Los Angeles Superior Court
Legal Professional Unit

Text-Only Page

I  INTRODUCTION:

American Federation Of State, Local and County Employees

"A judge shall perform administrative duties without bias or prejudices."  California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3(C)(5).

"The Court Executive Officer is responsible for overseeing the administration and the management of the non-judicial operations of the court ...."  California Rules of Court 6.610(b).

Yet we continue our search for job security, benefits and competitive salaries, earned in other counties' courts . . . and beneficial to attract highly qualified people to assist judges in rendering well-reasoned decisions the people of Los Angeles deserve.

Los Angeles Superior Court Legal Professional Unit.

II. SECOND (MAIN CONTENT)  PAGE:

Los Angeles Superior Court
Legal Professional Unit
 
 
We are AFSCME Local 910, The Los Angeles Superior Court Legal Professional Unit, representing Court Research Attorneys and Law Clerks. At our 8/20/04 bargaining meeting, court management's attorney puzzlingly rejected our proposal to create an electronic bulletin board that would have stayed confidential in the courthouse, and indicated that instead we could do that on our own website. So, on 9/8/04 we created our first own web page for the world to see, due to management's encouragement.  

 

Michael Boggs, President
Mary Oleinik, Vice President

Kevin Miguel Norte, Treasurer

Jane Root, Recording Secretary

Ken Freedman, Member at Large

Charisse Atwood, Trustee


 

AFSCME Representative
Damian@afscme36.org
1.213.2521349 (work)
1.213.305.9457 (cell)
1.213.487.9822(fax)President
President@lasuperiorcourt.net
1.213.200.4974
Vice President
VP@lasuperiorcourt.net
1.213.200.4974
Treasurer
Treasurer@lasuperiorcourt.net
1.213.200.4718
Trustee
Trustee@lasuperiorcourt.net
1.213.200.4974
Webmaster
Webmaster@lasuperiorcourt.net
AFSCME Local 910
514 Shatto Place
Los Angeles, CA 90020

Who Is Responsible For Working Conditions At Los Angeles Superior Court?

The Executive Officer, John Clarke: The Executive Officer drafts, for court approval, a personnel plan for court employees, and negotiates the contracts on behalf of the court. (California Rules of Court 6.610(c)(1) and (3).)  The Presiding Judge: Regarding personnel matters, the presiding judge provides general direction to the executive officer. (California Rules of Court 6.603(c)(5).)   Executive Committee of Judges: An executive committee may advise the presiding judge, or establish policies and procedures for the internal management of the court. (California Rules of Court 6.605.)   The Other Judges: Judges must follow the court's personnel plan in dealing with employees, and directives of the presiding judge in matters of court management and administration. (California Rules of Court 6.605.)   Personnel Law Origin: In response to the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (AB 233), the Judicial Council adopted court management rules effective July 1, 1998, incorporated into Title Six. (California Rules of Court 6.650, Drafters' Notes.)

Express Your Views About Judges Of The Los Angeles Superior Court
Attorneys are invited to contribute comments and complaints about judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  The feature is hosted by the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Reportedly, contributors may transmit comments anonymously if desired. The Association states that it will post that information in their Judicial Profile database as to a bench officer at http://www.lacba.org. To complete the form, click here .

Local 910 President Speaks To Judicial Council
Local 910 President Michael Boggs, and other union representatives, often speak and give valuable input at the California Judicial Council. 

Read what they have said via the links below:
Judicial Council Meeting 8/27/04
Judicial Council Meeting 12/10/04
Judicial Council Meeting 4/15/03
Judicial Council Meeting 8/29/03
Judicial Council Meeting 12/5/03

 L.A. SUPERIOR COURT EMPLOYEES’ POOR
 COST-OF-LIVING PAY RAISE

Cost-of-living pay raises reported from other county courts substantially exceed the mere 2.5 percent per year for two years given by Los Angeles Superior Court to all of its employees. For instance, San Diego Superior Court employees received a 15 percent pay raise over four years.
Given uniquely drastic leaps in housing expenses in Los Angeles, employees will need much larger cost-of-living increases in their salary just to cover their bills. In order to catch up with this local economy’s trends, after being shortchanged on cost-of-living increases in the court for years, court employees bargaining next time will need to insist adamantly upon a 25 percent increase in pay over three years, and more if inflation continues, as many predict.

Los Angeles area rents are among the nation’s highest, and increased seven percent in 2005, with the average monthly rent anticipated to be $1,500.00 in 2006, as reported by the Daily News.

Also, the median price of houses in Los Angeles has increased to $490,000, and continues to increase, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.
Additionally, increased costs for gasoline, and other energy sources, further have had the effect of substantially reducing the pay of court employees. For example, in January of 2006, the average price of self-serve regular gasoline in Los Angeles was about $2.40, as reported by the Automobile Club of Southern California and Yahoo! Finance.

The federal courts equitably have pay levels taking into consideration the cost of living in the local area where the employees work, as reported by the Office of Personnel Management and U.S. Courts.

Likewise, given the increasingly high cost of living in Los Angeles, the judges and Executive Officer controlling the salary levels should feel compelled to include a locality pay adjustment for employees working for Los Angeles Superior Court, who increasingly struggle to make ends meet.

JUDGES OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT FOREGO FULL-TIME RESEARCH STAFF FOR OVER A DECADE AND MANY RECALL BETTER TIMES

Those who worked in Los Angeles Superior Court before the mid-1990s may recall that judges of Civil Independent Calendar Courts used to have the full support of one research attorney or law clerk. Then apparently for the purposes of spreading existing support among additional Independent Calendar courtrooms without incurring additional expense, the judges' support was cut in half and they began to share one research attorney or law clerk between two judges. On February 12, 1996, Judge Victor Chavez stated "'I have half of a law clerk and a full calendar clerk,'" as reported by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise . On June 20, 2003, Presiding Judge William A. MacLaughlin said "'Every one of us would love to promote every law clerk position to a research attorney. It’s strictly a financial issue, '" as reported by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.
Ever since that support cutback made long ago, the Los Angeles Superior Court has not returned to the prior tradition of allocating one research employee, full-time, for each judge. The stretched allocation of resources has meant that research staff generally could no longer provide support in all areas of litigation, such as any assistance with motions in limine or in writing court trial decisions. In contrast, courts of other counties allocate one research staff attorney per each Civil Independent Calendar courtroom, such as San Diego Superior Court. Even better, the appellate courts and federal trial courts have multiple research employees assigned to each judicial officer.

With the budget situation continually improving, it is time for the Court Executive Officer and judges' committees to consider reinstating full support for the judges. After approximately a decade of shared research staff, how much longer must judges wait to have the full support that they used to enjoy?
 

RESEARCH ATTORNEYS IN LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT: THE LOWEST PAID IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

The Research Attorneys of Los Angeles Superior Court have been fully aware of the pay differentials they see as compared to the trial courts in other California counties. Overwhelming evidence is found easily

.
In Los Angeles Superior Court, a Research Attorney who survives in employment beyond two years earns approximately $90,000.00 maximum. By way of contrast, in Orange County Superior Court, a career attorney earns up to $122,000.00 per year. Similarly, in San Diego Superior Court, a Staff Attorney earns up to about 115,000.00 per annum. As another example, in San Bernardino Superior Court, Judicial Staff Counsel III earn up to approximately $100,000.00. At Ventura Superior Court, research attorneys earn up to $95,503.46 annually. At Santa Barbara Superior Court, Judicial Staff Counsel III is paid up to $99,756.00. San Luis Obispo's trial court pays its attorneys up to 108,000.00. In U.S. District Court, a law clerk to a District Judge earns as much as $124,572.00. Also, an Appellate Court Attorney earns up to around $104,000.00.
Given that the trial court of Los Angeles is the largest in the state, bringing with that heavy workloads and diverse and complex tasks, the pay disparities are more unjust. The difficult local situation exists in Los Angeles notwithstanding that managing executive officers and presiding judges of other trial courts in California offer employees better treatment. Moreover, the California Judicial Council approved a budget priority of trial court staff negotiated salary increases.

L.A. SUPERIOR COURT'S LIMITED-TERM RESEARCH STAFF: GOING AGAINST THE TRADITION OF THE PAST AND OF OTHER CALIFORNIA COURTS

The officers and membership of the Los Angeles Superior Court Legal Professionals Unit are perplexed as to why any trial court would mandate in these times an inflexible practice of hiring law clerks for a duration of six months to two-and-one-half years, as "limited term" employees receiving temporary benefits, while going against both the commonly accepted practice of the California courts and what was the traditional norm of having unlimited terms for many years in Los Angeles. As reported by the Metropolitan News in 2003, Los Angeles Superior Court then instituted a previously unheard of cap on the terms of law clerks.

As reported by McGeorge School of Law, such limited term positions are rare in California courts which overwhelmingly hire career research staff. Below is a quote:

"There are almost no fixed-term clerkships available in California. Presently, in the California Supreme Court there is only one such clerkship ... and none with the Courts of Appeal. These courts and, with rare exceptions, the trial courts in California, hire experienced career "research" or "staff" attorneys instead. San Francisco and Los Angeles Superior Courts do hire a limited number of graduating law students as term clerks...."

See, McGeorge Law School, Career Services Page

In the federal District Courts, law clerks can be appointed for career positions, depending upon each judge's preference, and not dictated by court management.

That predominant approach of California trial courts to hire legal research staff into career positions, is what the public and judges deserve, because the demands and workloads of the state trial courts these days are very difficult and rigorous, frequently involving highly complex legal analyses, to be handled by limited staff resources, consisting typically of only one employee providing support for two or more judicial officers. The alternative of hiring "limited term" employees for one or maybe two years, at relatively low pay, providing the benefits given temporary employees, generally results in the ongoing loss of valuable training and skills that new employees acquired during the limited period, lowered employee moral, and a higher incidence of premature resignations. Other negative factors are the potential for a lower quality of work product, and the dissatisfaction of employees who want to stay and of those judges who prefer the option to have the assistance of experienced research attorneys.

Public Employment Relations Board
Read how the union can file a charge of an unfair labor practice with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial agency charged with administering collective bargaining statutes.

Arbitration Opinion Addressing Limited Term
Read In the Matter of Arbitration between: Los Angeles Superior Court and American Federation, etc., Local 910 addressing "limited term" under our agreement and the Government Code.

Executive Officer Of Los Angeles Superior Court On The Internet
Read and view scenic photos on the inspirational personal web pages of John Clarke, Executive Officer, recounting his road trip on a motorcycle to the destination of Alaska.


HOW TO BE A MEMBER Get a membership application card from a union officer, or complete the Adobe form on computer (via link below). On the side of the card with the string of boxes, fill out the line beginning with Employee Number, but leave "Dept No." blank. Sign and date this side at the bottom. On the other side, fill out everything except "life insurance beneficiary." If you're not sure of your monthly salary, you can leave it blank because AFSCME can look it up. Dues are 1%. Signing up for "PEOPLE," our political arm, is optional. Minimum PEOPLE dues are $5.00/month. Return the filled-out card to: AFSCME Council 36, Attn: Michael Boggs, 514 Shatto Place, 3d Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90020.


AFSCME Membership Application Form for court employees to fill out on computer, print, sign & mail.

AFSCME Local 910 Member Login:

© 2006 AFSCME Local 910, The Los Angeles Superior Court Legal Professional Unit, representing Court Research Attorneys and Law Clerks.