Sacramento Lawyer Vol. 2-2024

2024 SCBA Judge of the Year

Michael

G. Bowman

Photo by Eleakis Photography:

INDEX Lawyer

SACRAMENTO COUNTY BAR

ASSOCIATION MAGAZINE

Vol. 2-2024

©

Adobe Stock

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Ellen Arabian-Lee

Arabian-Lee Law Corporation

EDITOR EMERITA

Heather Hoganson

Editor@sacbar.org

PRODUCTION DESIGN, ADVERTISING

Milenko Vlaisavljevic milenko@sacbar.org

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

6 SCBA Spring Update

COVER STORY

12 2024 Judge of the Year: A Steady Hand, Hon. Michael Bowman

FEATURE ARTICLES

8 Emotional Demolition During Mediation…And A Plan for Reconstruction

20 Out-of-State Attorneys Participating in Arbitrations in California: Duties of the Attorneys, Co-Counsel, Opposing Counsel, and Arbitrators

28 Navigating the AI Revolution: Transforming Legal Practice Through Innovation

SECTION, DIVISION & AFFILIATE NEWS

24 Celebrating Excellence: SCBA Criminal Law Section Attorney of the Year Awards Event

32 International Women’s Day Event March 8, 2024

STATE BAR MUSINGS

16 The Mushrooming of MCLE Requirements

HIGHLIGHT

26 Executive Director Highlight

EXCUTIVE DIRECTOR

Terri Shettle

916-604-9682

tshettle@sacbar.org

SCBA OFFICERS - 2023

Connor Olson - President

Angelina Ray - Vice President

Brittany Berzin - Secretary

Ben Codog - Treasurer

SACRAMENTO LAWYER | Vol. 3-2023 | www.sacbar.org

MEMBERSHIP & EVENT MANAGER

Barbara Souza

916-564-3780 • bsouza@sacbar.org

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR

Theresa Lopez 916-604-97250 • theresa@sacbar.org

FEE ARBITRATION

Larry Doyle (916) 604-97260 • feearb@sacbar.org

Photo by Eleakis Photography: www.elekis.com

SCBA Spring Update

By Connor Olson

Dear Members of the Sacramento County Bar Association,

As the sun begins to linger a little longer in our California capital, signaling the arrival of spring, we find ourselves surrounded by the breathtaking beauty of nature’s renewal. From the iconic World Peace Rose Garden in Capitol Park to the charming streets of Midtown adorned with tulips, blossoming trees, and wildflowers, the bursts of new life and color are both captivating and inspiring.

In harmony with the vibrant spirit of the season, the SCBA is invigorated and poised to cultivate an environment where our members and legal community can flourish and contribute to an assorted and vibrant landscape of professional growth and development.

Already, the SCBA has embarked on a journey of collaboration and celebration, exemplified by our recent partnership with Women Lawyers of Sacramento for an International Day of Women event. This pink-adorned occasion showcased diverse perspectives ranging from law student to seasoned trial attorney, offering attendees a rich

tapestry of insights and inspiration to draw from.

Furthermore, our sections and divisions have been diligently organizing engaging and timely Continuing Legal Education programs, providing invaluable opportunities for professional development and knowledge-sharing across various practice areas. Additionally, our members have come together to mix, mingle, and network at a variety of local establishments, with many more CLEs and social events on the horizon.

As we reflect on our past successes and look toward the future, the SCBA remains committed to honoring our traditional events while also laying the groundwork for new and exciting opportunities to engage and inspire attorneys and those aspiring to join our ranks. From the historic Bench Bar Reception, where for the first time all three presiding judges/justices are women, to our forthcoming collaboration with the Sacramento County Bar Foundation on a scholarship event in the fall, we rely on this blend of tradition and innovation to serve our members and the community.

Connor Olson , 2024 President, Sacramento County Bar Association

It is important to acknowledge that none of these achievements would be possible without the dedication and tireless efforts of our staff, board members, section and division leaders, and past SCBA leadership. To each individual who has played a role in shaping our association’s legacy and fostering its growth, I extend my heartfelt gratitude. This includes the architects who diligently planned our foundation to the gardeners who tended the ground and planted the seeds of our success; your contributions are deeply appreciated and instrumental in our continued journey forward.

As we embrace the promise of spring and the opportunities it brings, let us reaffirm our commitment to excellence, inclusivity, and community. Together, let us cultivate a legal landscape where every member has the opportunity to bloom and thrive.

Warm regards,

Adobe Stock ©

Trusted by 50,000 law firms, LawPay is a simple, secure solution that allows you to easily accept credit and eCheck payments online, in person, or through your favorite practice management tools.

22% increase in cash flow with online payments

Vetted and approved by all 50 state bars, 70+ local and specialty bars, the ABA, and the ALA

62% of bills sent online are paid in 24 hours

WEmotional Demolition During Mediation…And A Plan for Reconstruction

By Judge Judy Holzer Hersher, Ret.

hether attorney, party, or neutral, we have all experienced it during mediation.

Maybe it is hour four or five, or even earlier in the mediation and people are tired, tensions are high, and there is palpable animosity and frustration in the room.

Maybe people are blaming everyone else for the circumstances they find themselves in, repeating their grievances over and over and demanding that they get all of what they want, and the other side gets nothing. They do not care whether a jury will sympathetically receive their case! They don’t care if they go bankrupt!

Maybe an attorney pounds on the table and describes opposing counsel in scatological terms demanding that the other side recognize how outrageous their position is and accuses the mediator of not representing the strength of their position.

And then it happens. The emotional temperature soars and someone explodes in a torrent of words and gestures that consume all the oxygen in the room. At this moment, any hope of a mediated resolution seems crushed, and people are contemplating a quick exit.

Different Approaches for Different Realities

Whatever the cause, these explosions are a fact of modern mediation, and it helps to not only anticipate them, but to have a flexible strategy to push beyond the emotional demolition, maintain a calm and positive attitude, and move toward a workable settlement. To accomplish this, however, it is first necessary to separate the “typical” emotional range of experiences in negotiation from those that involve tough problems and problem personalities.

Most cases experiencing one or two short bursts of volatility have at their core understandable human emotions that arise from the situation the parties find themselves in. Authors/mediators Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro identify and discuss what underlies the most common human emotions likely to surface in mediation. Identified as “core concerns,” they are the human need for appreciation, affiliation, autonomy, status, and role. (Fisher and Shapiro. Beyond Reason: Using Emotion as You Negotiate, Viking Penquin, 2005; 2006, pgs. 179-181, 204). Roger Fisher, William Ury,

Hon. Judy H. Hersher, Ret. Judicate West Mediator, Arbitrator, and Private Judge. She can be reached at judgehersher@judicatewest.com.

and Bruce Patton together identify the five somewhat differently, or the need for “security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over one’s life.” (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, Getting to Yes, Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, Penguin Books, 2011, pg. 50.)

Dr. Richard Schwartz uses a somewhat different approach to the foundations of emotions. He discusses how people bring to the table different “parts” of themselves and that each part plays a role in how an individual approaches and reacts to conflict. These “parts,” of which there can be dozens, include sadness, joy, disgust, fear, anger, resentment, a desire for retribution, and/or a need for resolution, among many others, any, or all of which may surface in a typical tense moment in mediation. (Schwartz, Introduction to the Internal Family Systems Model, Trailheads Publications 2001, pgs. 55-87.).1

Whether a “core concern” or “part,” human thoughts and emotions can trigger an outburst at stressful points in a mediation. They are usually handled under the problem-solving method referred

to as “principled negotiation.” (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, Getting to Yes, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Books 2011, 3rd ed., pgs. 1-95.). This approach emphasizes guided questions and discussions that “disentangle” or move people beyond the emotions they are experiencing towards a focus on tangible proposals for mutual gain. The approach was developed as part of Harvard University’s Negotiation Project in the early 1980’s. Since then, the well-known book has had several updates and printings, but the basic approach remains unchanged.

Example of Principled or Core or Parts Approach to Strong Emotions (Alleged violation of Trade Secrets Act that results in substantial loss of profits and business opportunities):

I can see that the loss of the business has had a profound effect on you and in numerous aspects of your life. You are angry, frustrated, and worried about the future. The business was like a beloved child to you. Let’s see if we can structure a settlement that will help you regain a sense of self-worth and compensate you for your economic losses and perhaps help look forward to a different future. What are your ideas on that subject?

Another approach emphasizes defusing the intensity of the emotions with a mix of empathy, attention, and respect (the “EAR” approach). (Bill Eddy, Calming Upset People with EAR: How Statements Showing Empathy, Attention and Respect Can Quickly Defuse a Conflict, Unhooked Books, 2021.) Again, combined with skilled questioning, the EAR approach allows the mediator to calm the current waves, signals he or she understands all the emotions in play, and affirms that the party’s interests are both

important and considered in looking to solve a problem.

Example of using the “EAR” Approach (Wrongful death action, where one spouse has lost the other, and a child is seriously injured, requiring uncertain and possibly long-term care):

Empathy: What you have experienced is truly horrific.

Attention: I have listened to how getting up each morning fills you with dread and pain.

Respect: I admire the strength that you have exhibited, and how you work not to impose your pain on those you love, while you worry about how this has affected them and their lives. I hope you appreciate how few people can do what you do after all you have been through. Let’s figure out a way to make this work for you, relieve stress, and make your life easier in whatever ways we can.

Sometimes the question arises as to whether the emotional outburst in the room is caused by the normal stress of litigation and mediation, or a personality trait or characteristic that is overbearing. Some individuals have a preoccupation with blaming others, think in terms of solutions that are all or nothing, have unmanaged or intense emotions, and engage in extreme behavior or threats. They are often vehement in their expressions and emphatically deny any responsibility for what brings them to the table. At the same time, they also can be disarmingly manipulative. If you find yourself in the room with such an individual, the approach to defusing the emotional conflict changes.

The Four “Fuhgeddaboudits”

Licensed clinical social worker, attorney, and mediator Bill Eddy has published several books on the

topic of how to deal with high-conflict personalities, or “HCPs” as he refers to them. He, together with his recent co-author Michael Lomax, recommends a structured method of getting and keeping the mediation on track when dealing with PCPs. (See, Eddy and Lomax, Mediating High Conflict Disputes, A Breakthrough Approach with Tips and Tools, and the New Ways for Mediation® Method, Unhooked Books, 2021, pgs. 2-18.)

When faced with HCPs, the recommendation is to employ the “BIFF” method of communication, specifically all conversations with HCPs should be “brief, informative, friendly and firm.”

Eddy and Lomax together suggest four basic things when working with an HCP, “The Four Fuhgeddaboudits:”

(1) Do not talk about the past with the individual, as it only leads to a rehash of how everyone else is at fault.

(2) Focus on the future, as HCPs tend to “get stuck in the past” and defend their past behavior as righteous.

(3) Do not ask questions about how they “feel” or what emotions they are experiencing, or they will tend to be stuck there too, talking only about themselves. Instead, the recommended practice is to acknowledge how they feel and shift the focus to the task at hand – the proposal on the table. Ask what they like and do not like about it. Ask how to improve it. Stay focused on the proposal. If one part of the proposal results in continuing displays of emotion, drop it and move on to another proposal to build momentum.

(4) Do not suggest to them or anyone that they may have a high-conflict personality. It will not motivate them to self-reflect and change their behavior, and

it may only further infuriate them. (Eddy and Lomax, Mediating High Conflict Disputes, supra. at pgs. 25-29.)

They add elsewhere, do not try to give advice, admonish them for their actions and reactions, and do not offer apologies for anyone’s actions. (See, Eddy, BIFF: Quick Responses to High-Conflict People, Their Personal Attacks, Hostile Email and Social Media Meltdowns, Unhooked Books, 2011.) While it is important to remain respectful, he suggests that trying to get them to explain or address their emotions will not prove beneficial. (Eddy, High Conflict People in Legal Disputes, HCI Press, 2005; Eddy, Coaching for a BIFF Response (2012) High Conflict Institute, <www.HighConflictInstitute.com> [as of Feb. 23, 2024].)

Example of Redirection once it is clear you are dealing with an HCP:

All right, I can see that the overall proposal to settle this case is problematic on a lot of levels. I get it. Let’s focus on how to fix it. Let’s break it down into parts and address each separately. Tell me what parts of it you like. What part don’t you like? The parts you don’t like we will put aside for the time being and work on the ones we can address. Let’s see if we can make some progress.

Plan For the Reconstruction Before the Blowup!

It is important to develop a strategy before the mediation for how to address the potential for intense emotional outbursts during the process. To do so you need to understand the concerns and emotional makeup of the players at the table, including attorneys. There are a variety of ways to find this out, including pre-mediation meetings with counsel and, if possible, a frank conversation with them about their clients.

Whether before or during the mediation, consider:

• Who in the room is starting the program angry, sad, or with a feeling that their case, and person, are undervalued or entitled to everything?

• Who tends to have a short fuse, feels their life is out of control, blames everyone else for all problems, or does not suffer temporary setbacks or challenges easily?

• Who can be counted upon to be objective and reasonable once their position is understood and respected?

• Who can be focused on the future and benefits of resolution, rather than the past?

• Who needs to feel in complete control and/or be always the most important voice in the room?

• What does peace of mind look like for them?

In short, as best as you can, consider the people in front of you and determine how best to work with them, with a “core” or “parts” approach, an “EAR approach,” or a “BIFF” approach, or, depending upon circumstances, some combination of all three.

Joint Session, or No?

There is a debate about whether joint party and/or attorney sessions during mediation are a good or bad thing for the process. The tide in support of and in opposition shifts every few years. Part of the plan should include consideration of whether a joint session, at the beginning of mediation or some point during it, is likely to be constructive in preventing an emotional demolition or in mitigating it. The decision should be made after consideration of the makeup of those involved and can always be revisited several times during the mediation, as there is no one right answer. Sometimes the emotions

militate against it. Other times, it can be a catalyst for breaking through an impasse.

What to Do When the Explosion Happens

With a plan in mind, and in as few precious seconds as you can gather when an explosion occurs, consider where you are in the mediation process.

• Are you in the first flush of settlement exchanges or six hours into the mediation?

• How is the blood sugar level in the room? Do people need to eat lunch, get a snack, or take a walk?

• Do I need to talk to someone privately?

• Are the parties listening to each other’s positions, or refusing to consider them?

• Is there anything you did to cause the blowout? Was enough respect shown to the parties or interests in play? Have you identified the true interests of each side so you can help address them?

• Is an attorney grandstanding for the client, displaying ego or worried about the financial stake in the litigation?

• Has the client’s mental or physical health or personality triggered an outburst?

• Does this call for changing approaches from a “Core,” BIFF, or “HCP” approach?

In dealing with most people who can be brought back to reasonable control with compassion, calm and careful probing, the first level or EAR approach is recommended, i.e., continuing to show empathy, attention, and respect coupled with redirection. (Eddy, Calming Upset People with EAR: How Statements Showing Empathy, Attention and Respect Can Quickly Defuse a Conflict, Unhooked Books, 2021.)

Asking people to remove themselves physically or emotionally from the current situation, by taking

a step back, reflecting and reevaluating is often enough to refocus the negotiation. Suggestions include asking the party to imagine they are climbing stairs to a balcony overlooking all rooms where conversations are taking place to understand the perspective in each room. The efforts are directed towards seeing the bigger picture from a different perspective. Still other visual images include asking the “gladiator” in them to put down their sword so that their other important job as “protector’ of the overall well-being of the realm can evaluate the advantages of the offer or be prepared to suggest changes. (Hoffman and Lee, When People are the Problem, Boston Law Collaborative, LLC, January 29, 2024, Training PowerPoint.)

Whether attorney or neutral, the job is to get the affected party to distance themselves from the immediate reactions in the room, step back, reflect, and calmly ver-

balize their understanding of what is good with the current proposal and what is being ignored or downplayed by the other side. If an HCP is in the room, remember the “Fuhgeddaboudits” when forging ahead.

Completing the Runway Mediation is not therapy, but it can be therapeutic insofar as the parties reach a workable settlement and move on with their lives. A calm and non-reactive demeanor by the neutral is critical, as is selecting the right approach to move forward. Focus on desired objective outcomes, one by one. Talking over the benefits of moving into the future without litigation and comparing the benefits of a settlement to the time, effort, discovery headaches, and loss of money associated with continuing with the litigation, are important strategies when confronted with big emotions.

If the case doesn’t settle that session, encourage the parties to leave a runway open to continue further discussions, advising them that it often takes more than one session to resolve particularly difficult cases. Like Yogi Berra said, “It ain’t over til it’s over.” The runner on third base may yet get home and win the game.

1 There is a plethora of other literature from psychologists, medical doctors, experienced mediators, and professors who discuss the spectrum of human emotions in play and offer advice on how to navigate through difficult moments. The following is not an exhaustive list and provides a starting point for those who want to read up on a variety of approaches, in addition to those discussed in this article:

See, e.g., Eddy, William A., High Conflict People in Legal Disputes, 2012, High Conflict Institute Press (previously published in 2003 as High Conflict Personalities Understanding and Resolving Their Costly Disputes); Friedman, Gary J., Inside Out, How Conflict Professionals Can Use Self-Reflection to Help Their Clients, ABA, 2014; Bowling, Daniel; Hoffman, David A., Bringing Peace Into the RoomHow the Personal Qualities of the Mediator Impact the Process of Conflict Resolution, Jossey-Bass, 2003; Fisher, Roger and Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate, Penguin Books, 2006; Berstein, Mental Health and Conflicts, A Handbook for Empowerment, ABA Book Publishing, 2022.

2024 Judge of the Year: A Steady Hand, Hon. Michael Bowman

By Justice Laurie Earl

Judge Michael Bowman knew he wanted to be a lawyer when he first peeked over his mother’s shoulder as she watched Perry Mason in their home in Culver City. He liked what the actors portrayed – smooth, well-dressed people who captivated audiences with their story telling. Years later, he would master that craft and earn a superior court judgeship because of it.

With a clear directive from his mother, who raised Judge Bowman and his older brother on her own, to either “be in school or pay rent,” he took classes at Pasadena City College after high school, admittedly in no hurry to surrender his spare time to the rigors of law school. But after a few years, he grew impatient with postponing his dreams, and transferred to Cal Poly, Pomona, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree.

In 1985, Judge Bowman started at University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, taking out loans and working to pay tuition and support himself. He describes his time in law school as challenging, for a variety of reasons. While not particularly fond of school in general, he was driven to accomplish his goals. Saddled with dyslexia and being, as he describes, a notoriously poor speller, he found that just knowing the law wasn’t enough to get through law school. When he got the highest grade in his criminal procedure class as a 2L among mostly 3Ls, he knew he had found his calling and his path became much clearer.

While in law school, Judge Bowman secured an internship in the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. He instantly loved the work, but after law school, they didn’t have a job for him, so he ap-

plied to multiple district attorney offices throughout the state, and it was the Kern County District Attorney’s Office that invited him in. He packed his bags, left his friends and supporters behind, and moved to a town where he knew absolutely no one. He instantly thrived. As is often the labor of a prosecutor, he did trial, after trial, after trial –developing litigation skills at the expense of jurors and opposing counsel. Some weeks, he would pick a jury on a Monday, conduct closing argument on Wednesday, and begin jury selection in a new trial on Thursday. And he loved it. But his favorite part was always the closing argument, where he got his opportunity to be a storyteller – weaving the facts and the law to paint the perfect picture for his listeners. And if you’ve ever had the privilege of sitting at counsel table with Mike Bowman as he practiced

Justice Laurie Earl is the Presiding Justice of California’s Third District Court of Appeal.

his craft, you instantly know he is very good at it.

As Deputy District Attorney Bowman toiled away in the courtrooms of Bakersfield, something happened that would change his life – he met his now-wife, Michelle. Their paths first crossed when she answered the phone at an insurance company he called. They coincidentally ran into each other the following night and, as he describes it, he knew instantly that this was the woman he wanted to spend his life with. Initially however, she wouldn’t give him the time of day. This was, in truth, a blow to his then-healthy ego. Michelle Bowman doesn’t suffer fools, and she had little time to spend with men who thought more about themselves, than others. Sensing this, Mike began to share of himself, in a way that he hadn’t before. He began to listen more and perform less. They married in 1991, becoming partners in raising Michelle’s young daughter, who Mike considers his own. When one day DDA Bowman came home and told Michelle that, in a disagreement with his supervisor, he had quit his job, Michelle agreed to leave everything behind and move to Sacramento where Judge Bowman opened his own law firm. The trust that Michelle had placed in Judge Bowman was not lost on him. His mother and father had both taught

him the value of loyalty, and he deeply subscribes to it. Sometimes, he says, to a fault.

In 1992, Judge Bowman started what would turn into a 20 + year, highly successful criminal defense practice. But it was not without its bumps and bruises. Initially scraping for cash, he soon realized that his time was money, and taking phone calls and meetings with potential cash-paying clients on nights, weekends, and holidays, was what paid the bills. His one regret, he says, is that his work pulled him away from his family. He built in time to read bedtime stories to his now three daughters and tuck them in each night before returning to preparing cases, but he didn’t devote the same attention to his marriage. The respective stress and exhaustion of raising children and the law practice left both Judge Bowman and his wife depleted, and he relied, perhaps too much, on Michelle’s loyalty, overlooking the nurture that relationships demand. He says it’s different now that he’s a judge, at least he hopes it is. He manages his time better than he did as a lawyer, no longer consumed with chasing clients. And according to Michelle, he is much more present and attentive, and much less stressed about work. Unless of course, you’re the assistant or presiding judge of a large court when a once in a lifetime pandemic shutters your doors.

Mike Bowman became Judge Bowman in 2013 when he was appointed to the Sacramento Superior Court by Governor Jerry Brown. It was the first time in a long time that a criminal defense attorney had been appointed to the Sacramento bench. As Judge Larry Brown states of Judge Bowman’s appointment:

“It is worth highlighting the groundbreaking nature of Gover-

nor Brown’s appointment of Judge Bowman to our court in 2013 Until then, it had been decades since a practicing criminal defense attorney had received such an appointment. That the distinction fell to Mike Bowman came as no surprise to anyone With his easygoing manner, quick mind, and perhaps even quicker wit, he possessed a temperament that was widely understood as ideal for serving as a judicial officer. Suffice it to say, his appointment to our bench was universally applauded by all of us already serving.”

Initially assigned to traffic court, Judge Bowman quickly made his way back to the jail courtrooms where only months earlier he had practiced as an attorney. He loved the work, and the attorneys loved having him there. When asked about how his transition was from advocating for criminal defendants to balancing the rights of victims, Judge Bowman emphasized that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity, no matter which side of counsel table they sit on.

Perhaps it was this innate sense of fairness and temperament that caught his Sacramento Superior Court colleagues’ attention. Or perhaps it was his commitment to the rule of law and natural leadership skills (a quality immediately obvious to everyone - except Judge Bowman) that prompted other judges to nudge him into a leadership role on the court. Whatever the impetus, in 2019, Judge Bowman agreed to serve as the court’s next assistant presiding judge. No one could anticipate what lay ahead for him.

Judge Bowman started his term in January of 2020. He and then-Presiding Judge Russell Hom embraced the start of the new year, and their new reign. Shortly after assuming office, they watched as the new coronavirus started mi-

Judge Bowman and Michelle Bowman.

grating west. No one seemed a bit concerned. Suddenly, almost appearing from nowhere, COVID-19 descended upon the United States, and on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency. Few knew what that meant, and the Sacramento Superior Court was business as usual. Then, on Thursday, March 19, 2020, the Governor issued a shelter-inplace executive order, and everything came to a halt. It is said that great leaders are born from challenge and controversy. Nothing could be truer of Judge Bowman.

By the afternoon of March 19, 2020, you could hear a pin drop in the halls of each of the Sacramento Superior courthouses. With directions to leave the building, all but a handful of judges and staff remained behind, Judge Bowman among them. For the next several months, Judge Bowman was in the building every single weekday, and often on weekends, working with Judge Russell Hom Ret. and top administrators to figure out how to reopen the courthouse while keeping everyone – judges, staff, and court users – safe. First to reopen, within days of its closure, were the criminal arraignment departments. But they were completely reimagined. These high volume, hustle and bustle courtrooms were empty save for a single defendant, a criminal defense attorney and a bailiff. The judge (surrounded by plexiglass) and court staff sat across the street at the main courthouse, the deputy district attorneys sat in their offices, or makeshift offices in their homes, and all were connected by a web-based video conference platform called Zoom

Over the course of the next several months, it was Judge Bowman, Judge Hom, and a few other judges, who helped to transform courtrooms capable of holding hearings, while complying with the Gover-

nor’s six-foot separation mandate. The days were long, the future uncertain, and there was no shortage of opinions. Judge Ken Brody describes Judge Bowman’s leadership during this time as exemplary:

“His exemplary leadership was particularly evident during the challenging period of the COVID-19 pandemic, where he, along with former Presiding Judge Russell Hom led the court with grace, resilience, and an unwavering commitment to ensuring justice prevailed, even in the face of unprecedented challenges."

For me, occupying the courtroom across the hall from Judge Bowman at this time, it was really inspiring to watch. As others around him let their anxiety get the best of them, Judge Bowman grew more quiet, more thoughtful, much calmer. It was then that I knew our court would be okay. Amidst a raging storm, Judge Bowman and Judge Hom both held a steady hand. We would be okay.

While working through surviving the challenges of the pandemic, Judge Bowman was thrust into another challenge. He had been assigned the case of The People v.

Joseph DeAngelo, whom the media had dubbed the Golden State Killer

The prosecutors and defense attorneys had worked out a deal to drop the death penalty in exchange for DeAngelo’s plea and a four-day sentencing hearing. Where and how to accomplish this was a logistical nightmare, but Judge Bowman calmly steered the ship.

Over the course of four days in August of 2020, Judge Bowman presided over numerous victim impact statements, statements from the elected District Attorneys from Sacramento, Orange and Contra Costa, and a statement from DeAngelo’s oblivious wife. All heart wrenching. When I texted him one evening in the middle of it and asked him how he was doing, he told me, “They don’t teach you in judges’ college how not to cry.”

“Yes,” I told him, “you have to wait to cry at home.” Joe Cress, one of DeAngelo’s attorneys, shared his thoughts on Judge Bowman’s handling of the case:

“Judge Bowman was the perfect judge for a case as sensitive and complex as the Joseph DeAngelo (Golden State Killer) case. He skillfully managed the complexities

Judge Bowman presiding over the Golden State Killer case.

of the charges and evidence and the significant media attention. He provided an environment that ensured DeAngelo’s due process rights while being sensitive and caring to the needs of the many victims.”

By all accounts, Judge Bowman’s steady hand ruled again.

In his tenure as presiding judge, Judge Bowman continued to work under the strains of COVID, but he characteristically downplays the significance of his contribution, insisting Judge Hom and others created the foundation for the court’s COVID operations. While partly true, it was Judge Bowman who led meetings with justice partners and stakeholders, presided over calendars while telling others to stay away from the courthouse, implemented a mandatory settlement conference for any criminal case set for trial, AND presided over the calendar on a weekly basis. Judge Bowman also took on a statewide leadership role among superior court presiding judges, actively sharing his court’s procedures, and answering calls from other presiding judges and executive officers from throughout the state, all while balancing the chaos that swirled around him.

When I recently asked Judge Bowman what he was most proud of from his term as presiding judge, it’s not climbing out of COVID, or the DeAngelo case, or overseeing the task of keeping a new courthouse construction project on track, it’s his role in onboarding so many new judges appointed during his tenure. During his two-year term as presiding judge, the Sacramento Superior Court had 15 new judges appointed and hired seven new commissioners. This represents more new judicial officers than in any other two-year period in the court’s history. Judge Bowman

credits the Governor and his Judicial Appointments Secretary, Luis Cespedes, for the strength and diversity of each of those appointments, and his colleagues on his court for the commissioner hirings. Once again, he mitigates his impact in the process. Judge Bowman embraced the opportunity to mentor new judges. He made it his goal to ensure they each had the support they needed to perform the job of a superior court judge. He spent hours talking with each of them, making a point to get to know them and their background. In part aimed at making sure that he placed them in the right assignment, one that would build upon their strengths and experiences and set them on the right course for their new career. In part because Judge Bowman still enjoys a good story.

It is not surprising that it is his role as a mentor that Judge Bowman most cherishes. Since 2014, he has taught aspiring lawyers at Lincoln Law School in Sacramento. He was so eager to teach and work with students, he started out teaching a community property class, an area of law he knew little about. But when the criminal law professor retired a few years ago, Judge Bowman was a natural fit and the administration asked him to make the switch. In 2021, the student

body selected Judge Bowman as Professor of the Year, an acknowledgement that resonates with him to this day.

Is it also not surprising that, after this storied career, built on a dream, determination and hours of hard work, Judge Bowman is this year’s recipient of SCBA’s Judge of the Year award. For the past 32 years he has ruled the courtrooms of the Sacramento Superior Court and along the way he has evolved into an incredibly reflective leader whose concern for others is paramount to his concern for himself. His quiet confidence a calming force, his steady hand a welcome support.

No longer attached to his cellphone, and back in a trial courtroom where he is most comfortable, Judge Bowman does seem more present, less distracted these days. He eagerly awaits his first grandchild and is prone to tearing up as he talks about his family. He has definitely earned his place in the sun.

As Judge Bunmi Awoniyi so aptly wrote in nominating Judge Bowman for this award:

If you are familiar with Judge Bowman or are lucky enough to count him as a friend or colleague, you know that he will deflect credit for his accomplishments. He is a person who eschews the limelight. He will thank the legal community, his staff, and his fellow Judges here at the Court, and tell everyone that they deserve the credit. It is time for us to rightfully give him credit and acknowledge his tremendous leadership of our Court and his service to the community. We are all greatly indebted to him for his efforts and his commitment to access to justice. He should be the 2024 Judge of the Year.

Congratulations Judge Bowman.

Judge Bowman and participants in the Brother to Brother mentoring program.

The Mushrooming of MCLE Requirements

By Larry Doyle

This is not the time of year one normally expects to see an article on California’s MCLE requirements. Those articles are most often seen in January, as the February 1 compliance deadline looms and lawyers scramble to ensure that all requirements have been met.1

But this is not a normal year. Next January, when the lucky members of Compliance Group 1, lawyers whose last names begin with A-G (minus the lucky exempt), are required to certify their compliance with MCLE requirements, not a few could be unpleasantly surprised that the number of specific MCLE requirements has doubled.

When the MCLE program began in 1991, it was a model of simplicity: it required attorneys to complete 36 hours of MCLE over three years, with eight of those hours required to be in legal ethics (at least four hours) and/or law practice management. That left 28 hours, nearly 80% of the total, to be filled with any qualifying courses the attorney wanted.

That freedom for attorneys to construct their own tailored MCLE course of study didn’t last long. First, the hours requirement was reduced from 36 to 25 by the Legislature in 1999 via the enactment

Larry Doyle, veteran of decades of experience with the California Legislature, including 18 years as Chief Legislative Counsel for the California State Bar, former member of the State Bar’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, and currently a staffer for the SCBA. He can be reached at larry.doyle@sacbar.org.

of SB 144 by then-State Senator Adam Schiff, the bill that resurrected the State Bar after Governor Pete Wilson’s 1977 veto of the Bar’s funding authorization bill for its perceived misdeeds. A legislative analysis of the bill explains the reduction in required hours was because the Legislature was not amused by what its members regarded as the “vacuousness of certain MCLE courses and of the high costs of compliance.”2

The reduction of the MCLE hours requirement came with a corresponding reduction in the legal ethics requirement from eight hours to four and the elimination of the law practice management option for meeting part of that requirement, so attorneys still had abundant freedom to select MCLE course they regarded as interesting and/or valuable. Since 1991, however, the State Bar – sometimes impelled by the Legislature, but sometimes on its own – has filled most of those free MCLE hours with specific course requirements.

• In the 1990’s, the Bar imposed a requirement that attorneys complete one hour of MCLE relating to the recognition and elimination of bias in the legal profession and society by reason of, but not limited to, sex,

color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, physical disability, age, or sexual orientation (elimination of bias, or EOB, credit).

• In 2001, then-Senate President pro tem John Burton, who was well known for his successful battle to overcome substance abuse addiction, authored SB 479. The bill created the attorney diversion and assistance program within the State Bar and upped the MCLE requirement by adding a one-hour course of relating to the prevention, detection, and treatment of substance abuse.

• In 2019, the Legislature enacted AB 242 by Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager-Dove, which added the requirement that attorneys attend a onehour course on “implicit bias and the promotion of bias-reducing strategies” to the earlier elimination of bias requirement. The statute was unique in that it imposed strict requirements on what the courses must contain and the qualifications of who can teach them. This made offering such courses much more challenging for providers.

• In 2023, the Bar added two new

requirements: A one-hour requirement in the implications of technology in the practice of law and another one-hour requirement on civility in the legal profession. Both requirements are subsets of existing legal ethics requirements:

o Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, which requires attorneys to be professionally competent, already includes in a footnote that “[1] The duties set forth in this rule include the duty to keep abreast of the changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

o The civility requirement, which has been kicked around for at least 30 years, is arguably contained (or at least implied) in vari-

ous subdivisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §6068,3 as well as Rule of Court 9.7, which requires attorneys to take an oath swearing to “strive to conduct (themselves) at all times with dignity, courtesy, and integrity.” The State Bar is also proposing a stand-alone Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4.2 which makes it an ethics violation to “engage in significantly unprofessional conduct that is abusive or harassing in the practice of law.”4 The new proposed rules are currently under consideration by the Supreme Court.

When the dust of addition had cleared, three hours of new requirements have been added in the past year and the list of required hours now stands at 10, or 40% of the 25-

hour MCLE requirement. Here is the full list, described in more detail on this State Bar web page:

• Four (4) hours of Legal Ethics

– Which must focus on attorneys’ professional responsibility and obligations, including education on, and citation to, the California Rules of Professional Conduct, the State Bar Act, and related authorities.

• Two (2) hours of Elimination of Bias, including one hour specifically devoted to implicit bias and the promotion of bias-reducing strategies (both hours of the requirement can be satisfied with Implicit Bias courses).

• Two (2) hours of education addressing Competence issues.

o At least one of the hours which focuses on developing awareness of substance use, addiction, and mental health related issues in the

legal profession; strategies for dealing with mental health issues and substance use, and steps to assist and report affected attorneys (Prevention and Detection Competence Credit).

o The second hour may also deal with prevention and detection, or it may focus on practical strategies for managing mental health, stress, and overall well-being that are tailored to the legal profession (Wellness Competence Credit).

• One (1) hour addressing Technology in the Practice of Law (Technology in the Practice of Law Credit), which must include education on technology tools, programs, or applications to assist attorneys in their law practice (and cannot consist of marketing a particular technology product); and

• One (1) hour of education ad-

dressing Civility in the legal profession (Civility in the Legal Profession Credit).

MCLE programs/classes are out there to satisfy these requirements, many at very reasonable prices – or free. The California Lawyers Association and many local bar associations (soon to be joined by SCBA) offer recordings of programs they have sponsored which may be viewed for credit. And the State Bar has an e-learning portal with some very thorough courses in several subjects, including implicit bias. The key is to do an early inventory of what requirements (including the new requirements) you have fulfilled and what remain. Because if you are audited, the State Bar doesn’t care about anything other than whether you met the strict subject matter requirements.5

1. Failure to meet the requirements is not a little deal. If an attorney’s compliance record is

audited and found wanting, the State Bar can and will place them on involuntary inactive status (i.e., they can’t practice law) until they can fill in any compliance gaps and pay a reinstatement fee.

2. Interestingly, the courses the analysis specifically identified as vacuous were on law office management, “which can currently be satisfied by taking classes on stress management or how to use computers in the law office” – exactly the kind of courses that recently have been added (and required) with the new/refined requirements in technology and competence matters.

3. At one point, what was then subdivision (f) of Bus. & Prof. Code §6068 made it the duty of all lawyers to “abstain from all offensive personality.” This provision was held unconstitutionally vague by the Ninth Circuit in US v. Wunsch, 84 F. 3d (1996) and removed from the statute through SB 352 (Kuehl) of 2001.

4. The State Bar has long maintained Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism as a model set of guidelines for members, voluntary bar associations and courts to use and implement in a way that is effective for the legal community.

5. The author knows this from personal experience. Not many years ago, he had fully 84 hours of MCLE credits (mostly as a presenter of ethics courses), and was nearly inactivated because he forgot the MCLE compliance period runs from February 1 to January 31 three years later and one of his credits had expired. Bad feeling.

Giving Back through Capital Pro Bono

By Heather Tiffee

Capital Pro Bono is your non-profit legal aid organization. We were created and sustained by the joint efforts of the Sacramento County Bar Association and Legal Services of Northern California over 40 years ago. Our purpose is to create opportunities where attorneys can help the less fortunate in our community. Without you, we don’t exist!

So, how can you get involved? It’s easy. We have a range of opportunities for volunteer attorneys. From full-representation in guardianship petitions and preparing estate plans, to limited-scope representation at Labor Commissioner hearings and unemployment insurance appeals, to advice and simple forms preparation at our self-help clinics/projects and advice lines, we can get you plugged into at least one area right away. We offer advice and assistance in the following areas of law: bankruptcy, conservatorship, consumer, debt collection defense, employment, estate planning, expungement, family, guardianship, and probate.

You can also get involved by joining our Advisory Committee or helping with our annual phonathon. May 2, 2024 is the Big Day of Giving, a 24-hour giving challenge coordinated annually by the Sacramento Region Community Foundation, designed to raise critical funding and support for nonprofits

in our area. A few years ago, Capital Pro Bono merged its only fundraiser, our annual phonathon, with the Big Day of Giving. Our grants have restrictions on how we use their funds. We need the financial support of community members for the not so exciting things like paying rent and other basic overhead expenses.

Are you able to help support Capital Pro Bono this year?

Whether you want to start volunteering or would like to donate financially to Capital Pro Bono, please contact Managing Attorney, Heather Tiffee, at htiffee@capitalprobono. com for more information. You can also donate and contact us through our website: capitalprobono.org

Heather Tiffee is the Managing Attorney of Capital Pro Bono. She can be reached

Out-of-State Attorneys Participating in Arbitrations in California: Duties of the Attorneys, Co-Counsel, Opposing Counsel, and Arbitrators

By Gayle L. Eskridge

IGayle L. Eskridge is a full-time arbitrator and mediator in Sacramento County and the principal of Eskridge Law & Mediation. Gayle serves as a Director of the Sacramento County Bar Association, on the leadership committees of the Labor and Employment Law Section and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law Section of the Sacramento County Bar Association, and on the Bylaws and MCLE committees. She can be reached at geskridge@eskridgelaw.net.

n short, out-of-state attorneys may represent parties in California arbitration proceedings provided 1) a certificate showing where the attorney is admitted to practice (as well as other specified facts) is filed and served on the arbitrator(s), other parties and counsel, and the State Bar of California; and 2) the appearance is approved by the arbitrator(s). (Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) §1282.4(b)-(e); Cal. Rules of Court (CRC), rule 9.43.) In addition to complying with CCP §1282.4 and California Rules of Court, rule 9.43, out-of-state attorneys also must follow the rules and procedures of the California State Bar’s Out-of-State Attorney Arbitration Counsel (OSAAC) program. (See, Knight, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Alternative Dispute Resolution, The Rutter Group, 2020, §5:384.7c.)

An attorney who fails to comply with the requirements of CCP §1282.4, CRC rule 9.43, or the OSAAC program, who submits false information in connection therewith, or who otherwise does not comply with the standards of professional conduct required by the State Bar during the course of the arbitration will be subject to disciplinary action by the State Bar. Attorneys representing parties in California arbitrations when

they are not licensed to practice in California or have not obtained the out-of-state attorney arbitration counsel certificate are also guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both. (Bus. & Prof. Code 6126(a).)

However, it is not only the outof-state attorney who needs to be aware of the requirements of (and compliance with) CCP §1282.4, CRC rule 9.43, and the OSAAC program. What about the out-ofstate attorneys California-licensed co-counsel, opposing counsel, and even the arbitrator?

Pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 5.5(a)(2), a lawyer admitted to practice law in California shall not knowingly assist a person in the unauthorized practice of law. “Knowingly” requires actual knowledge of the fact in question, which may be inferred from the circumstances. (Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.0.1(f).) (This rule is similar to the previous rule 1-300(A), under which a member could not aid any person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law.) Further, pursuant to Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 8.4(a), it is profession-

al misconduct for a lawyer to violate these rules or the State Bar Act, knowingly assist, solicit, or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.

If other counsel and the arbitrator are aware that an out-of-state attorney has not complied with the requirements of CCP §1282.4, CRC rule 9.43, and the OSAAC program, and nevertheless continue to participate in the arbitration proceeding and treat that attorney as legitimate counsel, are they liable for “assisting” that attorney in the unauthorized practice of law?

Opposing Counsel

A recent case from the Central District of California has held that a party does not assist in the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of the Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, simply by participating in an arbitration with one who is arguably violating the rules of professional conduct of the state in which the arbitration is occurring. (Mitchell v. Corelogic, Inc., 424 F.Supp.3d 815, 820 (C.D. Cal. 2019).)

In Mitchell, the defendants refused to participate in pending arbitrations based on the fact that the plaintiffs’ counsel who were licensed in California and Minne-

sota were practicing law without authorization in other states where arbitrations were filed. Defendants argued they could not participate in the arbitrations or they would be facilitating and enabling the unauthorized practice of law, specifically violating Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rules 5.5(a)(2) and 8.4(a). The court rejected the defendants’ argument, holding, “Simply participating in an arbitration with opposing counsel who may arguably be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law does not violate Rule 5.5(a)(2) or 8.4(a).” The court stated that it was reasonable for defendants to “raise the issue” of a potential violation of California rules but that, once the issue was raised, it was unreasonable to discontinue participation in the arbitration. (Mitchell v. Corelogic, Inc., 424 F.Supp.3d 815, 820-821 (C.D. Cal. 2019).)

However, unlike opposing counsel, who has no real power to aid or assist an out-of-state attorney in practicing law in California, co-counsel and arbitrators arguably do have such power.

Co-Counsel

CCP §1282.4(c)(11) requires the out-of-state attorney to retain California-licensed co-counsel in the arbitration. (Pursuant to §1282.4(c) (11), the out-of-state attorney arbitration counsel certificate must list the contact information of the active member of the California State Bar who is the attorney of record.) The California-licensed co-counsel would obviously be aware that the out-of-state attorney was not licensed to practice in California, so to the extent they were also aware the out-of-state attorney had not complied with the out-of-state attorney arbitration counsel certificate requirements, yet continued to allow that attorney to continue representing the client, they could

possibly be vulnerable to discipline under Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rules 5.5(a)(2) and 8.4(a). (See, People ex rel. Herrera v. Stender, 212 Cal.App.4th 614, 637-638 (2012) –evidence in city’s action for preliminary injunction was sufficient to support finding that law firm and attorney aided and abetted lawyer’s unauthorized practice of law; Bluestein v. State Bar of California, 13 Cal.3d 162, 175 (1974).)

Arbitrators

Arbitrators might also violate Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rules 5.5(a)(2) and 8.4(a), if they knowingly permit an unlicensed attorney to represent a party in a California arbitration without completing the out-of-state attorney arbitration counsel certificate requirements. This is assuming they are licensed California attorneys themselves, of course. Of note, however, the State Bar takes the position that serving as a private arbitrator or other dispute resolution neutral constitutes the practice of law and thus requires an active law license, as opposed to having an inactive license. “This is based on the presumption that these activities call upon a member to give legal advice or counsel or examine the law or pass upon the legal effect on any act, document or law.” (See, Tuft, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Professional Responsibility (The Rutter Group 2020) §1:213; Application for Transfer to Inactive Status, available on the State Bar website (www.calbar. ca.gov); State Bar Rule 2.30(B).)

Pursuant to CCP §1282.4(d), failure to timely file and serve the outof-state attorney arbitration counsel certificate shall be grounds for the arbitrator to disapprove of the appearance and disqualify the attorney from serving as an attorney in the arbitration, so if an arbitrator is aware that an out-of-state attorney has not complied with the cer-

tificate requirements, and does not act under §1282.4(d) to disqualify the unlicensed attorney from participating in the arbitration, thus allowing the attorney to practice law in the California arbitration proceedings, it is possible the arbitrator could be found to have violated Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rules 5.5(a)(2) and 8.4(a).

It is not clear if arbitrators have an affirmative duty to ascertain whether all the attorneys appearing before them are licensed to practice law in California or have completed the out-of-state attorney arbitration counsel certificate requirements, but it would be wise for them to do so. Certainly, if they become aware of such a violation by out-of-state counsel, they should take steps to immediately rectify that and disapprove and disqualify the attorney from serving as counsel in the arbitration.

For the most part, it seems to be up to the attorneys themselves (and perhaps the arbitrators) to be aware of the requirements for out-of-state attorneys to appear in California arbitrations, with the arbitration tribunals not seeming to take an active role in ensuring compliance. While the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) does provide notice that out-of-state attorneys need to comply with certain requirements to appear in California arbitrations,1 the American Arbitration Association’s Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures merely provide that “Any party may participate without representation (pro se), or by counsel or any other representative of the party’s choosing, unless such choice is prohibited by applicable law,”2 and the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures provide no caveat at all, stating that “The Parties . . . may be represented by counsel or any other person of the

Lawyer

For advertising opportunities visit: https://sacbar.org/sacramento-lawyer-magazine

Party’s choice.”3

But what if the arbitration is conducted and concluded without the out-of-state attorney completing the out-of-state attorney arbitration counsel certificate (and without the other attorneys or arbitrator seemingly realizing that fact)? Is there a risk the arbitration award could be set aside? Would it matter if the award was in favor of or adverse to the party who was represented by the out-of-state attorney? These appear to be unsettled questions. While not directly on point, in one California case, the court set aside a judgment adverse to a party when an unlicensed attorney represented that party in a court proceeding, noting that “Two public policies underlie the strictures against the unlicensed practice of law. First, attorneys must be licensed so that the public is protected from being advised and represented by persons who are not qualified to practice law. Second, the litigation of cases by unlicensed attorneys threatens the integrity of the judicial process itself.” (Russell v. Dopp, 36 Cal. App.4th 765, 773 (1995) (internal citations omitted).) However, the court noted that these policy considerations do not apply when the unlicensed attorney actually prevails, and so similar relief would not be granted in such an instance. (Russell v. Dopp, 36 Cal.App.4th 765, 778, citing Gomes v. Roney, 88 Cal. App.3d 274, 275 (1979).)

1. See, “Notice to Attorneys and Parties Represented by OutofState Attorneys,” https://www.finra.org/arbitrationmediation/noticeattorneysandpartiesrepresentedoutstateattorneys (October 14, 2021) and FINRA Dispute Resolution Services Party’s Reference Guide (June 2021 Edition), https://www.finra.org/ sites/default/files/PartysReferenceGuide.pdf.

2. American Arbitration Association’s Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, rule R-26.

3. JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures, rule 12.

Celebrating Excellence: SCBA Criminal Law Section Attorney of the Year Awards Event

By Jennifer Mouzis

On February 8th, the SCBA’s Criminal Law Section hosted its highly anticipated third annual Attorney of the Year Awards event. The evening, held at the Sacramento Automobile Museum, was a testament to the dedication and prowess of legal professionals within our community.

The event drew a remarkable gathering of practitioners and leaders in the legal field, underscoring its significance within the legal community. Notable figures such as Public Defender Amanda Benson, District Attorney Thien Ho, and Judge Larry Brown graced the occasion, lending their support and recognition to the esteemed honorees.

At the heart of the evening was the acknowledgment of excellence and integrity in legal practice. The Criminal Law Section took pride in recognizing attorneys who exemplified not only exceptional skill but also unwavering commitment

Jennifer Mouzis is the Chair of the Criminal Law Section and managing attorney at Mouzis Criminal Defense. She can be reached at jm@jennifermouzislaw.com.

to ethics, civility, and community. Among the distinguished recipients were Kimberli Miller from the Sacramento Public Defender’s Office, Alan Donato from Donato Legal Group, and Chris Carlson from the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office.

Each awardee was celebrated for their outstanding contributions to the legal profession, demonstrating a deep-seated passion for their work and a steadfast dedication to upholding the highest standards of integrity. Their accomplishments serve as a beacon of inspiration for aspiring legal professionals and a testament to the profound impact that principled advocacy can have on our justice system.

In addition to recognizing individual excellence, this year’s event introduced a new accolade: the Isaac Choi Collegiality Award. Named in honor of Isaac Choi, this award acknowledges an individual’s exceptional commitment to fostering camaraderie and collabo-

ration within the legal community. Isaac Choi epitomizes the spirit of collegiality and unity that defines our profession.

The event was a resounding success, characterized by an atmosphere of camaraderie, admiration, and celebration. As attendees mingled amidst the backdrop of vintage automobiles, there was a palpable sense of pride in our collective achievements and a renewed commitment to upholding the principles of justice and integrity.

In honoring these exceptional individuals, the SCBA Criminal Law Section reaffirmed its commitment to recognizing excellence, fostering camaraderie, and advancing the highest ideals of our profession. As we reflect on the accomplishments of the past year, let us be inspired by the dedication and passion exemplified by our esteemed honorees and reaffirm our commitment to strive for excellence in all our endeavors.

Kimberly Miller & Dena Stone

Alan Denato & Jennifer Mouzis Keith Staten, Jennifer Mouzis & Ryan Raftery

Executive Director Highlight

Get to know the SCBA’s Executive Director, Terri Shettle: Where did you grow up and what did you like best about your childhood?

Terri: My father was in the Air Force for 20 years, so we moved every two years or so. Because both of my parents were born and raised in Virginia, my dad generally tried to be stationed somewhere not too far away from family. I was born in Alaska, though, so that part didn’t quite work out as being close to Virigina. I have a lot of fond memories of my childhood, even moving all the time, always saying goodbye to friends but also meeting new ones. You learn to adapt to new surroundings quickly. My family was everything. Living in Germany for three years might be among the most formative time of my life – I was just approaching teenage years so being exposed to a different culture in Germany was definitely an influence on how I see the world today. My parents took us all over Europe, camping, sight-

seeing, and learning about history, foods, traditions, and of course, the tragedies, atrocities and inspirations that came from WWII.

Tell us about your family, and how you manage to balance your professional life with your family life?

Terri: My home life consists of my spouse, Melissa, and our two pups, Hooper and Frankie. Melissa retired during the pandemic so balancing professional life with family life now is very different. It’s really important to me to carve out time to be involved and present with Melissa and the pups and still find time to decompress separately. We walk every morning for undistracted time to chat and dream and plan. We try to go on regular “dates”, even if it just to grab a bite to eat or go for a quick trip over to Napa/Sonoma for wine tasting. We make sure to plan weekend excursions and longer vacations. My family is spread out back east, so I also try to make sure I plan for time to visit my mom, my siblings, nieces, nephews and great nieces and nephews. I make time every day to talk to my mom, who lives in Nashville – she’s the best!

Do you have any hobbies or activities away from the office that you’re passionate about?

Terri: I am an avid outdoor recreation enthusiast. Melissa and I hike whenever we can, we kayak, cycle, snowshoe, camp (just sold our RV trailer so we are back to tent camping), backpack, snorkel and love birding and wildlife viewing. I am passionate about anything in nature. I also love to travel, love to explore through food and wine adventures, and love to learn, love to experience new things. I’m a HUGE sports fan, especially football (Steelers) and college basketball and football (Roll Tide).

What’s your idea of the perfect vacation spot and how you would spend your time there?

Terri: Ah, vacations. For a relaxing getaway, I love to go to Hawaii or Mexico, where I can sit on the beach, nap, read, and take in the sun and salty air. I especially love snorkeling and whale watching in Hawaii. I also love to go to remote cabins, far away from city lights and connectivity.

Most of my vacations, though, tend to be adventure travel. Foreign countries, cultural experiences, unique outdoor activities and wildlife, learning about history, going to art museums, exploring.

At the end of 2022, Melissa and

Melissa and Terri, Pinnacles hiking.

Frankie. Hooper.

I purchased a cabin in Colorado with her sister and brother-in-law. I expect that will become a more frequent part of my vacation/get away plans now.

Where’s a destination you’ve never been to, but always wanted to go?

Terri: I have a very LONG list of destinations I want to visit. Nepal, Tibet, and Mongolia are high on my list. Angkor Wat, Vietnam, the Great Barrier Reef, Patagonia, Antarctica, excursion to see the Great White Sharks at Farallon Island. I want to explore more of the Amazon Rainforest. This is just for starters. The more I travel, the more things I add to my list.

Why do you like association management?

Terri: My whole career has been tied to service and community in some fashion or form. I like the work of building relationships, learning about and serving the community and assisting with program development that creates engagement and, ultimately, strong, thriving environments for all. Association membership requires and includes all of that. My business background lends itself very well to the financial and administrative needs of association management as well.

Tell us something about you that would surprise our readers.

Terri: I was a three-sport athlete in high school (basketball, volleyball, softball) and two-sport athlete in college. I got into running in college, joining the Cross County team to train off-season for basketball, which led me to half marathons and marathons later. Training for distance races taught me patience, discipline, body-mind balance, and to use a measured approach to most things. I don’t really run much now but distance training as a mindset is permanently imbedded in who I am today.

What do you see as the biggest challenges facing lawyers today?

Terri: I am still learning about the world of lawyers and what the day-to-day work looks like, but I would have to say there are three things that jump out at me, probably for all businesses but especially for lawyers: AI, technology, and cybersecurity. AI, in particular, poses a big challenge. I imagine that use of AI in a law practice could assist in streamlining work, expediting research, and improving efficiencies. On the flipside, AI can be used to blur lines of facts and truths, generate/distort alternate realities in photos, videos, sound files, and even undermine legal cases. It can impact Intellectual Property rights.

I don’t know that our legal system has kept up with the rapid pace of technology advancements or AI, which will likely be an ongoing challenge. I look forward to learning more about how this is all being addressed/approached in the legal community.

What do you like best about working in the Sacramento area?

Terri: Having lived a lot of places throughout the country and some abroad, including moving around for work, Sacramento always felt the most comfortable. Most things are within easy commuting distance and accessible. It’s big enough to be interesting and progressive but small enough that it is easy to network and not feel like you’re on the outside looking in. The professional culture runs the gamut of ultra conservative/ traditional to young and hip and casual. There’s a creative vibe that is inspiring. In my short time with SCBA, I am finding so much overlap from communities and organizations I have been involved with previously, either on a personal level or as a professional, and that just adds to the personal appeal of living and working here.

Madrid wine tasting.

Madrid tapas.

Navigating the AI Revolution: Transforming Legal Practice Through Innovation

By Tyler Q. Dahl

Not too long ago, for many the mere mention of Artificial Intelligence (AI) conjured images of futuristic landscapes populated by sentient robots and dystopian narratives. It seemed like a realm reserved for science fiction enthusiasts and tech aficionados, far removed from the realities of everyday life, especially within the legal profession. However, in a remarkably short span of time, AI has transcended its status as a novelty or curiosity, evolving into an indispensable tool reshaping the very fabric of legal practice.

Yet, despite the clear benefits and potential efficiencies AI provides, the legal community has been resistant to fully embracing it. Indeed, surveys reveal that most lawyers have serious apprehensions, often rooted in fear of the unknown or their misunderstanding of the technology. Among the concerns is that AI technologies may ultimately replace them, rendering their expertise obsolete in an increasingly automated world.

Rather than viewing AI as a threat to job security or too complex to understand, it should be considered a powerful ally. This article explores how AI can revolutionize law firm operations by highlighting its diverse applications, providing strategies to overcome integration challenges, advising on selecting the right AI software, and emphasizing the im-

Tyler Q. Dahl, Esq., LLM (tax), is a certified tax coach, and Managing Attorney of the Dahl Law Group, where he provides tax strategies for business owners and real estate investors. He can be reached at tyler@tqdlaw.com.

portance of embracing technology.

Exploring the Spectrum: Where AI Can Make a Difference

To fully grasp the scope of AI in a law firm, it is important to understand the diverse areas within a law firm where AI technologies can be effectively applied:

1. Administrative Tasks

Streamlining administrative tasks is key to maximizing productivity. AI-powered administrative tools encompass a wide range of functions, including automated responses to customer inquiries with chatbots, scheduling and calendaring, and employee training. To find vendors in this area, you will likely have to venture off the law firm technology path. For example, Motion, an AI-powered Executive Assistant program that is not directly marketed to lawyers, will automatically plan your day based on tasks and priorities. Similarly, tools like

Calendly’s upcoming AI scheduling features also contribute to smooth scheduling and calendaring. Furthermore, platforms like Loom allow users to record screen activity while generating corresponding audio scripts using AI. This is a powerful tool that can be utilized for staff training purposes – from how to mail out correspondence to how to process a particular step in a legal matter. ChatGPT is also able to prepare Visual Basic computer language to create macros to input into Microsoft Office to automatically complete certain tasks, such as analyzing data in Excel or creating template email responses.

2. Lead Management/Client Intake

The initial stages of client engagement are paramount for law firms, and AI-driven lead management platforms play a pivotal role in this process. These platforms

facilitate the capture, tracking, and nurturing of leads while optimizing conversion rates and cultivating strong client relationships from the outset. For instance, LawHustle offers a comprehensive approach to client intake by engaging potential clients in intelligent conversations, automating appointment bookings, and conducting AI-powered follow-ups, including email agreements for e-signing. While LawHustle provides a broad solution, industry-specific systems like LawRuler for personal injury cases do exist. Like all other technology platforms, existing lead management and client intake systems will also adopt AI features.

3. Case Management

Efficient case management lies at the heart of operational success for law firms. While there isn’t a case management system solely powered by AI, the landscape is rapidly evolving to incorporate AI-driven functionalities aimed at automating administrative tasks. Take, for instance, Clio Duo, an innovative AI technology that will be integrated into Clio’s core suite of offerings, starting with Clio Manage. Clio Duo serves as a dynamic AI-powered assistant for law firms, offering personalized recommendations to prioritize tasks, reminder prompts for pending approvals and overdue tasks, document summarization, matter overviews for enhanced client communication, and interactive conversations to provide insights into firm performance. Similarly, other established systems are quickly implementing AI functionality, such as MyCase IQ and FileVine’s AI Fields. Law firms will start to see the more established case management systems separate from the pack by implementing AI functionalities, as well as new AI-focused case management systems coming to the market.

Moreover, the legal technology landscape is characterized by fragmentation, with new systems

addressing specific pain points emerging regularly. As a result, established case management systems are increasingly acquiring smaller AI-powered programs that offer niche solutions to targeted challenges. For instance, Clio’s acquisition of Lexicata (while not AI) resulted in the integration of Lexicata’s client intake functionalities into the Clio Grow platform, enhancing the capabilities of the Clio Manage program. This trend underscores the industry’s shift towards innovation, as firms seek tailored solutions in a less fragmented environment to optimize

their processes and improve law firm operations.

4. Document Drafting, Management, and Review

In the legal profession, where meticulous documentation is required, systemized document management is indispensable. AI-driven document management systems play an essential role in streamlining the creation, storage, retrieval, and sharing of legal documents, fostering collaboration, accessibility, and confidentiality. This area is the forefront of AI integration, offering substantial opportunities to enhance

the efficiency of legal services.

Precision and attention to detail are of utmost importance in drafting legal documents, making AI-powered drafting tools invaluable assets. Leveraging natural language processing (NLP) algorithms, these tools generate precise, customized documents, and assist in reviewing or summarizing documents for specific purposes. This significantly reduces drafting and review time and mitigates errors. Notably, many AI functionalities are being developed within existing platforms. For instance, in Gavel (formerly Documate), users can swiftly create various form types with custom fields input into Word or PDF documents for rapid document generation. The AI module facilitates document uploading, automatically generating custom fields for review and finalization based on document context and fields. Additionally, platforms like Spellbook and Latch analyze legal contracts, identify inaccuracies, and even draft or modify contract language based on transaction specifics or market standards. Almost all platforms aiding in document drafting also facilitate document review and summarization.

Attorneys can also leverage affordable AI solutions like ChatGPT, which serves as a valuable tool for creating initial drafts demand letters, client correspondence, and various other communications. Additionally, the system enables users to adjust the tonality of the communication to better suit the intended audience, ensuring effective communication. As with utilizing any technology, understanding the ethical implications of using Chat GPT is necessary.

5. Legal Research

AI has revolutionized legal research, offering unprecedented efficiency and accuracy. Platforms like Lexis and Westlaw leverage AI technologies to expedite the research process by harnessing nat-

ural language processing (NLP) algorithms. These platforms can quickly analyze and interpret complex legal texts, enabling attorneys to pinpoint relevant case law, statutes, and regulations with remarkable speed and precision. Additionally, tools like CaseText’s CARA A.I. feature enhance research capabilities by automatically identifying relevant cases based on the content of a brief or memo, saving valuable time and effort. CaseText’s Co-Counsel platform also serves as an AI-powered legal assistant for attorneys. With AI-powered research platforms at their disposal, attorneys can conduct comprehensive research more quickly and accurately than ever.

6. Financial Management

Financial management serves as the cornerstone of sustainable growth for law firms. AI-powered accounting software plays a pivotal role in automating invoicing, billing, and expense tracking processes, reducing manual errors, and enhancing financial transparency and compliance. For instance, Datarails provides a comprehensive solution for addressing critical business inquiries regarding budgets, forecasts, variances, and spending patterns. Additionally, emerging bookkeeping systems integrate AI to automatically categorize income and expenses. Law firms will begin to see existing case management systems implement AI into billing and invoicing features, such as Clio Duo. While law firm specific vendors do not dominate this sector, these advanced solutions are typically embraced by firms with substantial budgets.

7. Knowledge Management

Despite its significance, knowledge management often remains a neglected aspect within law firms. However, harnessing the collective expertise within a firm is pivotal for delivering exceptional legal services and client satisfaction. AI-driven knowledge management systems play a crucial role in

organizing, retrieving, and sharing knowledge and precedents, enabling legal teams to consistently perform administrative tasks within policies and procedures, and provide consistently high-quality legal services. For instance, platforms like Tettra utilize AI to facilitate rapid access to data and information, including policies, procedures, and workflows, thereby enhancing efficiency and consistency in both administrative and legal tasks, regardless of the individual performing them.

8. Marketing

AI-powered marketing tools increase brand visibility and engagement across various platforms. These tools excel in content creation, social media management, and search engine optimization (SEO), among other functions. For instance, FirmPilot AI offers insights into clients’ search behaviors and competitor rankings, generating high-quality marketing content, including SEO and pay-perclick (PPC) ads, to enhance lead generation and case acquisition in real-time. Chat GPT can also be used to create SEO-focused blog posts and content. Additionally, AI capabilities of other programs include image creation, video editing and tagging, and less comprehensive social media content management than FirmPilot, empowering law firms to refine their online presence effectively.

Navigating the Integration Maze: Overcoming AI Integration Challenges

Despite the profound benefits that AI promises to bring to the legal profession, the journey towards seamless integration often presents significant hurdles for law firms of all sizes. Central to this challenge is the need to bridge the gap between AI technologies and existing systems, ensuring smooth law firm operations and data exchanges. While many law firm technologies

boast Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that facilitate communication between different platforms, the complexity of integration can still be daunting.

APIs serve as the linchpin of connectivity in the digital ecosystem, enabling software applications to interact and share data effortlessly. For instance, consider a client intake system like Decision Vault, tailored for estate planning and business attorneys. With its API integration capabilities, Decision Vault seamlessly interfaces with other platforms such as Wealth Counsel and Gavel, streamlining data exchange and enhancing operational efficiency.

However, not all systems offer pre-programmed APIs, posing a formidable obstacle to integration efforts. To overcome these obstacles, systems like Zapier, Make (formerly Integromat), and Pably Connect are powerful tools designed to bridge the divide between disparate software applications lacking native API connections. Among these, Zapier stands out as a versatile platform that empowers users to create automated workflows, or “zaps,” without the need for complex API coding or much technical expertise. Understanding the functionality of systems like Zapier is crucial for law firms seeking to leverage technology, let alone AI, effectively.

Moreover, Zapier’s AI feature represents a game-changer for firms grappling with integration complexities. By leveraging AI-driven capabilities, users can simply articulate their integration requirements, and Zapier will intelligently generate “zaps” tailored to their specifications. This innovative approach democratizes the integration process, empowering users of all technical backgrounds to harness the full potential of AI technologies without undue complexity.

As law firms navigate the intricacies of AI integration, a nuanced un-

derstanding of integration tools and their functionalities is essential for success. By embracing platforms like Zapier, Make, and Pably Connect, firms can overcome integration challenges, unlock new efficiencies, and position themselves for sustained growth and innovation.

Selecting the Right AI Software: A Strategic Approach

Choosing the optimal AI software for your law firm demands a strategic and meticulous evaluation process. While it is essential to adhere to conventional strategies such as defining system requirements, evaluating costs and benefits, and demoing the software, there are considerations that warrant special attention.

First, it is crucial to strategically pinpoint the starting point for your AI journey. Administrative tasks often serve as an ideal entry point, given their significance in the smooth operation of a law firm and the potential for profitability and efficiency gains. Identifying and automating mundane, repetitive administrative tasks can free up valuable time and resources, ultimately enhancing profitability. However, the target area of AI implementation varies for each law firm and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Attorneys should also evaluate the possibility of the software vendor being acquired and consider the implications for future software use. With venture capital firms increasingly targeting case management and legal technology systems, potential cost-cutting measures may impact customer service and software performance. Additionally, acquisitions by other companies may restrict software accessibility. For example, Lexicata was acquired by Clio and rebranded to Clio Grow, and Clio Grow only synced with Clio Manage post-acquisition, which required users of Lexicata to adopt Clio Manage.

It is imperative to ensure that the chosen software platform remains committed to innovation, as transitioning between case management and other technology platforms can be disruptive and resource intensive. This commitment can be assessed through direct inquiries with the vendor or by researching the product’s development and feature implementation over time.

As with the evaluation of any vendor, it is important to exhaust your resources. This involves seeking feedback from peers and industry groups. Engaging with fellow attorneys in forums or social media platforms allows for knowledge sharing and validation of software choices, and this must be done strategically (simply asking who prefers a specific technology platform will not be beneficial). While feedback from other attorneys is beneficial, conducting independent research and validation is also essential. Leveraging online review sites like Capterra provides additional perspectives from users within the legal community.

Embracing Innovation: Ancillary Benefits of AI

In addition to increasing efficiency, leveraging AI in legal practice offers many other ancillary benefits. By implementing various communication channels facilitated by AI, law firms can decrease the likelihood of malpractice claims stemming from communication lapses. These varied avenues of communication foster better attorney-client interaction and instill a sense of value and responsiveness among clients, leading to increased satisfaction and loyalty. Consequently, this can be leveraged into online reviews generated by satisfied clients to further solidify the firm’s reputation and attract new clients through word-of-mouth referrals, leading to revenue growth and long-term success. In today’s saturated legal market where differentiation is cru-

cial, the firm’s publicization of its integration of AI technology can be a marketing tool to set a firm apart by showcasing its innovative approach and commitment to client satisfaction (although this may be a deterrent for some clients skeptical of technology).

Conclusion

As attorneys, instead of fearing obsolescence or avoiding complicated technology, it is imperative to shift our perspective and recognize AI as a tool that enhances our abilities rather than diminishing them. We must fully embrace that AI is here to stay and commit to expanding our knowledge of AI and technology in general. Are you asking yourself “When will AI replace me?” If so, you should be asking yourself “When will an attorney who leverages AI replace me?” The answer is likely – very soon – and you will not want to be left behind.

Disclaimer: The mention of any specific vendor in this article is not intended to constitute an endorsement or recommendation by either the author or Sacramento Lawyer Magazine. Readers are advised to conduct their own independent analysis and evaluation of vendors before making any decisions and evaluate the ethical considerations of utilizing any technology. The author acknowledges that AI was used to help incorporate stylistic preferences, generate structured sentences, and ensure clarity, coherence, and grammatical correctness of this article.

International Women’s Day Event March 8, 2024

By Kathryn E. Meola

Kathryn E. Meola is a senior partner at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, where she provides general counsel advice to public agencies, community college districts, K-12 districts and county offices of education. She is also the current President of Women Lawyers of Sacramento. She can be reached at Kathryn.Meola@aalrr.com.

This article is inspired by Clara Shortridge Foltz, the first female attorney in California who famously rejected the claim that “a broader education would make women less womanly and thus destroy our homes – that is not the legitimate effect of knowledge of any kind. On the contrary, knowledge of the law of our land will make women better mothers, better wives, and better citizens.”

Just before noon on March 8, 2024, International Women’s Day, I entered the adorably rustic space at Sequoia at the Cannery for a joint event between Women Lawyers of Sacramento and SCBA and was greeted by a sea of pink – pink dresses, pink suits, pink blouses, and pink ties. There was a palpable feeling of excitement as people greeted each other with happy smiles on their faces. The event began with Third District Court of Appeal Justice, the Honorable Shama Mesiwala, who welcomed

the guests for this sold-out event. After introducing herself, Justice Mesiwala introduced her four panelists – (1) Noemi Nuñez Espara, partner at Dreyer, Babich, Buccola, Wood & Campora, LLP; (2) Marisa Conchita Gonzalez, associate at Boutin Jones, Inc.; (3) Jennifer May Avery Mouzis, owner and Managing Attorney of Mouzis Criminal Defense; and (4) Saleshia Ellis, L1 law student at UC Davis School of Law.

Justice Mesiwala started the event with a brief summary of five famous women with key quotes from each woman, and then posed questions for two of the four panelists to answer. The first famous woman chosen was Dr. Maya Angelou on the theme of the value of mentors. Dr. Angelou was an American poet, author, and civil rights activist best known for her autobiographies, the first of which was I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Dr. Angelou was struck mute for four and a half years after she

was sexually assaulted at the age of 7. When the person responsible for this assault was found kicked to death, Dr. Angelou believed that she was responsible because she had disregarded his instruction not to tell anyone. Dr. Angelou eventually found her voice again when Mrs. Flowers, an African American woman who worked at the library, strongly encouraged (read: harassed) her to recite poetry aloud. One of Dr. Angelou’s quotes chosen to inspire the panelists was “nothing can dim the light that shines from within.”

Noemi Nuñez Espara answered this first prompt by relaying her dismay in the beginning of her career not seeing anyone around who resembled her in her chosen practice of law, litigation. Noemi spoke about advocating for herself and being granted an opportunity by her mentor, a male partner at her firm who proved to be an ally. Noemi said that before she started advocating for herself, she considered leaving the profession, but realized that she did not want to. Noemi said that as long as you lead from the heart, you can follow the path you are destined for.

The next theme and famous person to be introduced by Justice

Photos by Eleakis and Elder Photography

Mesiwala was Billie Jean King for her work in overcoming sexism First, Justice Mesiwala asked the packed room who knew of Billie Jean King and fortunately, many people raised their hands despite the numerous young women in the audience. King is an 80-yearold California native and was the world’s number one ranked tennis player in her day. King is famous for the 1973 Battle of the Sexes match where she defeated self-described male chauvinist, Bobby Riggs. One of King’s quotes was “In 1973, a woman could not get a credit card without her husband or father or a male signing off on it.” Another of King’s quotes chosen to inspire the panelists was “create your legacy and pass the baton.”

As our more experienced panelists, Jennifer May Avery Mouzis and Noemi Nuñez Esparza expressed that the legal profession has changed over the years and that while we might not be required to wear skirts in the courtroom any longer, there are still elements of sexism prevalent in our profession, whether we are being asked to fetch coffee, take notes, or avoid gruesome cases. Equal Pay Day (March 12, 2024) is reminiscent of the fact that women and men are paid differently for preforming the same work. The next famous person and theme addressed that concept in more detail.

Justice Mesiwala called on us to consider Oprah Winfrey and the theme of listening to the voice inside of us as the next inspiration. When Winfrey was 26 years old, she learned that her male co-host was making more money than she was. When Winfrey asked her boss for a raise, and he asked her why, Winfrey replied that they were doing the same job. Winfrey’s boss asked her if she had a mortgage and children for whom she had to save college tuition? When Win-

frey said, “No,” he said, “So tell me, why should you make as much as someone who does have a mortgage and children?” Winfrey knew at that moment that it was time for her to go. She knew that her boss did not see her or hear her and that she was not going to receive the validation she deserved. When 20 years later, her boss came to see her, now one of the most successful TV personalities in history, she said it was one the sweetest moments in her life. The quote from Winfrey to inspire the panelist was “I was once afraid of people saying, ‘Who does she think she is?’ Now I have the courage to stand and say, ‘This is who I am.’”

Jennifer May Avery Mouzis answered this prompt by speaking about her background and growing up disadvantaged, on welfare, with little food to eat. Jennifer spoke about the shame of her humble beginnings and her wish to shield that from everyone in the legal community. However, Jennifer realized that her modest start allowed her to connect with her clients and understand where they are coming from, and because she truly empathized with her clients, she was able to translate that to her opponents and the judge hearing her cases. Jennifer said that this experience has made

her realize, we belong. Every woman who feels they do not deserve to be in the room, whether it is the courtroom, the board room, or the equity/shareholder partner room, as women, all women, we belong.

The next famous person and theme to be introduced by Justice Mesiwala was Malala Yousafzai on the value of courage. When Malala was ten years old, she lived in the Swat region of Pakistan where the Taliban ruled and banned girls from attending school. Malala delivered her first speech at the age of eleven, entitled, “How dare the Taliban Take Away My Basic Right to Education?” When Malala was fifteen years old, she was shot in the head three times by a Taliban gunman. She emerged from a coma one month later and a year later, delivered a public address at the United Nations in New York. Two years later, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as its youngest recipient. The quote from Malala chosen to inspire the panelists was “I don’t want to be thought of as the girl who was shot by the Taliban, but as the girl who fought for education.”

University of Davis School of Law L1 student Saleshia Ellis took the reins on this inspiration and blew the room away. Saleshia told us that she was from Florida

Angelina Ray, Presiding Judge Bunmi Awoniyi, Leon Dixson, Deputy Judicial Appointments Secretary Adam Hofmann, Jessie Morris, Justice Shama Hakim Mesiwala.

against hope that her dream would come true, and she could remain in the Sacramento legal community she had come to love. For Marisa, it did, and her advice is to Be True to Yourself, know what you want, and go after it. Anything less would not be having courage in yourself and your dreams.

and that she is the first person in her family to graduate from high school, let alone college. Saleshia genuinely explained that she feels like that – afraid of people questioning who she is, even in the moment of among the experienced panelists, in a packed room of judges and legal dignitaries. Saleshia said that she constantly tells herself to Dream Big and have Courage and recognizes that by representing herself, her family, and those individuals that inspire her, (this is where the collective goose bumps arose in everyone in the room), she is Breonna Taylor, Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, and Saleshia Ellis.

The last famous person and theme to be introduced by Justice Mesiwala (and one of Justice Mesiwala’s favorite persons!) was Dolly Parton and the theme of Being Your Authentic Self. Parton, now 78, was born in a one-room cabin in Tennessee. Parton’s father was an illiterate sharecropper, and her mother raised their 12 children. Parton launched her musical career at age 10 and is one of the most successful music stars ever. The quote from Parton to inspire the panelists was: “I’ve always been true to myself. That’s what my

mama always used to say, ‘To thine own self be true.’”

Marisa Conchita Gonzalez, associate at Boutin Jones, spoke in response to this quote. Marisa described the dilemma she faced when she had her heart set on remaining in Sacramento, but having only received one job offer, from her hometown in the San Joaquin Valley. Everyone around Marisa said she should take the sure thing and move back to her hometown, but she explained how she had to convince her significant other, debate with her family, and hope

As President of Women Lawyers of Sacramento, I want to express my extreme gratitude to the SCBA for co-hosting this sold-out event and for Connor Olson’s idea to hold the event on International Women’s Day, which added an extra special sparkle! I want to thank WLS’ Programs Committee, Jamie Mauhay Powers, Jennifer Domer, and Margot Cutter, and SCBA Executive Director Terri Shettle and Theresa Lopez, SCBA’s member services’ specialist extraordinaire, for their hard work in preparing the event and ensuring it ran smoothly. In addition, the high-level quality of this event could not have happened without Justice Mesiwala who was the perfect moderator and brought out the inspiring stories of our phenomenal panelists. It was truly a conversation that left many of us in tears, busily wiping away our makeup as we joined the all-pink group photo. Thank you to everyone who made this happen.

Back Row (left to right): Sofia Schersei (Boutin Jones Employment Associate), Savanna Corr (Boutin Jones Employment Associate), Donna Courville (Boutin Jones Trusts and Estates Shareholder), Kelley Lincoln (Boutin Jones Litigation Shareholder), Mike Chase (Boutin Jones Litigation Shareholder), Justice Shama Hakim Mesiwala (California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, Justice). Front Row (left to right): Christy Grellas (Boutin Jones Real Estate Associate), Marisa Gonzalez (Boutin Jones Litigation Associate); Steve Boutin (Boutin Jones Founder).

Jennifer May Avey Mouzis, Saleshia Ellis, Marisa Conchita Gonzalez, Hon. Sharma Hakin Mesiwala, Noemi Nuñez Esparza.

Bench Bar Reception 2024