What I did over summer vacation

I never thought I would say this, but I do have at least one thing in common with celebrities Paris Hilton and Phil Specter: we all spent our summers in a Downtown L.A. courthouse.  Thankfully, the similarities end there.  I was not in traffic court like Paris, nor in criminal court like Phil.  I was in the comparatively luxurious civil courthouse, named after former California Supreme Court Associate Justice Stanley Mosk.  Armed with my extern badge and a ready smile, I arrived at the courthouse one sunny Monday morning only to get in line behind a throng of people waiting to go through the metal detectors.  And thus I began my stint as a Los Angeles Superior Court Extern…

My Day-to-Day Extern Activities
Throughout the externship, I divided my time among four activities: observing, researching, writing, and talking with judges and lawyers.  Most mornings I sat in on Law and Motion, which is the first hour of every morning where judges conduct case management conferences and rule on motions.  The motions range from the straightforward (motion to be relieved as counsel, motion to compel discovery responses) to the more complex (demurrers and motions for summary judgment).
At the beginning, everything was new and exciting to me.  Case management conference?  Fascinating.  Hearing on a demurrer?  Compelling.  Swearing in of a witness?  Almost brought me to tears.  Heck, just getting through a day without spilling anything on my suit was exhilarating.  As the summer progressed, I settled into a routine; I felt more comfortable with the lingo, and even started using it myself.

When I was not observing trial, I worked on assignments from the research attorney.  She would give me the file for a pending motion.  I would read through the case file, focusing on the moving papers, the opposition, and the reply brief.  First, I would make sure there were no procedural defects in the case (i.e. untimely service of process).  Then I would summarize the arguments, look up the applicable law, and write a recommendation to the Judge on whether to grant or deny the motion.  This memo is called a “work up.”  Several days later, I would sit in on the hearing for the motion and listen to the Judge give her tentative ruling, hear the lawyers pitch their arguments, and then ultimately hear if the motion was granted, denied, or taken under further review.

In addition to observing motion hearings and trials, and putting together “work ups” for pending motions, I attended seminars put on by Judges of the Superior Court on different topics from alternative dispute resolution to the discovery process to the criminal justice system.  Without exception, the Judges were generous with their time, gave great advice, and inspired the other externs and me to dedicate our lives to practicing law with integrity (this sounds sappy, but it is true).  I have included some of their advice at the end of this article.
           
My Impressions of the Jury System
I left my externship with a sense of respect for and faith in the jury system.  Despite their grumbling and questionable excuses for trying to get out of jury duty, the jurors seemed to take their responsibility seriously once they were called on to serve.  Not only that, some jurors really bonded through the experience.  For example, right before the jurors returned their verdict in a breach of contract case, they buzzed for the courtroom attendant to come into the jury room to take a group photo.  I was even more impressed with the jurors after the verdict was read, and the jurors had very specific, sophisticated feedback for the attorneys on how they could have made better presentations.
Some more observations:

1.  Jurors are wary of lawsuits.  Heavy publicity of frivolous claims has made jurors skeptical of even meritorious claims.  Nobody wants his or her time wasted.  As Judge Alexander H. Williams III says at all of his settlement conferences, the first question a juror asks is, “Whose fault is it that I have to be here?”  Is it Plaintiff’s fault for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, or is it Defendant’s fault for misbehaving?  Judge Williams uses this opportunity to make the parties realize that settlement is often a much more satisfying and a superior method of resolving a case than going to trial.

2.  It can be difficult to get a fair and impartial jury.  For example, I observed one arduous jury selection process that took several days.  It was an employment discrimination case in which a woman claimed that less qualified men were promoted ahead of her and that there was a glass ceiling for women in her department.  The woman was suing for lost wages as well as emotional distress.  A whole slew of jurors were excused because they could not be impartial.  For example, one such juror said there are no circumstances under which it would be right to sue one’s employer.  This juror said a lot of times it has to do with personality issues, and someone who is unhappy at work should just transfer departments.  Another juror (an immigrant from Peru) said, “I’m coming from a country where discrimination is part of life every day – I can’t really sympathize with the plaintiff.”  And also: “I’m going through menopause right now, so I’m very emotional.” 
One refreshing juror who made it past jury selection (voir dire) was a bona fide rocket scientist who had just become a citizen last year.  He relished his first opportunity to serve on a jury.  He read the juror handbook the night before, asked lots of questions and took lots of notes, and needed to request a second notepad.

My Impressions of the Legal System
Sometimes a case is not personal; it really is just about the money.  The law is pretty good at affording a remedy when this is the case.  On the other hand, one of the most disappointing aspects of the litigation process for me is its failure to address the emotional needs of those who go through the system.  Now in just one year of legal education, it has been pounded into my head multiple times that there is little place for emotion in legal analysis.  I accept that and understand it, but the reality of what I observed in the courtroom this summer and what I heard from judges who have seen and heard it all is that ultimately, the law is a people profession.  People have hurt feelings and feel disrespected and that can often be the driving force of a lawsuit.  When people feel that they have been taken advantage of, insulted, or demeaned, they are out to make the other party suffer the way they have been made to suffer.  This is unfortunate, but it is the reality of human nature. 

While much of the litigation process ignores human emotion, one arena that does take emotion and dignity of the parties into account is the settlement conference arena.  I had the great opportunity to observe several settlement conferences as an extern.  One was particularly intense emotionally, and was very satisfying when it finally settled.
In the end, my externship changed how I view the law and legal profession.  It left me with a sense of optimism about the common sense of jurors.  There was something very powerful about the outcome being in the hands of twelve strangers, each with a different story and background.  The attorneys in the expensive suits ultimately were at the mercy of the sometimes- frumpy men and women in jeans, T-shirts and flip-flops.  This summer I also saw the power of settlement and that trying to broker a settlement can be one of the most intense, emotionally draining, but ultimately, satisfying experiences I have ever had.  Finally, the experience allowed me to see a wide swath of attorneys and gave me confidence that I will have something to add to the profession when I enter it in the near future.  I realized how crucial it is to practice law with integrity, for lawyers to be truly serving the interests of their clients, not their pocketbooks.

Here is some of the advice I received from Los Angeles Superior Court judges:

From Judge John Segal, in his seminar on June 28, 2007:

1.  Legal research is a structured rambling walk through possibly applicable law.  Books are often better than computer research.

2. Five minutes of organization before you write is worth hours of blind typing.  Similarly, five minutes of quiet thinking sometimes can be worth hours of legal research.

3. Writing is revising.  Revise often.

4. Get out of the library!  If you’re going to be making a living as a lawyer, you need clients, and you won’t meet them in the library.

From Judge Aurelio Muñoz, from various conversations we had in his Chambers:
On Jury Selection (a.k.a. voir dire):

1. You do not want to do anything to break your connection to the individual jurors.  If possible, do not even have a podium between you and them.  Also, do not take notes while you are questioning prospective jurors.  The jury will be suspicious and wonder what you are writing about them and they will be less likely to trust you.  If at all possible, bring an assistant to take notes for you.

2. Do not ever embarrass a member of the jury.  Jurors will always side with each other and turn you into the enemy.

3. When prospective jurors are listing their qualifications, quickly rank each juror on a scale of 1 to 5 (or some comparable system) because it is hard to remember all the details about each individual juror when you go back and have to choose someone to boot off the jury.

4.  Ask open-ended questions (as opposed to yes/no questions) to get the members of the jury to speak so that you can get a feel for their views.

5.  Trust your instinct.  If you are getting a bad vibe from a prospective juror, there is probably a reason.