Sandoval for Judge

The San Francisco Examiner said it best when it wrote: “Every time a judge rules on the legality of a ballot measure, millions of lives may be affected. Every time a criminal justice controversy, a workplace dispute or questions involving family law, product liability or health insurance are addressed by San Francisco’s black-robed decision-makers, everyone may be touched.”

The original article tells you much more about our local judges (below).

Trial lawyers responding to a survey rate the 49 men and women who sit on The City’s bench

Scott Winokur, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF
Sunday, December 13, 1998

Some are considered too unintelligent, lazy or biased to hold their positions of power and public trust. Others are seen as bright, hard-working and impartial.

Many are independently wealthy, but a few are said to earn more on the public payroll than they could in private practice or business - $101,012 to $110,612 a year (with a 75 percent pension).

Colleagues say some are chronically late to work, while others would rather be on the golf course or basketball court. One plays computer chess in chambers. Another goes barefoot.

They are The City’s 49 Municipal and Superior Court judges - the men and women who may hold the real power in San Francisco.

In their hands are the freedom and welfare of 151,000 people, at minimum, involved in newly filed civil and criminal cases each year.

But that is not all. Every time a judge rules on the legality of a ballot measure, millions of lives may be affected. Every time a criminal justice controversy, a workplace dispute or questions involving family law, product liability or health insurance are addressed by San Francisco’s black-robed decision-makers, everyone may be touched.

Who are they? How well do they perform? Who are the best? The worst? What personal peculiarities and political leanings may influence the way they administer justice?

“The bench is so poor it’s a disservice to the community,” says one of San Francisco’s most experienced lawyers.

“You’ve got a pretty good group here,” says another.

Both may be correct. San Francisco’s judiciary has top-of-the-line performers and lemons. Lawyers say the quality of justice in a particular case depends as much on the jurist presiding as the law itself.

In June and July, The Examiner conducted a survey of 4,738 Bay Area lawyers likely to be familiar with The City’s bench - a series of courtrooms at the Hall of Justice, the Civic Center and the Youth Guidance Center that, after a Jan. 1, 1999, reorganization, will be administratively unified into one 567-employee body called Superior Court, with an annual operating budget of $52‚million.

The survey’s intent was to provide the public with an informed assessment of its local judiciary and to assist judges in improving, where necessary, the administration of justice.

Modeled on a 1994 poll by the Bar Association of San Francisco (the last it conducted), the survey invited those most knowledgeable to evaluate The City’s judges on six grounds:

*Preparation for cases.

*Thoroughness and impartiality in weighing evidence.

*Grasp of issues and proper application of the law.

*Degree of bias.

*Skill at encouraging negotiations and settlements.

*Ability to communicate the substance of rulings.

“Each of these components is the difference between a good judge and a bad judge,” said District Attorney Terence Hallinan. “This looks like a textbook example of qualities for judges.”

More than 550 lawyers responded to the survey, nearly 12 percent - a high figure, compared with similar polls. The 1994 BASF poll, in contrast, had a 9 percent response rate.

Some of the principal findings:

*Based on one of several measures - combined percentages of “good” and “excellent” ratings - the five highest-ranked judges are, in order: William Cahill, John Munter, Raymond Williamson Jr., Donna Hitchens and Anne Bouliane. All are on the Superior Court.

The five lowest-ranked, based on combined percentages of

“needs improvement” and “poor” ratings: Charlene Padovani Mitchell, Ksenia “Kay” Tsenin, David Ballati, Thomas Mellon Jr. and Carlos Bea. Mellon and Bea are Superior Court judges; the others are Municipal Court judges.

About half the bench - 24 judges - rated superior overall; 15 - nearly a third - were subpar.

*It is also possible to single out the best and worst judges by looking at a different group of survey numbers, which are not percentages. These are, rather, the average of the ratings lawyers gave judges in each of the survey’s six categories (from 1, which was “poor,” to 5,”excellent” ).

When these averages are determined, then totaled for each judge, the five highest-ranking are: Munter, Cahill, Williamson, David Garcia and Lee Baxter. Garcia and Baxter are Superior Court judges.

The lowest-ranking: Mitchell and Tsenin. Seven other judges, however, were only barely adequate by this measure: Mellon, John Conway, Perker Meeks Jr., Bea, Wallace Douglass, Ballati and Julie Tang. Conway, Meeks, Douglass and Tang are Municipal Court judges.

*Using the same measure, but considering only the ratings provided by the most experienced respondents - 335 lawyers who have been members of the State Bar at least 10 years - the findings are similar.

Munter, Cahill and Williamson are top rated, followed by Alfred Chiantelli (soon to be presiding judge) and Garcia and Laurence Kay (Superior Court). The latter two were tied.

The worst: Mitchell, Tsenin and Tang. The were followed by five rated marginally adequate: Meeks, Bea, Conway, Douglass and Donna Little (Municipal Court).

Tang noted that many of the judges faring poorly in the poll sat in Municipal Court and heard misdemeanor criminal cases. This made them especially vulnerable to criticism, she said, regardless of how well they did their jobs.

“The high volume of cases in the misdemeanor courts, 50 to 75 a day, creates a contentious atmosphere that is sometimes political,” Tang said. “This volatility impacts an attorney’s view of a judge.”

Tsenin, also a Municipal Court judge, said: “In criminal, the lines are drawn very harshly. The defense always wants discovery (a pretrial procedure in which information is obtained from the opposition) and is always making motions to suppress evidence. When you rule against one side or the other, it’s always very emotional and creates animosity.

“There also are relatively unseasoned lawyers in these (lower) courts and they take it personally when you rule against them.”

Other judges said they welcomed evaluation.

Mellon: “It is always helpful to get some kind of feedback.”

Ballati: “I’ll take the constructive criticisms to heart and hope to improve.”

Hitchens: “There’s always room for improvement.”

“The public hardly knows’

Many respondents and lawyers or judges interviewed said they believed the survey represented a long-overdue opportunity to offer constructive criticism.

“This is a useful service you’re rendering,” said David Balabanian, past president of the Bar Association of San Francisco. “The public hardly knows what judges do. I’m impressed with the response rate. That’s higher than BASF gets.

“Polls like this are helpful in identifying judges who fall below the mark,” Balabanian added. “Our system works very well and it would be surprising and disappointing if any significant number of judges were to receive negative evaluations .‚.‚. If you get a judge who is getting persistently negative ratings, that’s meaningful.”

But some strongly disapproved.

“Popularity polls for judges undermine - not enhance - the system,” said one lawyer.

“I do not want judges who are too worried about .‚.‚. evaluation. The courts exist to ensure due process of law, however popular or unpopular,” said another lawyer.

Lawyers were invited to identify themselves in their responses, but most insisted upon anonymity.

“I would be ruined if any of the judges knew,” one said.

Another lawyer called The Examiner to explain why members of the Bar are afraid to openly criticize the bench:

“Some of these people have the black-robe disease pretty bad. The black-robe disease is arrogance. These people put on the black robe and come to believe everything they do comes from on high.

“These are very powerful people. Lawyers have to be careful about what they say because judges harbor grudges for years. They are a good group, by and large, but there are some bad ones.”

San Francisco’s supremes

Munter edged Cahill as best overall judge on two of three survey measures, but fewer lawyers rated him - 123 compared with 360 for Cahill. The likely reason is that for much of his career Cahill had been a civil judge in the Law and Motion Department - a courtroom for virtually all pretrial requests (preliminary injunctions, for example) in civil cases, and therefore a beehive of activity. More lawyers know Cahill.

A 56-year-old multimillionaire, Munter is a native San Franciscan who graduated from Lowell High School, UC-Berkeley and Harvard Law School. He practiced law nearly 30 years, specializing in insurance, cases involving damage or injury due to toxic substances, antitrust issues and intellectual property. He was appointed to the Superior Court in 1994 by Gov. Wilson, a fellow Republican.

Twenty-six survey respondents commented on Munter, 20 positively. Remarks typically were brief and unqualified: “Outstanding trial judge.” “Excellent and hard working.” “A gem.” “Very smart, very capable.” “Superb.” “Brilliant judge - smartest on bench.” “One of top three judges.”

A senior lawyer with less than 10 years’ experience who appears in court several times a year said of Munter:

“This is a judge who gets the most out of a trial. Refreshing, to say the least. Fair, organized, runs a tight ship. I wish we had more like him.”

Said Munter: “I love this job and it’s very rewarding to see that what you do is appreciated. I work very, very hard.”

Cahill, a 49-year-old Republican with a background in real estate, securities and construction law, was appointed by Republican Gov. Deukmejian in late 1990 and elected two years later. His legal acumen and informal style made him popular and respected immediately. Two years into his judicial career, he was named Trial Judge of the Year by the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association.

“He’s a big, gregarious kind of guy - accommodating and creative, very personable,” said a prominent onetime prosecutor.

Fifty-eight lawyers commented on Cahill, 36 positively and 14 negatively; eight offered mixed judgments.

The negative comments were of two kinds: criticism of Cahill’s personality, which some lawyers think is inclined to arrogance ( “Isn’t as smart as he thinks he is, but that still makes him smarter than a lot of people on the bench.” ) and criticism of his performance as a criminal judge, an assignment made last year after a career in civil law.

“New to criminal law. Getting flimflammed by the defense bar,” said a senior lawyer who appears in court at least weekly.

But even lawyers who question his performance on the criminal bench admire Cahill for what he has done.

“Not afraid to take on an issue,” said a criminal lawyer with less than 10 years’ experience who appears in court weekly.

“Politically, he’s put his neck on the line. He took a courageous stand in saying to the insurance industry, in effect, “Screw you, this proposition is unconstitutional,’‚” said another criminal lawyer, referring to Cahill’s 1997 ruling that Proposition 213 was unlawful. The measure barred uninsured motorists from collecting pain-and-suffering damages in accident cases. Cahill was reversed on appeal.

In other bold moves last spring, summer and this month, Cahill delayed trial of four suspects in the slaying of Tenderloin gang boss Cuong Tran and freed four robbery suspects because of gaffes by police and prosecutors.

On Dec. 2, he angrily declared a mistrial in the Tran murder case and announced sanctions against the DA’s office. Cahill accused Hallinan of prejudicing the jury by making published statements linking Tran’s November 1996 death to the killing of his onetime lawyer, Dennis Natali, minutes earlier on the same night. Jurors had been told by the judge that the killings were unrelated.

Despite his willingness to engage in courtroom battles, Cahill is better suited to more cerebral judicial tasks, some lawyers think.

“He’s wasted in the trial courts,” said a high-profile defense lawyer. “He’d be good writing appellate opinions; he likes to mull things over. He was a natural in Law and Motion, where each day you’re hearing 60 matters which have to be briefed and argued, from the esoteric to the ridiculous.”

Cahill, who is scheduled to return to civil court next year, said he was “encouraged” by the survey.

Ray Williamson, consistently ranked third-best judge in San Francisco behind Munter and Cahill, stepped down Oct. 1, after a quarter-century on the bench.

Harmless quirks, serious flaws<

Donna Hitchens kicks off her shoes in court. David Garcia plays computer chess in chambers. Perker Meeks seems happier on a different court - the kind where basketball is played.

Lawyers said they had no problems with behavior such as this. They found other things disturbing.

According to the survey, Municipal Court Judge Tomar Mason is notorious for being, as one lawyer put it, a”slacker.” Of 30 lawyers and other legal professionals who commented on her in the survey or in interviews, half said she was late to the bench.

“You’ll hear a lot of criticism of her,” a prominent defense lawyer said in an interview. “She’s considered very lazy, with good justification. She’ll do anything to get out of the day-to-day grunt work of sitting on the bench - to the extent that her colleagues consider her a slacker. She’s bright and charming, but a goldbrick.”

Among comments on Mason offered by survey respondents was this, by a young lawyer with federal experience who appears in court several times a year:

“Lack of work ethic translates into waste of taxpayers’ money. Starts trials after 10 a.m., sometimes making parties and witnesses wait half an hour to an hour, takes one-and-a-half hour lunch, ends at 4 p.m. Compare with federal judges going full days.”

Mason denied chronic tardiness, saying: “I devote virtually every waking hour to duties or issues relating to the justice system. It may be misunderstood if you’re taking a break. Every judge manages their time differently. Let me put it this way: The work is getting done and then some.

“But I do understand that whenever one individual thinks their personal time isn’t used as they want, it’s irritating to them. So that’s something I definitely want to address,” she said.

…

The case of Carlos Bea

There is probably no more controversial or complex figure on the San Francisco bench than Carlos Tiburcio Bea (Bay-AH), a 64-year-old, Stanford-educated appointee of Gov. Deukmejian.

After Mitchell and Tsenin, Bea was the most frequently criticized judge in the survey. At the same time, however, he received high praise from some lawyers.

Evaluated by 199 respondents, Bea was widely considered to be an intelligent, skillful judge - with an attitude problem. His reputation for arrogance and imperiousness is unmatched on the bench.

A longtime civil litigator, Bea was appointed in 1990. Only months later, he was challenged in an election by Tsenin, who accused him of disrespecting women and minorities by being a member of the Olympic Club. Bea quit the club and defeated Tsenin handily.

Less than two years afterward, he was nominated to the federal bench by President Bush. The nomination died, however, after the Senate Judiciary Committee received a letter from the Bar Association of San Francisco rating Bea as “not qualified.”

Thirty-three respondents commented on Bea, 20 negatively, 10 positively and three neutrally.

A highly experienced male lawyer, specializing in criminal defense and appearing in court weekly, said Bea

“tends to rule impulsively and relate more to (his) own experience than to attorneys’ arguments and briefs.”

A highly experienced female lawyer who appears in court daily said Bea “can be condescending and biased against women attorneys.” Other critical comments: “Elitist fascist pig.” “Pontificates.” “Rude (and) imperious.”

Bea also received compliments.

“Very bright. Unusually deliberate and scholarly,” said a highly experienced male lawyer who appears in court twice monthly.

“Penetrating, incisive and fair,” said Mark Joseph Kenney, a 46-year-old commercial lawyer in practice 20 years who appears in court at least twice monthly and said he has been in Bea’s courtroom on numerous occasions.

Others see a volatile combination of good and bad in Bea.

“Does not suffer fools gladly,” said a senior male lawyer who appears in court twice monthly.

“An arrogant son of a bitch - but a good judge,” said one of The City’s most prominent and most experienced defense lawyers, a male.

An ex-judge added: “Bea has problems which are easily overcome if you know how to handle them. He has kind of an arrogance but once you get to know him - or if you’re a good lawyer - he’s the most respectful judge I know.”

Lawyer Phil Ward of San Francisco handled an extremely complex legal malpractice case before Bea in 1995-96. In order to understand the case, Ward said, Bea had to quickly absorb the long, complicated history of the underlying business litigation that had led to the malpractice claim.

“He was very sharp, very fair to both sides in front of the jury,” Ward said. “He’d rap the hell out of both sides’ knuckles, but was helpful and cooperative if there was a problem with a witness. He had to learn all the real-estate law and there were four expert witnesses. There were also a whole bunch of pretrial motions. I thought he understood it all very quickly.”

Bea’s response: “I do admit that I impose high standards of performance on those practicing before me, as I believe I impose on myself.

“I don’t intend to change these standards, although the comments .‚.‚. make me think about finding ways to sustain the same standards in ways perhaps less embarrassing to practitioners.”