via
Getty)
Do
you
ever
feel
that
sometimes
the
law
uses
a
sledgehammer
to
kill
a
gnat?
Here’s
a
recent
example,
resulting
from,
yes,
another
fallout
from
the
Tom
Girardi
crash
and
burn.
For
those
who
have
fortunately
forgotten,
Girardi
was
the
hotshot
California
plaintiff’s
lawyer
who
stole
client
settlements
from
various
tort
cases
while
living
a
lavish
lifestyle
beyond
the
means
of
many
of
us.
(Apologies
to
my
editor
who
thought
that
a
stake
had
been
driven
through
the
heart
of
that
matter,
once
and
for
all,
but
it’s
the
case
that
keeps
on
giving,
at
least
for
the
California
Legislature,
the
State
Bar,
and
California
lawyers.)
Several
years
back,
there
was
quite
a
bit
of
consternation
that
some
retired
judges,
acting
as
arbitrators
or
mediators,
palsy-walsy
with
Girardi
in
his
heyday,
were
selected
as
arbitrators
or
mediators
for
Girardi’s
cases.
The
Los
Angeles
Times
did
extensive
(and
cringeworthy)
reporting
on
the
coziness
between
Girardi
and
these
retired
judges,
calling
it
the
“secretive
world
of
private
judges.”
No
one
mentioned
in
the
reporting
came
out
looking
good.
The
Legislature,
seizing
any
opportunity
to
stick
it
to
the
State
Bar,
decided
that
it
was
time
to
call
for
the
certification
of
alternative
dispute
resolution
(ADR)
professionals,
whether
retired
judges,
lawyers,
or
nonlawyers,
whether
arbitrators.
mediators,
or
both,
and
to
regulate
ADR
providers.
Effective
January
1,
2025,
new
Business
and
Professions
Code
section
6173
required
the
State
Bar
to
create
a
voluntary
certification
program
for
ADR
firms,
providers,
and
practitioners.
But
just
how
“voluntary”
is
it
really
if
the
State
Bar
bestows
“certified”
on
compliant
ADR
practitioners?
And
how
many
retired
judges
and
longtime
ADR
practitioners
will
be
willing
to
go
through
the
certification
process,
even
if
less
of
a
hassle?
And
what
edge
will
“certification”
provide,
if
any?
The
laudable
goal?
“Promote
adherence
to
ethical
standards
for
ADR
services
and
establish
consumer
protection
mechanisms.”
Will
the
State
Bar
be
able
to
handle
consumer
complaints
as
efficiently
just
as
they
have
done
in
the
past?
Please.
Given
its
record,
I
wonder.
The
State
Bar
established
a
working
group
to
figure
out
what
certification
should
look
like,
the
requirements
for
it,
continuing
education
requirements,
and
so
on.
The
ADR
working
group
has
released
its
proposals
with
comments
accepted
until
the
end
of
April.
Has
anyone
ever
said
that
regulation
begets
more
regulation?
If
not,
let
me
be
the
first.
The
proposals
run
more
than
100
pages.
The
fallout
from
Girardi
continues
in
proposed
legislation
pending
in
Sacramento.
The
Consumer
Attorneys
Association
of
California,
a
plaintiff’s
bar
trade
group,
favors
two
legislative
proposals.
One
prohibits
attorneys
from
illegally
soliciting
clients
(e.g.,
capping
—
but
I
learned
about
the
prohibition
against
capping
more
than
50
years
ago). There
are
other
provisions
in
AB
2039,
but
the
one
getting
the
attention
of
the
trade
group
is
the
provision
that
would
revoke
the
bar
license
of
an
attorney
with
a
felony
capping
conviction.
Capping
is
a
“wobbler.”
It
can
either
be
a
misdemeanor
or
a
felony,
depending
on
how
it’s
charged.
How
many
capping
cases
are
criminally
prosecuted
rather
than
in
the
context
of
bar
discipline?
How
many
attorneys
are
convicted
of
felony
capping
every
year?
This
trade
association
wants
to
help
to
get
rid
of
bad
lawyers.
Don’t
we
all?
Our
reputation
is
pretty
much
a
dumpster
fire.
The
LA
Times
recently
wrote
about
one
downtown
LA
law
firm
that
is
alleged
to
have
paid
“clients”
to
file
claims
in
LA
County’s
multibillion-dollar
sexual
abuse
settlement.
The
State
Bar,
among
other
agencies, is
now
investigating
the
firm.
The
other
measure
that
the
Consumer
Lawyers
Association
wants
passed
is
a
bill
that
would
preclude
“private
equity
firms
and
hedge
funds
from
dictating
case
strategy
after
giving
money
to
a
law
firm.”
How
are
you
going
to
know
that?
Would
that
be
discoverable
or
would
such
a
case
strategy
be
subject
to
the
attorney-client
privilege
or
attorney
work
product?
How
would
you
prove
that
a
funder
was
running
the
case
strategy
and
not
the
lawyer?
The
claim
is
that
the
intent
of
both
bills
is
to
“crackdown”
on
the
legal
profession’s
bad
actors.
That’s
stating
the
obvious.
Where
have
we
heard
that
before?
Meanwhile,
Tom
Girardi,
now
close
to
90
and
suffering
from
dementia,
who
bears
responsibility
for
the
seemingly
never-ending
cascade
of
consequences,
intended
or
not,
is
currently
serving
more
than
seven
years
in
a
Minnesota
federal
medical
facility.
It’s
left
to
others
(us)
to
clean
up
the
mess
he
made,
not
just
to
his
clients,
but
to
the
profession
he
betrayed.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected].