Judges and Judiciary
Jul. 27, 2002
Bailiff? Tell That Process Server to Leave
SAN FRANCISCO - Lawyers suing the state Judicial Council over its tough new arbitration rules sent process servers around the state to personally serve council members in their own courtrooms, outraging Chief Justice Ronald M. George and the judges involved.
Fielding complaints about the tactics this week, George told them by e-mail that he found the process, including the disruption of court proceedings, "highly offensive."
The New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers, which filed the suit Monday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, have refused to comply with the new arbitration standards, claiming the rules are too burdensome and are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. NASD Dispute Resolution Inc. v. Judicial Council, C02-3486 MJJ.
Although the plaintiffs are legally entitled to serve Judicial Council members because they were named personally as defendants in the suit, such hardball tactics are viewed within the judiciary as unnecessary - and even as an attempt to intimidate council members, according to a council source who asked not to be named. In addition to George, 14 judges are named defendants in the suit.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Gail A. Andler, in the midst of her busy family law calendar Monday, had a courtroom full of attorneys and litigants when her bailiff told her somebody in court wanted to serve her with an action related to the Judicial Council.
"I was just surprised by the manner of service - I was on the bench and court was in session," she said Thursday, adding that she stepped down to call the council about the suit.
"I was trying to do the public's work," Andler said. "I just felt it could have been handled in a way that accomplished their goals without interfering with any court proceedings."
Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Leonard P. Edwards, who also was served in his chambers, called the process "unnecessary and unfortunate."
"Fortunately, it was during a recess," Edwards said. "I just don't want litigants who have real court business and real issues to be interfered with by process servers. I think a simple phone call to the Judicial Council would have been sufficient, and they could have accepted service for everybody."
John Collins, a Pasadena defense attorney who sits on the council, complained in an e-mail to George that the process server "made the pronouncement in the lobby of my Newport office full of clients, staff, etc.," adding derisively: "Real class."
Judicial Council staff complained to the plaintiffs attorneys by telephone and in writing. Plaintiffs counsel insisted they had done nothing wrong.
"We have done nothing improper in effectuating service in this litigation," plaintiffs attorney Mark A. Perry, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, wrote in a letter to the Judicial Council. Also representing the plaintiffs is Milbank, Tweed Hadley & McCloy.
"Needless to say, we take your allegations of unprofessional conduct very seriously," Perry wrote. "You have identified no improper conduct on our behalf, and we are aware of none."
Regarding the disruption of Andler's courtroom, Perry wrote that the judge "chose to handle this matter in open court ... and asked to be given the papers directly rather than have them delivered to the clerk, as the process server attempted to do."
Perry insisted the server was "neither disrespectful nor disruptive of any ongoing proceeding."
Observed the Judicial Council source: "Given all the public discussion about the questionable conduct of corporations and stock exchange dealings, you wouldn't think they would claim they shouldn't be subject to ethical standards."
A spokesman Thursday said the New York Stock Exchange "deeply regrets any disruption or inconvenience that may have been caused to any member of the Judicial Council by the manner of service."
By suing individual judges, the plaintiffs might have been trying to make it more difficult for the defense to assemble a legal team. Lawyers who practice before any of the named judges might face a conflict of interest if they took on the case, the source said.
The plaintiffs, who handle investor complaints against stockbrokers, have stopped appointing arbitrators to hear new complaints in California, delaying the cases of hundreds of investors who have accused their brokers of wrongdoing.
Fifteen new ethical rules approved by the Judicial Council in April took effect July 1. They require detailed disclosure of any financial relationships between arbitrators and the companies, attorneys or parties involved in disputes. The plaintiff organizations argue their own standards are sufficient to protect the public from conflicts of interest and other ethical problems.
Sen. Martha Escutia, D-Whittier, who sponsored the law requiring the council to create the new rules, Thursday urged NYSE Chairman Dick Grasso to drop the suit. In a written statement, she cited "the importance of restoring and strengthening investor confidence in the integrity of the nation's stock market."
Donna Domino
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com