employee likely constitutes a covered disability, an obvious accommodation is that the employee be permitted to remain at home. However, what if it would be very difficult to run the business without this person in the workplace – can the employer claim “undue hardship”? Depending on the circumstances, an employer may well be able to avail itself of this defense. Still, employers should be advised that if they abruptly terminate an employee for refusing to work onsite, they may well find themselves defending a lawsuit, meritorious or not. Ultimately, employers and employees are in uncharted waters with respect to many of the effects of COVID-19. Experienced employment counsel can provide creative but practical solutions to help facilitate a smooth and productive return to the workplace. 1 COVID-19 Industry Guidance - Office Workspaces available at https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-office-workspaces.pdf 2 Certain municipalities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose have passed measures similar to the FFCRA which apply to businesses with over 500 employees.

Be Reasonable: Addressing the Challenge of “Reasonable Accommodations” in the Post-WorkFrom-Home Era Undoubtedly, some employees will request to continue working remotely although their employers want them to return. Employers will need be prepared to address morale issues and anxiety from reluctant employees. Our “new normal” will impact the interactive process when employees seek reasonable accommodations, whether those accommodations are related to COVID-19 or not. It may be more difficult for an employer to claim that remote work is an “undue hardship” when an entire company has operated remotely for many months. It may be even more difficult to successfully claim that teleworking for one or two days per week is unreasonable. However, this does not mean that employers must automatically allow remote work. We have been working remotely by law and necessity. The fact that remote work was a “reasonable accommodation” during shelter-in-place does not necessarily mean it will be reasonable six months later. Still, employers must engage in the interactive process in response to a disability accommodation request. If an employee has “anxiety” about returning to work due to COVID-19, does that constitute a disability under the ADA www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

COVER STORY

JUDGE STACY BOULWARE EURIE:

SCBA'S JUDGE OF THE YEAR IS A TIRELESS ADVOCATE FOR CHANGE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM By Judge Christopher Krueger

Judge Christopher Krueger sits in Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court.

t was an all-too-common scene in juvenile court. A 17 year-old foster girl who had recently had a baby sat before the judge with tears in her eyes, trying not to cry. When Judge Stacy Boulware Eurie asked her what was wrong, the girl indicated that she was overwhelmed by the proceedings. A dependency court judge had previously ordered her to attend parenting classes. Now Boulware Eurie was poised to impose a juvenile justice sentence for a crime the girl had committed. The multiplicity of requirements between the two court’s orders simply overwhelmed the girl. “Judge Boulware Eurie said, ‘I will work with that other judge and we will work it out so you can do this one step at a time,’” recalled Michelle Callejas, Director of the Sacramento County Child, Family and Adult Services Department. Callejas cited the judge’s efforts that day years ago as typical of the kind of problem-solving approach Boulware Eurie employed in the Sacramento County Juvenile Court, where she served as Presiding Judge from 2010 through 2018. “She was compassionate and empathetic and [still] held a firm line.” Boulware Eurie, who is being honored as the SCBA’s 2020 Judge of the Year, has drawn praise from many quarters of our legal community as a skillful judge, a mentor to youth, lawyers and even fellow judges, and as a reformer seeking to improve our judicial system. “She is one of the most talented judges I’ve ever worked with or appeared in front of,” said Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert. “Her passion SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

for this work, particularly when it involves youth in the justice system or at risk of becoming involved in the justice system, is remarkable.” “She does a lot of work in different communities in terms of encouraging people, most especially young people, to make their lives better,” now deceased Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Long (Ret.) once said. “I think she’s an exceptional judicial talent.” “Judge Boulware Eurie is respected, and admired by her colleagues for her dedication to our mission, and for her integrity and hardwork. She is a role model who puts her heart into her work,” Judge Steven Gevercer said. A Peripatetic Childhood Boulware Eurie was born on a naval base in Maine, where her father, Ralph Boulware, was assigned to serve for the U.S. Air Force. After he left the military, the family moved to Atlanta for a short stint before settling in Plano, Texas. Boulware Eurie, her sister and her parents spent most of her first grade through ninth grade years in Plano, except for a 10-month stretch in 1979 when the family moved to Teheran, Iran. The family move occurred when her father was assigned by his employer, Electronic Data

Systems (EDS), to work on a new social security system for the Iranian government. The family was forced to abruptly depart when the Iranian Revolution broke out and hostages were taken at the U.S. Embassy. Although the Boulwares were fortunate not to become “guests of the Ayatollah,” two EDS employees were taken hostage. Ralph Boulware returned to Iran after safeguarding his family as part of a rescue team organized by EDS owner Ross Perot. The story is recounted in On Wings of Eagles, a book by Ken Follett. Except for that time in Iran, Boulware Eurie remembers an ideal childhood with many friends and lots of soccer. “My parents were very hardworking and very involved in my life and my sister’s life,” she said. “We lived in a neighborhood where the kids and parents felt safe. It was, ‘Go out and play and come home before dark.’” In the middle of ninth grade, the family moved to Agoura Hills, California, where she attended high school. The Road To the Bench Boulware Eurie has no immediate family in the legal profession. A distant great-great cousin, the late Harold P. Boulware, served as Chief Counsel of the South Carolina

2018 Trafficking In Persons Conference in Uganda - (L to R) Rachel Bikhole, Alice Komuhangi, Hon. Antoinette Moore of the Belize Supreme Court and Hon. Stacy Boulware Eurie.

Hon. Stacy Boulware Eurie honored for work with trafficked youth at 2016 Reception hosted by The California Endowment.

NAACP and handled the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, which was one of four cases incorporated into Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case striking down the separate-but-equal doctrine as a violation of equal protection. Boulware Eurie keeps a famous picture in her chambers of Harold Boulware, Thurgood Marshall and Spotswood W. Robinson III conferring at the Supreme Court before the oral arguments in Brown. She said it reminds her of the burdens faced by youth of color seeking an education back then and the importance of education to today’s youth. Boulware Eurie, who never met Harold Boulware, credits the Black Pre-Law Society at UCLA for inspiring her interest in the law. By the time she graduated from UC Davis’ King Hall School of Law in 1995, Boulware Eurie envisioned both a legal career and an eventual judicial career. “I always had a five-year plan to gain experiences and skills as a lawyer and a ten-year plan to be a judge,” she recalls. Boulware Eurie spent her first four years of practice at Rothschild, Wishek & Sands, where she represented criminal defendants in state court proceedings and credential educators before the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. She enjoyed the firm, but left in 2000 to join the California Attorney Gener-

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

2014 UCD King Hall Swearing In Ceremony - (L to R) UC Davis School of Law Dean Kevin Johnson, Hon. Troy Nunley, Hon. Stacy Boulware Eurie and former King Hall Alumni President Gage Dungy.

al’s Office in order to get civil litigation experience. At the Attorney General’s Office, Boulware Eurie began as a deputy handling employment litigation. Within a few years she became a “confidential employee,” a deputy assigned to give advice to the Department of Justice in its investigations of its own internal employment matters. She later served as a Supervising Deputy Attorney General in the Employment, Regulation and Administration Section and as Senior Assistant Attorney General over the Government Law Section. Boulware Eurie’s supervisors at the Attorney General’s Office recall that her legal talent was immediately obvious. “I was her co-counsel in her first jury trial,” said Jacob Appelsmith, now Director of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. “She was brilliant, and when we interviewed the jurors after the verdict, they were astonished to learn she had not tried many cases before. Even though I knew she hadn’t, I felt astonished myself. She was clearly a natural.” Judge Pamela Smith-Steward, who as Chief of the Civil Division of the AG’s Office hired Boulware Eurie, said, “She was a star attorney during her time at the Department of Justice. She has continued that tradition of ex-

cellence during her time on the bench. She is highly intelligent, very wise and unfailingly kind and respectful to everyone she interacts with. I am honored to call her my friend and very proud of her accomplishments.” Deputy Attorney General Noreen Skelly said Boulware Eurie was also generous with her time and talents. “She was very collegial. If you needed to bounce a strategic approach off someone while working up a case, she always had time for you.” Judge Stephen Acquisto, a former colleague in the Attorney General’s Office said, “Judge Boulware Eurie exhibits every quality you could want in a judge. She’s smart, fair, eloquent, poised, patient, and kind. She is one of the most professional, hard-working, and talented people I’ve ever worked with. And she serves our community with dignity and honor.” Advocate for Youth Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Boulware Eurie to the bench in 2007. In 2010, she became Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court. As a juvenile court judge, Boulware Eurie led an overhaul of the county’s approach to youth who “cross over” from the dependency system into the juvenile justice system. Like the teenage girl described

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

at the beginning of this article, many kids who find themselves in the foster care system because of the lack of parental supervision later become part of the juvenile justice system when they break the law. The project required the bringing together of representatives of the court, Sacramento County Probation, Child Protective Services, Behavioral Health Services, and the Sacramento Office of Education. The parties attended a program at the Georgetown University Center for Juvenile Justice Reform in 2014 that led to a memorandum of understanding among the agencies. It also led to creation of a court docket dedicated to serving actual or suspected Commercially Sexually Exploited Children, a screening tool used to identify those children, environmental and program improvements for youth in secure custody, and the implementation of a Crossover Youth Practice Model. Callejas, the Sacramento County Director of Child, Family and Adult Services, recalls that getting the various agencies to cooperate was not an easy task for Boulware Eurie. “As we were launching our cross-systems efforts, she proactively addressed systems essentially pointing fingers at other systems about responsibility for serving our kids – no shock but we tended to work in our own silos which often led to children and families falling through the cracks. She stated, ‘These are not your children, my children or their children – these are our children, and we will work together to better serve them, with joint responsibility and joint accountability.’ That was all she needed to say – no one ever questioned it and we all committed to that philosophy – and our children and youth are better off because of it.” Chief Probation Officer Lee Seale agrees that Boulware Eurie’s leadership was vital to making change occur. “Judge Boulware Eurie deserves recognition for her leadership, compassion and vision. In our work to-

gether, she has helped to transform Sacramento County’s juvenile justice system into one where youth and families are better supported with treatment and services. The impact of Judge Boulware Eurie’s work is still felt today.” Judge Boulware Eurie is also involved with numerous initiatives to help youth both locally and at the statewide level. She serves on the executive committee of Operation Protect and Defend and as a member of the Chief Justice’s Power of Democracy Steering Committee. She is the chair of the Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court Steering Committee and a member of the California Child Welfare Council. She is a former member of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network Advisory Board. “Judge Boulware Eurie is committed to improving resources and programs to address the needs of sexually exploited children and atrisk youth,” said SCBA President Shanāe Buffington. “She is passionate about remedying the pipeline that funnel youth out of school onto a path toward prison. I commend Judge Boulware Eurie’s dedication to child advocacy, and her continued efforts to tackle issues faced by youth in the juvenile justice system.” Boulware Eurie believes her involvement with helping youth is integral to doing her duty as a judge. “Although my husband Kyle and I do not have any children of our own, I am inspired, motivated and determined to do all I can in my role as a judicial officer to lift up some of the most vulnerable court users, our youth. Particularly through my service on the juvenile court bench, I learned about the opportunity and, frankly, the obligation to get off the bench and into the community to better understand what our youth and their families are navigating. We must be humble in our service and to be accessible, to be present and to be involved in a variety of ways without any expectation other than to constantly learn has made

2016 WestCoast Children’s Clinic Forum on Child Sex Trafficking - (L to R) Holly Joshi, Alameda District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, Hon. Stacy Boulware Eurie, Malika Saada Saar and Minh Dang.

me a better judge all around. Being involved in different bodies and organizations has aided my efforts to work with other stakeholders to improve every system I serve in from a place of knowledge and humility.” A Mentor to Others In addition to those efforts at systemic change, Boulware Eurie is praised by her current and former colleagues as a mentor to others. Judge Shama Mesiwala said, “Of the many things I respect about Judge Boulware Eurie, at the top is her willingness to effectively mentor law student and lawyers without fanfare or recognition. Some have been lawyers I’ve encountered later in their careers, and they credit their success to Judge Boulware Eurie’s frank but caring advice, emphasizing the need for excellence, respect of all parties and the court, and meaningful community service. Indeed, I have been the beneficiary of her guidance, as an up-and-coming lawyer, commissioner, and judge. I vividly remember her stopping by my chambers daily when I was a commissioner and she was the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Division. She taught me the skills a new judicial officer needed to know: how to effectively manage a calendar, how to hold efficient and

fair hearings, and how to step back when things became a little too heated. She is the richly deserving recipient of the SCBA 2020 Judge of the Year!” Judge Kenneth Mennemeier likewise commented that Boulware Eurie was greatly helpful to him when he was assigned, as a new judge, to juvenile court. “For me, Stacy has been a mentor. She has always made herself available to answer questions. More than once I turned to her on weekends, and she always took my calls. “Stacy has also been a role model. She leads by example. As Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court, she had many responsibilities, both in and out of the courtroom. Notwithstanding the many demands on her time, Stacy still finds time to engage with the larger Sacramento community, whether through Bar functions such as Inn of Court or through youth-oriented educational programs such as Operation Protect and Defend. By her example, Stacy inspires others to expand their thinking about how they too can serve the community.” “I am so very proud to be her colleague.” So am I. Congratulations to Stacy Boulware Eurie, 2020 SCBA Judge of the Year!

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

VLSP

VOLUNTEERING IN THE NEW NORMAL By Heather Tiffee

s of March 2020, my work life at VLSP Headquarters on 12th Street looked and felt very different than it does today. We were celebrating the successful completion of a full year with our new Family Law Assistance Project. We were meeting with clients regularly in our office not only for that project, but also for our Debt Collection Defense Clinic and our Estate Planning Project. Volunteers were in our office at least 3 days a week either meeting with clients or giving advice over the phone. Face to face meetings with fellow staff members was a daily, if not hourly occurrence. As of the date this article is being written, June 1, 2020…where is everyone? VLSP staff is working significantly reduced hours in the office, volunteers are not in their own offices most of the time – let alone ours, and we have not seen a client in person in over 2 months. Now, while many things have changed over the last several weeks, some remain the same. VLSP is still here. We are still open for business, albeit in a virtual way. As always, we still NEED YOU! VLSP is a volunteer-based non-profit legal aid organization. We have a very small staff, recently increased from 6 to 7 people. Volunteers are our life blood. I cannot adequately express my sincere gratitude to those of you who have been able to continue volunteering with us during the shelter-in-place orders. VLSP, through your generous donation of time and talent, has been able to continue providing counsel and advice to clients on family law, employment, debt and bankruptcy, guardianship, conservatorship, probate, and estate planning matters. We opened over 100 cases in 11 weeks, which was a remarkable feat for our small organization given the times. We spoke to many more by phone providing basic legal information and referrals to other organizations and resources. Thank you, VLSP volunteers, for all your help. Where do we go from here? Looking forward, we anxiously anticipate being able to meet with clients and volunteers in person sometime in the future. After an initial lull in client demand for services when the Shelter In Place order was given by Governor Newsom, client demand for legal assistance is increasing daily. We have purchased and are ready to use personal protective equipment for anyone coming to our office. When we move to our new office later this year (spoiler alert…more to come on this

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

Heather Tiffee is the Assistant Program Manager of the Voluntary Legal Services Program. She can be reached at htiffee@vlsp.org.

in our next article), we will have more individual offices which will allow for better physical distancing. While we hope many of our volunteers will be willing to come back into our office to volunteer, we understand that is not a viable option for everyone given personal risk factors and evaluations. We are brainstorming continually with staff and volunteers to refine ways for our volunteers to continue their involvement remotely, if desired or necessary. We are also acquiring the necessary technology to enable volunteers to meet with clients online and moving our forms database online as well. If you have experience in one of the areas VLSP provides services, and you want to volunteer, we will find a way to get you involved that works for you. Please contact me at htiffee@vlsp.org if you would like to volunteer or if you have suggestions on service delivery options/models. I hope we will see each other soon!

Sacramento Neutrals

Mediators. Arbitrators. Neutral Evaluators. Problem Solvers.

Hon. Cecily Bond (Ret.)

Hon. Frank C. Damrell (Ret.)

Gary 5. Davis, Esq.

Hon. Robert Hight (Ret.)

Hon. Fred K. Morrison (Ret.)

Donald R. Person, Esq.

1415 L Street â&#x20AC;˘ Suite 700 Sacramento, CA 95814 â&#x20AC;˘ 916.921.5300 Visit jamsadr.com/sacramento for our extended panel.

Local Global Solutions. Reach.

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE SUMMER OF THE COVID-19 COURT EXTERNSHIPS

By Judge Shama Mesiwala and Saraf Ahmed

Judge Shama Mesiwala sits in Department 133 of the Sacramento County Superior Court. Saraf Ahmed is a 2L at UC Davis School of Law and Judge Mesiwala's summer extern.

3 2

or decades, law students have spent their summers getting a taste of their future as attorneys — interning at firms, working at legal aid organizations, and externing with judges at courts. This year, even with the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, have maintained robust externship programs for our law students. Some court externs have received less traditional research work, but all have been finding ways to diversify their skills and establish thriving relationships with their supervising judges. Rising 2L Saraf Ahmed from UC Davis worked closely with Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shama Mesiwala. Together, they read books about American history and professional development, including Roots and New Women’s Dress for Success. Ahmed also sought out volunteer opportunities in the area of law she

1. Hon. Shama Mesiwala 2. Hon. Elena Duarte 3. Hon. Louis Mauro 4. Hon. Helena Gweon

wishes to pursue, including serving as a counselor for the housing crisis hotline, Tenants Together. Under their supervising judges’ guidance, some students studied the virus’s effect on the law and judicial processes. Jaspreet Lochab, rising 2L from UC Davis and extern to Sacramento Superior Court Judge Helena Gweon, wrote about the pandemic’s impact on criminal justice processes across the country. This included how Texas, Missouri, and Oregon handled trials in response to Sixth Amendment speedy and public trial objections. Rising 2L Krystan Miller-Caballero from UC Davis — who externed with Sacramento Superior Court Judge Emily Vasquez — and Ahmed researched issues of landlord/tenant law and unlawful detainer procedures in the wake of COVID-19. Judge Gweon is the supervisor of the externship program for the Sacramento Superior Court, duties she assumed when Judge Russell Hom was elected by his colleagues to be the presiding judge.

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

Justice Ron Robie of the Third Appellate District noted that prior to the proliferation of Zoom hearings due to the pandemic, going to court presented physical and financial challenges to many indigent litigants across the state. “People may not have been able to come down to, say, Monterey for a 15-minute hearing. Buses don’t reach all court locations there. And it’s the same in [the more remote areas like regions of] Fresno,” he observed. “We’ve experienced the same thing with people coming from remote parts of the state, particularly on the criminal docket, who travel from the farthest corners of the Eastern District — it’s usually a genuine hardship,” said Magistrate Judge Dennis Cota. “[Technology] is a great benefit in that situation. They can just appear in court from home.” The atypical nature of this summer also presented opportunities for law students to observe firsthand changes that occur in court proceedings once in a generation. Tommy Levendosky and Julie Zalinski, ris-

ing 2Ls at UC Davis and UCLA respectively, in Judge Cota’s Redding chambers in the Eastern District, worked on prisoner civil rights complaints, habeas corpus petitions, and motions to dismiss. Their work gave rise to questions about the future of criminal trials. “Louisiana is trying to do trials with jurors via Zoom, though it hasn’t been working as well there,” Levendosky noted. “What are the plans for California courts for trials?” Justice Robie responded that due to physical distancing guidelines, it may take longer to select jurors. Justice Louis Mauro, whose extern Shaikha Shahtaj from UC Davis worked on numerous appeals this summer as did Justice Robie’s extern Elizabeth Wilson, pointed out that Sacramento Superior Court was still holding live, in-person criminal jury trials. But the pandemic has made way for alternative methods of holding trials. “The pandemic has caused courts to innovate in ways we never thought possible,” said Presiding Judge Hom. “Through ingenuity of our judicial officers and staff and through the use of technology, we have been able to respond to the public health risk posed by COVID-19, yet provide a forum for the public to adjudicate their cases. The ability to use technology is frequently limited by Constitutional considerations. However, where possible, witnesses and counsel are appearing in virtual courtrooms. To insure a safe environment for our jurors, multiple courtrooms are used to conduct remote simultaneous jury impanelment. In non-criminal matters, trials and hearings are generally conducted in virtual courtrooms where the public health risk is eliminated but litigants are fully afforded their day in court.” It seems, then, that the pandemic has infused a different reality to the dynamic nature of the practice of law. As the summer wore on, aspects

of the externship program previously thought gone for the summer — courtroom observations, field trips, and networking sessions with other judges and attorneys — resurrected themselves, thanks to judges’ efforts to provide law students with the closest (virtual) thing. July saw the arrival of a full schedule of calendars for externs, including Zoom observations of court hearings. In the Sacramento County Superior Court, externs were cleared to sit in on virtually everything from the Golden State Killer’s plea hearing conducted by Judge Mike Bowman, to Judge Larry Brown’s mental health calendar, to Judge Mesiwala’s dependency calendar, to Judge Gweon’s criminal calendar. “I’ve been a trial judge for several years. I love it. The most compelling part is the human story involved in every case,” Judge Gweon said. “I’m glad to share that experience with law students. COVID-19 has been a big transition, and it’s forcing all of us to become more innovative, to develop true resilience.” Students also watched virtual oral argument before the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, prior to meeting with Justice Elena Duarte. During the meeting with Justice Duarte, she reminded students that now, more than ever, their professional narratives will prove crucial. “Diversity of practice and experience is one of the most important ways law students can set themselves up for long-term success,” she told the students. “It’s important for new lawyers to build up a strong reputation around their work. Once you achieve that, incredible opportunities can follow.” Some externs also watched Judge John Mendez’s criminal calendar in person at the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California. Four students drove to the Matsui courthouse in Sacramento and sat in the

jury box six feet apart, facing mounted screens showing the parties, their attorneys, and translators on Zoom. “It was my pleasure having these four law students observe the video criminal proceedings in my court,” said Judge Mendez. “We had an interesting Q&A session following my calendar which, hopefully, gave the externs some further insight into federal criminal practice. I have found these annual visits by the Superior Court summer externs, which began several years ago under Presiding Judge Russell Hom, to be an excellent learning experience for both the students and me. Despite the unique and necessary procedures we are utilizing these days in the District Court, we are doing our best to get as much of the work of the Court done as possible. I am glad the externs got to be a part of that if only for one morning.” Beyond courtroom observations, students also received critical professional development opportunities with a presentation by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Ronald Sargis and a virtual panel with hiring attorneys at Downey Brand LLP, moderated by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Rick Sueyoshi. Both events provided advice for on-campus interviewing and future jobs at a time when these may continue remotely. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Emily Vasquez, who has supervised externs for most of her almost 20-year judicial career, noted that the flexibility, cooperation, and ability to adapt to emergency situations that externs are picking up this summer are ultimately part of a comprehensive legal education. “As a lawyer, it’s important to adapt quickly. The pandemic is presenting a lot of opportunities to learn,” she said. “You can’t stop a recession or pandemic. Laws and policy are [going to prove] important for future pandemics.”

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

EVENTS

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY CELEBRATION By Jerilyn Paik

A special thank you to our Panelists, Hon. Connie Callahan, Hon. Shama Mesiwala, Hon. Stacy Boulware Eurie and Jerilyn Paik. The panelists engaged in incredible dialogue and spoke about real and true issues happening in our world today. We also recognize and thank Women Lawyers of Sacramento for supporting this event. The yellow rose represents VICTORY for the Suffragists, who, for almost a century, struggled to gain voting rights for women. The yellow rose appears in the center of the League of Women Voters’ Piedmont Triad commemoratory logo for their year-long celebration of the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment.

he Sacramento County Bar Association commemorated International Women’s Day on March 6, 2020, with a panel discussion on the “work and life balance” that all female attorneys strive to achieve. The panel consisted of three jurists (Ninth Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan, and Superior Court Judges Stacy Boulware Eurie and Shama Hakim Mesiwala) and one practicing attorney (Jerilyn Paik), and was moderated by SCBA’s Secretary/Treasurer Andi Liebenbaum. The event was held at the SCBA Conference Center and was attended by a few dozen women and a few men (including retired Third District Court of Appeal Justice Art Scotland, Justice Ron Robie of the same court, and McGeorge Professor Ed Telfeyan).

Ms. Liebenbaum opened the event by posing three questions. First, she asked, “has the law changed in how it addresses the needs of women?” Second, if women are more inclined to give up their careers after becoming attorneys, how is this fact addressed as women leaders? And third, why is “women in the law” still a topic of discussion? Judge Callahan served as the keynote speaker following Ms. Liebenbaum’s introductory remarks. She spoke directly of her career, noting that she was one of only 10 female students in her law school class and that she now sits on a Court of Appeals where 13 of the 29 judges are women. She recalled that she took the first job she was offered, fearing no one would hire her be-

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

Jerilyn Paik is a solo practitioner specializing in probate, estate planning and trust litigation. She can be contacted at Jeri@jplawoffice.com.

cause she was a woman. She often felt marginalized as a woman litigator, but she used it to her advantage because her opponent often underestimated her. Judge Callahan also acknowledged that early in her career, she felt she was being judged for all women who would follow her. This understanding motivated her to

work harder (even until the day before she gave birth to her son). She never missed a day of trial in over 10 years as a trial attorney and never missed a day of a trial in 10 years as a trial judge. She just believed, she said, that she had to work that hard to achieve her goals. It became clear that hard work and being prepared are the underpinnings of her success. Speaking to the work/life balance, Judge Callahan said she thinks the opportunities are much better for women now, but she feels the struggle is ongoing. She acknowledged that in achieving her career success, she did not “do it all.” She set her priorities early on and spent more time away from home and family responsibilities than other women might feel comfortable with. She closed her remarks by emphasizing that “one size does not fit all.” Personal decisions, she concluded, must be personal, and each woman seeking a career in the law must figure out what works for herself. Judge Boulware Eurie spoke next. She had recently received the Judicial Officer of the Year award from the California Endowment. She spoke of the support she received as a new attorney from other female attorneys (specifically mentioning Vicki Jacobs, Jean McEvoy and Joan Stone). “None of us,” she said, “do these jobs alone.” The judge stressed that “we should all make a little more time for mentorship.” She noted that even high school students, as well as law students and attorneys just starting to practice, all present an opportunity and create an obligation to expand the opportunities that others had created for us. “We can serve as role models,” she said, and help those “who seek to join the dynamic and evolving profession.” Your author had the privilege of having newly appointed Judge Boulware Eurie head her Kennedy Inn of Court team and can attest to her commitment. Judge Boulware Eurie added that having allies and supporters

“strengthens us as individuals and as a profession.” She acknowledged that women have made great strides in the profession, but, she said, “We still have work to do.” She pointed out that as long as questions like “when will there be enough women on the court” are being asked, our society is still grappling with the proper place for women in the law. She said that she uses her role as a judge to make space for voices to be heard inside and outside of the courtroom. Addressing work/life balance, Judge Boulware Eurie encouraged establishing boundaries. Doing so, she said, enables the professional woman to be “more physically and mentally present wherever you are.” She said one boundary she made early on was to leave work at her office. Doing so has allowed her to be “fully present during my personal life in a way that is more restorative and fulfilling.” Judge Mesiwala closed her remarks by referring to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female Supreme Court Justice. From studying the career of O’Connor, Judge Mesiwala said she gained an appreciation for several of her lessons. The first lesson is that often “you will be treated as an equal, as it should be.” In addition, you will not always be treated as an equal and you must create your own opportunities. On graduating from Stanford Law School with Order of the Coif, O’Connor applied to 40 firms and was rejected by all of them. She then took a voluntary position with a county attorney and had more enriching experiences than her male colleagues from Stanford, who were working in big firms with big salaries, but doing research and taking depositions. Another lesson Judge Mesiwala learned from Justice O’Connor is that careers rarely follow a straight trajectory and one must decide what is best for her family. Judge Mesiwala also learned that “it is never going to be easy or how you expected it to be,” but

you have to take advantage of opportunities when they come.” After being on the Court for seven years, O’Connor had breast cancer. She planned her treatments around oral arguments so she wouldn’t miss any. Finally, Judge Mesiwala learned that you have to ignore the naysayers and always “help others on their path.” O’Connor was committed to performing her duties in a way that kept the door open for other women to join her. Eventually three others (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) did. Ms. Paik concluded the prepared remarks by relating her experiences during the course of her career. She moved to Sacramento after graduating from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Her first job was with a solo practitioner. After a few years, she was hired by a big law firm as her sons were four months and 29 months old. A few years later, she became President of Women Lawyers of Sacramento. During those years, she said that the issues affecting women were “juggling family and career,” equal treatment/pay, and discrimination, especially in social clubs. She noted those issues are still prevalent for female lawyers today. Ms. Paik recounted that she became only the second female attorney in her firm and the second woman partner. The firm eventually dissolved and she has ever since been a solo practitioner, continuing to specialize in probate, estate planning, and trust litigation. The panel discussion was followed by a Q and A session that featured a number of questions on how to achieve work/life balance. Each speaker offered her perspective on this thorny question and “balance” may not be the appropriate noun. By the end of the two-hour session, the answer was still unsettled, other than that, as Judge Callahan repeated, “each woman must figure out what works for herself. There is no substitute for hard work.”

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

LAWYERS AND JUSTICE IN A TIME OF CHAOS By Aaron N. Taylor

Aaron N. Taylor is executive director of the AccessLex Center for Legal Education Excellence in Washington, DC. He can be contacted at ataylor@accesslex.org.

he chaos of 2020 has brought forth the glaring need for justice in this country. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all of us, changing our lives and how we interact with each other likely forever. But the burdens and the most tragic outcomes of the pandemic have not been suffered equally. Infection rates have been highest among vulnerable populations, including people living in poverty,1 people in nursing homes,2 and incarcerated people.3 Chances of infection and serious illness or death from COVID-19 can be tied directly to various inequalities that typify our country, most notably unequal access to healthcare. The foundational cause of all these trends is something else: racism. Black Americans have the high-

est COVID-19 death rate, almost twice the rate of Americans overall.4 In California, Black people account for 6% of the population, but almost 10% of COVID deaths.5 No other racial or ethnic group experiences this level of disproportion. California is not alone. Cities and states across the country have reported similar, if not starker, trends. The trends are manifestations of the inequitable interplay between wealth status, health status, and race â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which are reflections of systematic racism.6 The disparate death rates are unsettling, but should not be surprising. With the pandemic still raging, the issue of unjust police killings of Black men and women has returned to the forefront. The excruciating video of George Floydâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life being suffocated away has sparked an ac-

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

tivist movement unlike anything most of us have seen in our lifetimes. Protests of racism and racial violence against Black people have taken place in every state and the District of Columbia and have sparked similar protests around the world. The protest movement is being undergirded by various public policy demands. The dominant premise is the ending and remedying of unequal and inequitable treatment of Black people and other marginalized people by sanction of law, policy, or practice. But the overarching demand is justice. Justice is a weighty notion that should inhabit law, policy, and practice. It is the theoretical premise of our way of life. It is the lifeblood of the rule of law. Indeed, justice is essential to the continued functioning of this grand democratic

experiment we call the United States of America. It is often said that lawyers are guardians of justice. The Preamble of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct states: “A lawyer is a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice7.” The last role is probably the most significant because it frames a lawyer’s justice responsibility as “special” and places it squarely within the context of a lawyer’s existence as a “public citizen.” This means that a lawyer never sheds her special responsibilities for helping ensure that our society is governed through just systems. As lawyers, we should look at disparate COVID-19 death rates and the inequitable treatment of marginalized people throughout our society as justice issues. Race should not be a factor in determining odds of surviving a viral infection or a law enforcement interaction. But what can lawyers do? Many things. The most important first step is to educate ourselves on the issues. Why are Black Americans more likely to succumb to COVID-19? Why are Black Americans more likely to be killed by the police?8 These are not anecdotal or even random factoids. They are direct manifestations of systematic racism and individual biases – both implicit and explicit. As lawyers, we must first acknowledge and then be knowledgeable of the underpinnings of these issues, how they operate and how they manifest. Next, we must work to dismantle unjust systems. Dismantling requires us to own up to the manners in which we often unwittingly contribute to injustice ourselves. Implicit biases are an example. We all carry biases with us, we must know what they are and actively work to coun-

teract them. We must also focus on systems. Why do we have such dis1 https://www.npr.org/sections/healthparities in access to quality medical shots/2020/04/01/824874977/underlying-health-disparities-could-mean-coronacare? Which systems are contributvirus-hits-some-communities-harde ing to this form of injustice? Which 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ systems contribute to the yawning articles/2020-05-07/comparing-coronaviwealth gaps and income disparities rus-deaths-by-age-with-flu-driving-fatalities across different races and ethnicities? Again, these are not random trends. 3 https://eji.org/news/covid-19s-impactThey reflect systematic, intentional on-people-in-prison/ behavior that can be ended, but only 4 https://www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/ through collective will. deaths-by-race I once heard someone say that 5 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/ justice is an action word. It requires CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Race-Ethnicity.aspx deliberate effort to create and maintain. As lawyers, we have a special 6 h t t p s : / / w w w . s t a t n e w s . com/2020/06/15/whos-dying-ofresponsibility and indeed a special covid19-look-to-social-factors-like-race/ opportunity to work to end injustice, whether it is motivated by racism, 7 https://www.americanbar.org/groups/ professional_responsibility/publications/ classism, or some other means of model_rules_of_professional_conduct/ marginalizing certain groups of peomodel_rules_of_professional_conduct_ preamble_scope/ ple. This year will be one for the history books. As lawyers, we have an 8 https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/ map-of-police-violence-against-blackobligation, both through our work americans/ and as public citizens, to positively influence what those eventual retelland provide Sacramento County residents access to ings say.

Join the Lawyer Referral Information Service

the legal system with a free half hour consultation. For more information contact referral@sacbar.org.

Join the Lawyer Referral Information ServiceReferral Join the Lawyer

& Information Service

and provide Sacramento County residents access to the legal system with a free half hour consultation. For more information contact referral@sacbar.org.

Provide prospective clients access to the legal system and support your local bar association. For more information contact referral@sacbar.org.

SCBA is certified by the State Bar of California and meets the standards of the American Bar Association

(916) 564-3780

referral@sacbar.org

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER SCBA is certified by the State Bar of

FEATURE ARTICLE

RETIRED SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE JAMES L. LONG REMEMBERED

Shanāe Buffington is the President of the Sacramento County Bar Association. She can be reached at Shanae.Buffington@edd.ca.gov.

By Shanāe Buffington

n June 30, 2020, the legal community lost a champion for justice. Judge James L. Long (Ret.), who presided over difficult capital punishment and civil action cases at the Sacramento County Superior Court, passed away at the age of 82. Born in 1937 in Winter Garden, Florida, Judge Long migrated west with his family and settled in the Oak Park community of Sacramento in the early 1940’s. In 1955, Judge Long graduated from Christian Brothers High School, one of Sacramento’s prestigious prep schools, on a scholarship. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from San Jose College where he played shortstop for the Spartans. After graduating college, he worked for Sacramento County as a deputy probation officer and then later as a juvenile hall supervisor. During an eight year stint in the Army Reserve Corps, Judge Long decided to enroll at Howard University School of Law in Washington, D.C., a school he chose for its strong emphasis on civil rights. After receiving his law degree in 1967, he returned to Sacramento where he worked as a graduate legal

assistant for the Legal Aid Society of Sacramento, and later the California State Legislative Counsel Bureau. In 1970, Judge Long opened his solo practice in the heart of Oak Park and, for a few years, was joined by his older sister June Long, retired deputy attorney general. However, during this time, Judge Long witnessed the transformation of his former neighborhood from a community of working-class families to one wrought with race riots and violent clashes between law enforcement and the growing African-American community. One contributing factor was the interstate freeway expansion programs that began in the 1960’s. These development programs created isolated areas of poverty and prosperity, declining property values, and flight to suburban areas from the inner city. Yet, Judge Long never forgot his roots. He maintained his practice in Oak Park for twelve years taking on pro bono cases and representing indigent clients. Among Judge Long’s biggest

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

cases was his defense of the “Oak Park Four,” a group of young black men accused of killing a white police officer. The case was ultimately dismissed. Donald H. Heller, a local criminal defense attorney, said, “I knew Jimmy Long for 47 years. He was a wonderful defense lawyer and even better human being. He had a distinguished career on the bench and he will be missed by everyone

WMBA 2014 Mixer and Legal Fusion photographs courtesy of Robert Maryland and WMBA former president, Renee Carter. 1. Hon. Troy L. Nunley congratulating Hon. Long for receiving the Nathaniel S. Colley, Sr. Lifetime Achievement Award. 2. (L to R) Hon. Vance Raye, Robert Buccola, Donald Heller, and Hon. David De Alba. 3. (L to R) Hon. Long, Dawn Silva, and Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. 4. Hon. Long with his court clerks Denise Lashley and Kathy Klemencic. 5. (L to R) John Virga, Hon. Long, and Hon. Renard Shepard (Ret.).

who ever encountered him. I viewed Jimmy as my brother. I loved him, and will miss him for the rest of my life.” While in practice, Judge Long also served as Special Legal Counsel to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Western Region, where he investigated claims of race discrimination. From 1969 through 1972, Judge Long taught criminal justice classes at California State University, Sacramento (CSU). In 1975, he co-authored a book titled American Minorities: The Justice Issue with Dr. Wilmer Leon, Paul Weston, and his brother Elton Long, who was a professor of criminal justice for 30 years at CSU. On February 1, 1982, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., appointed him to the Sacramento County Superior Court where he served until his retirement in 2011. During Judge Long’s 29 years on

the bench, he never lost his sense of community – a value his mother instilled in him and his siblings. Judge Stacy Boulware Eurie said, “My heart broke when I received that evening text letting me know that Judge Long was in the hospital. I was stricken with an immediate sadness in knowing that I would probably not see him again and yet I was also filled with a deep sense of pride in having had the sheer privilege of knowing him and being in his presence. Judge Long was a confidant, a truth teller, and a vivid living legend who embodied all that is possible when we are focused, industrious and committed to our work and our community. While Judge Long will be deeply missed, his brilliance, clarity of purpose, generosity of time and spirit and selfless efforts to support the next generation of students, lawyers and judges leaves a clear playbook for those who dare to pick

up the baton and walk in his path.” Judge Long mentored at-risk, underprivileged youth and exposed them to life beyond the neighborhood. But he didn’t stop there. He was also a mentor to many attorneys and judges who sought guidance on advancing their career in the local judicial system. Former Presiding Judge David De Alba said, “Jimmy Long was the best. He served on our court for 29 years and was like no other who ever sat on this bench before or after him. He was a friend to everyone, mentored many and was loved by all.” “My judicial career would not have ever occurred without the assistance of Jimmy Long. He was the absolute first person who encouraged me to apply for a judgeship,” said Chief U.S. District Judge Emeritus Morrison C. England, Jr. “I had doubts but the judge told me ‘stop doubting yourself’ and that contin-

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

ued throughout my career as a state and federal judge. My personal relationship with Jimmy was one that I will always cherish and will never ever forget.” U.S. District Judge Troy L. NunleyBAR likewise commented that Judge O COUNTY ASSOCIATION MAGAZINE Long will be remembered as an ad#100 • Sacramento, CA y Ave., Ave., Suite 120 •forSacramento, CA95825 95825 vocate justice, and mentor to all. “Judge Long helped so many different people from judges, attorneys, neighbors, young people, and

students. He truly loved Sacramento and worked to make this community a better place. He was a very important mentor to me. Every conversation that I had with him always ended the same way: ‘strike a blow for justice.’” After passing the bar during the tail end of the Great Recession, I was out of work. I remember my father urging me to contact Judge Long. At first, I was hesitant because I did not

1/2 Page Ad NOV/DEC Judge Van Camp

personally know Judge Long, but eventually I called his clerk to schedule a meeting. When I arrived to his courtroom, a proceeding was underway after which Judge Long called me up to his bench. I introduced myself, and he invited me into his chambers. I left our meeting that day encouraged by his words. He also provided a few prospective job leads. This is one of many fond memories I have of Judge Long’s thoughtfulness and willingness to help. Another example of Judge Long’s willingness to give back occurred in 2002 when he dispersed 1.5 million in unclaimed money from a class action settlement. He directed twothirds of the money to St. Hope Corporation, a nonprofit that operates charter schools in Oak Park. The remaining money was divided among a legal aid program, a legal advocacy organization serving children, and a school for homeless children. “Judge Long was a man of remarkable character. Doing the right thing both on and off the bench was instinctual for him. His hallmark was how he constantly and tirelessly gave of himself. Judge Long encouraged so many people of all ages to be their very best. He believed that people often deserve a helping hand but equally that those who receive an opportunity in life, better work as hard as they can to make the investment in them worthwhile,” said Robert Buccola of Dreyer, Babich, Buccola, Wood, Campora, LLP. “We lost not only a brilliant, hard-working judge, but a pillar of the community, a friend, a mentor to people of all stations in life, and a hero to so many. Judge Long left a pair of shoes that aren’t likely going to be filled, at least not the way he filled them.” On the bench, Judge Long had a reputation for being fair, firm, and efficient when presiding over cases. “Trial attorneys looked forward to

#1 AD PROO

CBA Annual Meeting Judge Brian R. Van Camp

noring Distinguished Attorney of the Year Justice Arthur Scotland Superior Court of CA, County of Sacramento (Ret.) •

Business & Commercial

•

Real Estate

• •

Partnership & Shareholder Disputes

Installing SCBA Officers & Directors

• •

Recognizing 100% Firms State Commissioner of Corporations - Three years Member, AAA Panels on: Commercial & Complex Civil

Employment & Labor

REACHING

THE CENTURY MCLE Prior to Annual Meeting

MARK FREE for SCBA Members $100 for Non-Members

1 Hour Ethics - Topic: “Attorney Fees, Practically and Ethically”

(916) 515-8442 Speaker: Kenneth Bacon of Mastagni Holstedt VanCampADR.com 10:30-11:30am

32 Knowledge Beyond Our Years equires SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Summer 2020 | www.sacbar.org

DATE Monday December 15, 2014 TIME 11:30 Check in 12:00 Lunch

PLACE Sheraton Grand 1230 J Street

being assigned out to trial in front of Jimmy Long. Judge Long took the most complex, high profile cases and provided counsel a careful, clean, fair trial. He was humble, and often prefaced a discussion by saying, ‘I had a simple law office in Oak Park, so break it down for me.’ But he already understood the subtle issues and wanted the attorneys to articulate their reasoning. He took that Oak Park law office over from William K. Morgan, who went on to become the first Black judge appointed to the Sacramento Superior Court,” said Jessie Morris, Jr. from the Sacramento Public Defender’s office. “Jimmy Long was known for getting to the heart of things quickly and attorneys in his courtroom knew to do the same. Some years back at a preliminary hearing roll call, attorneys were required to estimate how long their hearing might take, and the presiding judge then assigned the case to a department. On one occasion, the judge assigned the case to Judge Long and the attorney quickly cut her estimated time in half, as every other attorney knowingly chuckled. Judge Long was a beacon of justice during his 29 years on the bench, and was held in affection and esteem by all who knew him,” said Morris. Judge Long received many awards and honors that are too numerous to recount. In 1998, he was named the Sacramento County Bar Association’s Judge of the Year. In 2007, he was awarded the Humanitarian Judge of the Year by the Sacramento Valley Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates. In 2008, he received the Robert T. Matsui Community Service Award. In 2014, the Wiley W. Manuel Bar Association presented Judge Long with the Nathaniel S. Colley, Sr. Lifetime Achievement Award for his

dedication to equality and fairness in administering justice. In 2017, the California Association of Black Lawyers’ Judicial Section (North) presented Judge Long with a crystal gavel award. In recognition of Judge Long’s unwavering commitment to serve underserved communities, the Roseville Alumni Chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. established a community service award in his name. Judge Long served as an example, not only in the African-Amer-

ican community, but for the larger Sacramento community that one can overcome marginal circumstances through hard work, dedication and personal sacrifice. Judge Long lived to help others, and he was committed to promoting the values of equal justice and human rights. Let us continue Judge Long’s legacy and the many others before him who have fought to break down barriers that threaten our civil rights, especially those of the most vulnerable populations.

www.sacbar.org | Summer 2020 | SACRAMENTO LAWYER

Since 1963

Marty Anderson Vice President

Lawrence H. Cassidy President

Do your Accounts Receivables have a high balance and your bank account a low balance? • We have a staff of experienced collectors and three in house attorneys to put the cash in your bank account. • Over 100 law firms and many Fortune 500 firms select us to collect their past due accounts whether they are in the thousands or millions. • International collections recently made in England, Israel, Poland, and other countries. • Members: Commercial Law League of America. 700 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, CA 95815 Phone 916.929.7811 ext 222 | Fax 916.929.5125 | Email norcal@covad.net

SCBA

S A C R A M E N T O C O U N T Y B A R A S S O C I AT I O N

425 University Ave., Suite 120 Sacramento, CA 95825

BENCH-BAR & ANNUAL MEETING a collaborative virtual SCBA event

FEATURING

• Judge Stacy Boulware Eurie as Judge of the Year • • • •

Pro Bono Awardee Yoshinori H.T. Himel 2021 SCBA Board Swearing In State of the Court Reports Foundation Scholarship Awards

FREE MCLE FOR ATTENDEES

Jack Glaser, PhD presents “Implicit Bias: The Science Behind It, and the Implications for the Law” Begins at 4:30 pm

Thursday, October 29, 2020 | Begins at 6:00 PM | ZOOM ZOOM TICKETS* $35 SCBA Members $55 Non SCBA Members *Free for All Inclusive and Lifetime members.

SPONSORING LEVELS:

Platinum - $2,500 Title Sponsor Gold - $1,500 Silver - $750 Bronze - $500 Friend of the Bar - $250

For more information contact Cecilia Uribe at (916) 604-9667 or cecilia.uribe@sacbar.org

Sacramento Lawyer-Summer 2020

Articles inside

Retired Sacramento County Superior Court Judge James L. Long Remembered

Lawyers and Justice in a Time of Chaos

Judge Stacy Boulware Eurie: SCBA's Judge of the Year is a Tireless Advocate for Change in the Judicial System

Volunteering in the New Normal

International Women’s Day Celebration

Why Lawyers Should Care About the California Bar Exam

The Summer of the COVID-19 Court Externships

Best Practices as Employees Return to the Workforce

Paying for Public Records

President’s Message