Judges and Judiciary
Aug. 10, 2002
Judge Finds His Magistrate Experience Perfect Training
LOS ANGELES - Lawyers who have appeared before George H. King say that he is the ideal U.S. District Court judge and a prime example of why federal magistrate judges should be elevated to the higher post.
George H. King
U.S. District Court Judge
Los Angeles
Career Highlights: Appointed by President Clinton, U.S. District Court for the Central District, 1995; magistrate judge, U.S. District Court for the Central District, 1987-95; sole practitioner, Los Angeles, 1980-87; business litigator, Lillick, McHose & Charles, Los Angeles, 1979-80; assistant U.S. attorney, Los Angeles, 1975-79; associate, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, Los Angeles, 1974-75
Law School: University of Southern California, 1974
Age: 51
Yet, since King's confirmation in June 1995, Virginia Phillips is the only other magistrate judge in the Central District - and one of a mere handful in the state - to receive elevation.
"I think our magistrate judges are doing an outstanding job here and clearly are of great value to this court," Consuelo Marshall, chief judge of the Central District, said of the district's 23 magistrate judges.
"At this time, when we have vacancies and everyone is so overworked ... I certainly feel the magistrate judges should be a group that appointing authorities look to when vacancies occur," Marshall, who served as a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner early in her career, said.
But, while judges may voice an opinion, it is the political administration in power at the time that makes the decision on federal judicial appointments.
Venice civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman, who has appeared before King for 15 years, said King exemplifies what a judge should be.
"I have consistently found him to be independent, conscientious, scrupulously fair and unfailingly courteous," Yagman of Yagman & Yagman & Reichmann & Bloomfield said.
Others agreed, describing King as a trailblazer of sorts for being the first magistrate judge in the Central District to become a federal judge.
Relaxing in his chambers in a rare two hours of downtime, King said that the position of magistrate has changed greatly since 1971, when Congress passed a law that gave magistrate judges limited powers.
Today, federal magistrate judges can handle anything a judge handles, with the consent of the parties involved, except felony trials.
"I think the position of magistrate, especially in large districts, like Central, has been misunderstood," said King, who served in that capacity for eight years before President Clinton nominated him for a federal judgeship on the recommendation of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
"It's taken a long time for people to understand how the position has evolved, but the bar finally is coming to understand its value," King said.
Because much of a magistrate's work involves reviewing and writing opinions of prior decisions, such as findings made in individual cases by the Social Security Administration, King said the post also is excellent training for an appellate officer.
King has had the opportunity to put that appellate experience to work twice during his seven years as a trial judge.
In 1996, he sat for one day on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He returned this year for a two-day stint. The circuit wanted him to sit for five days, but he said that he could not afford the time away from his trial calendar.
King did not deny, however, that he could be persuaded to take the job on a permanent basis.
"If someone were to ask me, I wouldn't turn it down," he said with a smile.
Born in Shanghai, China, in 1951, King moved to Hong Kong with his family when he was 6.
The British, who were in control of the territory at the time, had difficulty saying his father's Chinese name. Pronounced somewhere between Jing and Ching, it had no English equivalent. So they Anglicized it to King.
When King was 11, he moved with his parents and sister to Los Angeles, where his father found work in the accounting department of a local oil company.
King said he started thinking about a law career while still in high school, after a visit to the law office of a friend of his father.
"He treated me like a paying client, ushered me into his office, had his secretary hold his calls," King recalled. "He told me about the job, the cases he had in trial. It sounded exciting to me."
King studied political science at UCLA, graduating in 1971. Three years later, he received his law degree from USC.
For the next 13 years, King gained experience in both the criminal and civil arena, beginning as a civil litigator for Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp. The following year, he became an assistant U.S. attorney.
In 1979, King moved to Lillick, McHose & Charles, handling business litigation. A year later, he took that specialty and branched out on his own until 1987, when he became a magistrate judge.
King said he always wanted to be a judicial officer. While in practice, he served as a pro tem judge and enjoyed the position of neutrality.
Like most judges, King feels strongly that the vast majority of cases should settle - and better earlier than later.
In fact, during his years as a magistrate, he gained a reputation among federal practitioners as one of the district's most popular settlement officers.
"My philosophy is that I try to encourage settlement from the beginning," said King, who used to be on the court's settlement panel. "When the amount of controversy is not that great and it is economically unfeasible to litigate, those types of cases are ripe for settlement, and lawyers usually agree."
Lawyers with more complex civil cases may need more time to submit and review discovery issues before meaningful discussions of settlement can take place, the judge said.
But the important thing, King said, is to prevent a case from going to trial by default, simply because no one tried to settle it.
One of the biggest and most complex settlements that King has presided over involved Los Angeles Police Department overtime issues. The officers claimed that the city had violated a federal law for payment of overtime and compensatory time off.
By the time King inherited the case from Judge A. Wallace Tashima, who was elevated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it had been knocking around for seven years with no end in sight and had grown from 6,000 to 9,000 plaintiffs. Kimpel v. Williams, CV-3441 (C.D. Cal., filed 1993).
"It was a monstrous case and was only going to get worse, never better," plaintiffs' attorney Gregory G. Petersen of the Petersen Law Firm in Costa Mesa said. "Judge King suggested settling it, and both sides saw the wisdom in his suggestion."
King held more than 20 meetings with the parties and, three days before trial, reached an agreement that both sides were comfortable with. The $40 million settlement in 2000 was the largest in city history.
"The funny thing was that there was none of this arm-twisting," Petersen said of the negotiations. "He did it with common sense. He took the time to pick apart an incredibly complex case. He knew all the legal issues, understood the calculations. He basically could have been a trial lawyer in the case."
Peter J. Brown, outside counsel for the city, said he has never seen a federal judge invest so much time in trying to settle a case.
"I was extremely impressed," Brown of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore in Los Angeles said. "It was the most complex case I have dealt with in 121/2 years as an attorney."
Lawyers said one of King's hallmarks is the amount of time and research he puts into each case that comes before him. Even those parties who receive an adverse ruling said that, while they may disagree with his decision, they leave feeling satisfied that he has given their case fair and thorough consideration.
Latham & Watkins lawyer Susan Azad, who represented landlords trying unsuccessfully to lift the city's rent stabilization laws, was one such person. Topa Equity v. Los Angeles, CV-10455 (C.D. Cal., filed 2000)
"I disagreed with his ruling, but I think he issued a well-reasoned opinion, so I certainly can't fault him for not being prepared," Azad said. "He was excellent in terms of preparation, demeanor and care. He issued a long, written ruling which showed he had read the papers and made an effort to understand our points."
Lawyers said that King often takes matters under submission based on written briefs, so it is important to state all the points in the papers.
"Attorneys should be prepared because he is prepared and has researched the law in advance of arguments and read the cases you cite and researched the issues you put before him," David A. Battaglia of Los Angeles' Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher said.
King said his job leaves little time for hobbies, except for spending time with his family. His wife, Pamala, has taken time off from her job as a lawyer to be at home with their teen-age son.
Since King arrived in the United States, he has not been outside the country, except for two day trips across the border to Mexico. But he has been able to share his experience as a naturalized citizen with other arriving immigrants.
One of the perks of being a judicial officer, he said, is presiding over naturalization ceremonies, something he has done on several occasions to record crowds at the Los Angeles Convention Center.
"I tell them that we are all American citizens and something else we have in common is that we are all naturalized citizens," King said. "Then, I recount my own experience and how this society allows us opportunities if we want them."
Here are some of Judge King's recent cases and the lawyers involved:
• CHIRLA v. Burke, 98cv4863
Plaintiff: Thomas Saenz, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Los Angeles
Defense: Richard S. Kemalyan, Dwyer Daly Brotzen & Bruno, Los Angeles
• Southern California Gas Co. v. Santa Ana, 02cv658
Plaintiff: David Battaglia, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles
Defense: Benjamin Kaufman, Santa Ana city attorney's office
• Vons v. Travelers Ins. Co., 00cv11672
Plaintiff: Gregory Stone, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles
Defense: Michael Prough, Morison-Knox Holden Melendez & Prough, Walnut Creek
• Topa Equity v. Los Angeles, 00cv10455
Plaintiff: Susan Azad, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles
Defense: Kenneth Fong, Los Angeles city attorney's office
• Kimple v. Williams, 93cv3441
Plaintiff: Gregory Petersen, Petersen Law Firm, Costa Mesa
Defense: Peter J. Brown, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Los Angeles
Susan Mc Rae
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