I will have my 2008 wrap up on the Legislature after the holidays, so, about mid-October.

Again–I’m off topic, but read this article in the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat about a man who is daring the state to sue him for copyright violations merely for publishing state laws online.

I’m not sure if this relates to the Legislative history service the on leginfo.ca.gov. If it does, there will be no enhanced SCEL bill tracking service, even if I do finish writing it.

I try to avoid using CourtCall, even for things that some might consider trivial, like CMCs.  Living here on the Central Coast, just about every courthouse is far away.  Not that it’s relevant to a discussion of CourtCall, but our nearest federal court is in Fresno–150 miles away–but we’re in the Central District, 200 miles away in L.A.  So, I’m not opposed to the concept of CourtCall.  It allows me to do things I couldn’t otherwise justify.

But, I think it’s getting abused at this point, both by counsel, and by judges.  First, I’ll stick it to us, the lawyers.  My last several court appearances have literally had more counsel on the phone than in the courtrooms.  Counsel on CourtCall inevitably talk over others, let their paper shuffling or staff berating boom out for all to hear, awkwardly announce their name at the beginning (I know it’s necessary, but it’s annoying), and do all sort of other manner-lacking things.  

In some courtrooms, people who are making a request step up past the bar only to be talked over by someone on CourtCall who (discussed at length below) for some reason needs priority.

Now for the judges.  Some judges seem to give automatic priority to counsel on CourtCall. Why? They can sit there and bill time, answer e-mails, do research on-line, be on a cruise ship in the Carribean–whatever.  Those of us who actually show up, however, are pretty much stuck with text messaging.  Our time is less manageable.  CourtCall parties should never be given priority.

Second, judges inevitably ask the party who did show up to give notice or do some other ministerial task.  I never mind doing this, really.  A lot of times it puts me in control of things.  But the idea that I have to spend my client’s or my staff’s time on something because I appeared in person seems wrong to me.

In today’s world of cheap processor cycles and bandwidth, I think CourtCall should become CourtVideoConference.  Being able to see who’s saying and doing what will not only help the appearances be more meaningful to Counsel, but will also encourage better manners.  I know times are tough with the budget, but for the cost usually involved in CourtCall, I think a few old PCs, webcams, and QoS bandwidth could easily be had in unlimited civil departments.

Until then, I would discourage the use of CourtCall for your own sake because being able to see the facial expression of the judge is data you need.  I would discourage it for others’ sake because it’s getting ridiculous.  

Attorneys should have to at least make a minimal statement about why it’s necessary.  Expense does and should be a factor in that–interfering with a round of golf should not.  Furthermore, if ten party matters are going to be heard with all ten on CourtCall, the system needs to be upgraded.  It just doesn’t work with more than one or two.

So, I guess I’m saying fix it or limit it. Enough already.

As first reported by WageLaw, the petition for review in Brinker has indeed been filed.  You can view the docket here. (The new case number is S166350.)

I long for the day when at least the Appellate courts put their filings on-line.  If I chance upon a copy, I’ll post it.