From a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three (Santa Ana):

“Sanctions are serious business. They deserve more thought than the choice of a salad dressing. ‘I‘ll have the sanctions, please. No, on second thought, bring me the balsamic; I‘m trying to lose a few pounds.’ A request for sanctions can never be so lightly considered as to be copied word for word from another brief – much less copied in reliance on facts from another case that do not obtain in the present one. A request for sanctions should be reserved for serious violations of the standard of practice, not used as a bullying tactic. 

“Our profession is rife with cynicism, awash in incivility. Lawyers and judges of our generation spend a great deal of time lamenting the loss of a golden age when lawyers treated each other with respect and courtesy. It’s time to stop talking about the problem and act on it. For decades, our profession has given lip service to civility. All we have gotten from it is tired lips. We have reluctantly concluded lips cannot do the job; teeth are required. In this case, those teeth will take the form of sanctions.

For over a decade, bar associations in Santa Barbaraand San Luis Obispocounties have raciously hosted an annual reception for the Appellate Justices of the Second Appellate District, Division 6. Upon hearing that there was no similar fete in Ventura, Jill Friedman, President of Women Lawyers of VenturaCounty, offered to host an event in VenturaCounty, where the appellate courthouse is located. “It is funny how the obvious…isn’t,” wrote Justice Steven Z. Perren in accepting the invitation. “Our physical location does not reflect that we have any greater contact with the bar here than in SLO or SB.” Please join WLVC in making the “local” justices feel at home.  The event will be held Wednesday, February 22 at The Tower Club, 300 East Esplanade Drive, 21st Floor from 5:30 P.M. – 7:30 P.M. Cost of admission is $35 for WLVC members and $45 for non-members and includes delicious light fare and refreshments.  Newly-retired Justice Paul Coffee will receive special recognition for his years of dedicated service to the bench. All proceeds will benefit the Mary Sullivan Scholarship Fund. RSVP by February 20 by sending check made payable to “WLVC” to Tawnee Pena,P.O. Box 7209,Ventura,CA93006.

By Wendy Cole Lascher

“No matter where I was, I tried to remember what it was like being a trial lawyer. I wanted our court to be a hospitable place.” 

Retiring Court of Appeal Justice Paul Coffee obviously achieved that goal. The first words from every staff member, lawyer and judge I interview about Coffee on the eve of his retirement focus on how nice, how human he is.

Kathy Pendergest, Coffee’s judicial assistant throughout his Court of Appeal career, describes him as a “very kind man, very dedicated. He has a great deal of integrity. His door was always open to everyone and he is a great listener, an all-around really good guy.” Research attorney Audrey Austin, who started working at the Court of Appeal at the same time as Pendergest and Coffee, says Coffee is an “amazing attorney with an amazing sense of humor…He’s a naturally talented writer” with “amazing compassion for human struggles and failings” and an ability to look at a case “beyond the words on paper.” And Division Six Clerk Paul McGill notes how Coffee always treats the court’s staff with respect, is always thoughtful and considerate of their workload and how he could help the staff.

 A native of MaderaCounty, Coffee joined the Navy in 1954, after graduating from U.C. Berkeley. He spent six years as a naval aviator and then returned to Berkeleyto attend Boalt Hall School of Law.

Coffee learned what it was like to be a trial lawyer during 12 years of insurance defense practice in San Jose, followed by another 17 years in San Luis Obispo.  He was elected to the American Board of Trial Advocates in 1982 and became president of the tri-counties chapter in 1989. Coffee also served as president of the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern Californiain 1989.

Fellow Justice Steven Perren first met Coffee in 1978 when Perren handled plaintiffs’ personal injury cases and Coffee was the managing partner for Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appeal in San Luis Obispo. Perren says Coffee “was a wonderful opponent: fair, tough and courteous. He gave nothing away but respected what you did and expected the same in return. He set a standard for civility amongst the litigation bar that should be the model for all trial lawyers.”

Appointed to theSuperiorCourtofSan Luis ObispoCounty in 1992, Coffee rotated through a variety of assignments. That diverse experience served him well when Governor Deukmejian elevated Coffee to the Court of Appeal in 1997.  His colleague Justice Kenneth Yegan noted that Coffee “came to us with the practical wisdom that one can obtain only from long service in the trenches of the trial court. [The late] Presiding Justice [Lester] Roth would call this, ‘toiling in the vineyard of the law.’ We were indeed fortunate to have had a colleague who had toiled so long and so well.” Coffee

says that in handling appeals he always “remembers what it was like being a trial judge.” Among other things, this has led him to remind his fellow justices “to give precise instructions in [our] opinions about what should happen in the trial court.”

When Coffee left the Navy and the thrill of carrier landings, he took up car racing. He also became an avid pleasure sailor.  After joining Division Six and moving to Ventura, Coffee took up residence aboard his sailboat in the Ventura Harbor. He only recently moved ashore, to a “land yacht.”

Continue reading – February CITATIONS – page 7

Wendy Cole Lascher- is a State Bar certified specialist in appellate law with the firm Ferguson Case Orr Paterson LLC inVentura.

VenturaCountyGovermentCenter
Saturday, May 19, 2012 @ 8:30 AM

  
Date
Start: Saturday, May 19, 2012 @ 8:30 AM

Address
VenturaCountyGovermentCenter
800South Victoria AvenueVentura,CA

 
 Registration Today!

Saturday, January 21, 2012
8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

VenturaCountyAdministrationBuildingLowerPlaza
Below Board of Supervisors Hearing Room
800 S. Victoria Ave,Ventura,CA

6 MCLE Credits!
Substance Abuse: 1 Elimination of Bias: 1
Ethics: 1 General: 3

If you have not already registered, there is still time!
Call (805) 650-7599 – email bar@vcba.org

FREE to new attorneys admitted after January 2009.  Other Barristers who have been in practice two to seven years $50.  Attorneys in practice for more than seven years $75.  

There will be no hard copies of the participant materials available at the event.  Please download the materials yourself and bring them with you.  To save trees, we encourage you to use a PC/tablet or similar device to view the materials at the event.

 Angenda
 8:00 to 8:25 a.m. REGISTRATION/BREAKFAST
                                          Robert S. Krimmer, President  
8:30 to 9:20 a.m. JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE
                                         Hon. Vincent J. O’Neill
                                         Hon. Kevin G. DeNoce
                                         Hon. John R. Smiley
                                         Moderator: Joseph L. Strohman, Esq.
9:20 to 10:10 a.m. BASTON/WHEELER (Ethics)
                                          Michael C. McMahon, Esq.      
10:20 to 11:10 a.m. LAW PRACTICE MANAGEMENT
                                         Michael D. Sudman, Esq.
11:10 to Noon GOVERNMENT CLAIMS
                                         Alberto Boada, Esq.
Noon to 12:30 p.m. LUNCH
                                        In Appreciation Merrill Corporation, Tasha Holcomb
12:30 to 1:20 p.m. ETHICS
                                        Joel Mark, Esq.
1:20 to 2:10 p.m. SUBSTANCE ABUSE
                                        William Shilley

Join Diana M. Mueller and Mitchell B. Davis of the Ventura County Counsel’s Office to discuss the cross-overs and distinctions between LPS and Probate Conservatorships Diana M. Mueller, a paralegal, has served as the CountyCounsel’s paralegal on LPS/probate conservatorship matters and decedent’s estates since 2006.  Mitchell B. Davis, Senior Assistant County Counsel, joined Ventura County Counsel in 2005 and is currently handling LPS and Probate Conservatorship Litigation Matters.

Thursday, January 26, 2012
12:00 – 1:30 p.m.
Wedgewood Banquet Facility, Ventura

Register online or mail event registration form to: 4475 Market Street, Ventura, CA 93003

 By Melissa Hatch

Jack and Diane fell in love, got married, and had a child, “Bobby.” Bobby attended public school and received special education services through an individualized educational program (“IEP”). Because Bobby was an eligible disabled child with an IEP, his local school was obligated to offer and provide him a special education program that comported with federal and state law. The public school also had to ensure compliance with Jack and Diane’s rights as parents of a disabled eligible child.

Then, for various reasons, Bobby’s parents divorced. Jack and Diane agreed to joint legal and physical custody of Bobby.  Their custody order contained standard verbiage that they shared equally in making educational decisions for Bobby. 

Bobby had difficulties adjusting to Jack and Diane’s divorce. He demonstrated increasingly inappropriate behaviors at school. His IEP team recommended an updated assessment of Bobby’s behaviors at school – a legal requirement for developing an appropriate IEP. Diane signed her consent for the offered assessment, but Jack refused to give his consent.

 The school assessed Bobby with Diane’s consent, but without Jack’s consent. They held an IEP team meeting to review the assessment and the IEP team recommended additional services to address Bobby’s behavior. Diane consented to this new IEP. Jack informed the IEP team that he would not consent to the new IEP; he then completely revoked consent to Bobby’s IEP. As required by law, the school promptly exited Bobby from his special education program, and placed him in a genera, education classroom without any of his IEP services.

Bobby fell apart at school without the benefit of his IEP and special education services. The school tried in vain to work with Jack and Diane to get Bobby back into special education. But Jack and Diane could not agree on Bobby’s education. The school informed Jack and Diane that they should go back to family court and work it out. While Jack and Diane continued their disagreement, Bobby continued his downward spiral.

Educating The Disabled Child In The Public K-12 School

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”) is the reauthorized federal law that governs how states and public education agencies receiving federal funds are to provide early intervention services, special education services, and other services to eligible children with disabilities.

The IDEA requires that public schools provide an eligible disabled child with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”).  To meet the legal standard of developing a FAPE for each eligible disabled child, public schools must adhere to numerous procedural and substantive legal requirements. One of the greater requirements is to ensure the rights of parents of eligible disabled children.

The IDEA And Parental Rights

Among the IDEA’s most important procedural safeguards are those that protect the parents’ right to be involved in the development of their child’s IEP.  Nevertheless, nothing in the IDEA overrides the state’s allocation of authority as part of a custody determination. (Navin v. Park Ridge School District (7th Cir. 2001) 270 F.3d 1147.) In the case of divorced parents, the parental rights established by the IDEA apply to both parents, unless a court order or state law specifies otherwise. (See 71 Fed. Reg. 46568 (2006).)  The Family Code requires the court, when making an order of joint legal custody, to specify the circumstances under which the consent of both parents is required, as well as the consequences of the failure to obtain mutual consent. In all other circumstances, either parent acting alone may exercise legal control of the child. (Family Code §3083.)   When developing joint legal custody orders, standard verbiage requiring parents to share equally in making educational decisions for their child, is typically used. In most circumstances, this works fine. In the case of a disabled child, the inclusion of standard language, without any limitation, can be problematic. 

Continue reading – January issue of  CITATIONS (page 16)

Melissa Hatch has over 13 years of combined experience in re p re s e n t i n g public school districts in special and general education law. She recently opened her practice in Ventura, where she practices family and elder law, and continues to represent public school districts in education law.

By Sheila Lowe

If you are called upon to handle a case that involves a handwriting forgery, you will probably need to retain a forensic handwriting expert. If you’ve never had the occasion to retain a handwriting expert before, how do you know which one can do the job?

Most forensic handwriting experts come from one of two backgrounds. Some are trained through a law enforcement or other government agency, such as the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, the United States Postal Service or a police department and later began practicing in the private sector. Others learned through private study with a mentor who has spent many years in the field. Is one background superior to the other? What is more important than where the expert trained or where he worked is what he learned during that training, and the experience later garnered through years of practice. It’s worth noting that in most cases training through government entities is not available to private experts. However, they study many of thesame textbooks, acquire the same knowledge, and follow the same procedures, so a private expert has equivalent competencies.

Continue reading – January issue of CITATIONS (page 12)

Sheila Lowe is a forensic handwriting examiner. She teaches Introduction to Forensic Handwriting Examination at UC Riverside. www.sheilalowe.com.