State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

1. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Beauty and the Bench: The Judicial Perspective Panelists: Hon. Brenda Harbin-Forte , Alameda County Superior Court Chair, Judicial Committee, State Bar Council on Access & Fairness Hon. Erica Yew, Santa Clara County Superior Court Hon. Robert Tafoya, Kern County Superior Court Hon. Kevin McCarthy, San Francisco County Superior Court Fredericka McGee, Esq., General Counsel, Office of the Speaker, Assemblymember John A. Perez Moderator: Christine Noma, Esq., Partner, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLP California Minority Corporate Counsel Program September 30, 2010 – San Francisco

2. Note: All Access & Fairness activities are funded through voluntary contributions to the State Bar. No mandatory attorney dues are used for these activities. (Keller and Brosterhous Limitations) State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness FIRST, A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR:

3. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness 2020 Projections for California

4. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Racial/Ethnic Minorities in the Professions in California

5. 2001 Survey 2006 Survey 2004 CA Census State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Categories Active Bar Members 148,000 154,500 Race/Ethnic Minorities African American 2.4% 1.7% 6% Latino/Hispanic 3.7% 3.8% 35% Asian/Pacific Is. 6.0% 5.3% 12% Other/Mixed 4.9% 4.8% 3.6% Total Minorities 17.0% 15.6% 56.6% Women 32.0% 34.0% 50.7% LGBT 2.4% 5.2% 2.1% Disabilities 4.0% No data 17.4% California State Bar Diversity

6. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Race/Ethnicity Statistics

7. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Gender Statistics

8. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness LGBT Statistics *** Statistics not available

9. Attorney Demographics in the Private Sector vs. Large Firms State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

10. WHY VALUE JUDICIAL DIVERSITY? “In my view, a diverse bench not only will maintain and enhance our state’s tradition of having an excellent judiciary, but also will serve to reinforce our guiding principle – that we are committed to making our justice system fair and accessible to all. Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Welcoming remarks, “Continuing a Legacy of Excellence: A Summit on Diversity in the Judiciary”, June 2006, San Jose, CA, convened by the State Bar State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

11. WHY VALUE JUDICIAL DIVERSITY? “When you recognize that, in the United States, it is the ability to petition our courts for fairness that keeps people from seeking justice in the streets, then you understand that diversity in the legal profession is critical for democracy to survive.” Judge Dennis Archer (Ret.), Past ABA president State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

12. WHY VALUE JUDICIAL DIVERSITY? “The benefits of a judiciary that is diverse go beyond the symbolic. We require jury pools to be representative of the community not just because it reduces the perception of bias, but because it reduces the actual opportunity for bias. The benefits that accrue from having 12 diverse viewpoints on a jury are similarly present when it comes to diversity on the bench….”Editorial, American Judicature Society Magazine, March/April 2010 ed. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

13. WHY VALUE JUDICIAL DIVERSITY? “…Judges can and do influence each other. They exchange ideas on and off the bench. A judiciary that is comprised of judges from differing backgrounds and experiences leads to an interplay and exchange of divergent viewpoints, which in turn prevents bias, and leads to better, more informed decision making. Diversity of opinion among decision makers encourages debate and reflection, and fosters a deliberative process that leads to an end product that is greater than the sum of its parts.“ Editorial, American Judicature Society Magazine, March/April 2010 ed. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

14. Supreme Court Total 7 Seats 42.8% Ethnic Diversity (3 seats)* (As of December 31, 2009) State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness African American Asian/Pacific Islander Latino Male Female Female Male Female Male 0 0 1 1 0 1 Diversity in the California Courts * Compiled by COAF Judiciary Committee

15. Courts of Appeal Total 105 Seats 11.4% Ethnic Diversity (12 seats)* (As of December 31, 2009) State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness African American Asian/Pacific Islander Latino Male Female Female Male Female Male 0 4 2 2 2 2 Diversity in the California Courts * Compiled by COAF Judiciary Committee

16. Superior Courts 1593 Funded Judgeships (1643 Authorized) 20.3% Ethnic Diversity (323 seats) * (As of December 31, 2009) State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness African American (97) Asian/Pacific Islander (92) Latino (134) Female Male Female Male Female Male 48 64 98 49 28 36 Diversity in the California Courts * Compiled by COAF Judiciary Committee

17. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Diversity in the California Courts Note: From the Judicial Council’s 2010 annual SB56 report. The remaining 8.5% of the bench fall into the categories of “American Indian”, “More Than One Race”, “Some Other Race”, or “Information Not Provided”. The report shows that 60 judges provided no information on ethnicity. If one assumes that 73.6% of those 60 judges are Caucasian, an additional 44 Caucasian judges would be added to the 1200 self-identified ones, for a total of 1244 Caucasian judges. This results in a representation of 76.3%, as opposed to the lower 73.6% figure in the JC’s Annual Report. The percentages of African American, Asian Pacific Islander, and Latino judges would also increase slightly if representative percentages of the non-responding group are factored in.

18. WHY POPULATION AND NOT BAR MEMBERHIP Goal 1 of the California Judicial Council’s strategic plan is to achieve a judicial branch that “will reflect the diversity of the state’s residents.” Access to justice issue. “I strongly believe that any judge should be able to fairly hear and decide any case, no matter who the parties and regardless of the racial, ethnic, religious, economic or other minority group to which they belong. Nevertheless, it cannot be questioned that a bench that includes members of the various communities served by the courts will help instill confidence in every segment of the public that the courts are indeed open to all persons and will fairly consider everyone’ claims.” California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, 2007 remarks to Senate Judiciary Committee’s Public Hearing on the Judicial Selection Process State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

19. WHY POPULATION AND NOT BAR MEMBERHIP Lawyers don’t own cases, causes of actions, claims – CLIENTS DO CLIENTS come from the general population Lawyers want fair results for CLIENTS Explosion of self-represented litigants who come from the general population “PUBLIC” trust and confidence = “general population” trust and confidence in our court system State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

20. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Ethnic Diversity – All Courts – YE 2009 Source: Judicial Council 2010 Annual SB56 Report

21. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Ethnic Diversity - Courts of Appeal - YE 2009 Source: Judicial Council 2010 Annual SB56 Report

22. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Ethnic - Superior Courts – YE 2009 Source: Judicial Council 2010 Annual SB56 Report

23. San Francisco Bay Area Dec 2009 State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

24. Central Valley - Dec 2009 State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

25. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Southern California - Dec 2009

26. THE CASE FOR GENDER DIVERSITY Juror in contempt for not disclosing H’s occupation, but male jurors not asked W’s occupation Lowered bail – convicted rapist-DV case using knife-allowing Def to be reunited w/ dog would “cool his temper” Insisted attorney use her husband’s surname in court, though she had retained birth name “Rules are like women – made to be violated” Rape victim was “coyote ugly”

27. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Gender – All Courts—YE 2009 1,631 Sitting Judges (29.2%) (70.8%) Source: Judicial Council 2010 Annual SB56 Report

28. California Courts Gender YE 2009 State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

29. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Diversity in the California Courts by Gender – YE 2009 (Raw Numbers)

30. THE POTENTIAL POOLEligible for Judicial Appointment (passed bar between 1979 and 2000) State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

31. THE POTENTIAL POOL- WHO QUALIFIES THE QUALIFIED? Informally: The Governor’s Judicial Selection Advisory Committees (aka “Secret Committees”) Membership, including diversity thereof, not known or made public, criteria used to evaluate candidates not known or made public, methods of investigating candidates not known or made public Formally: State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (“aka “Jenny” Commission”) Membership, including diversity thereof, is known and made public, published criteria for evaluating candidates, broad input from all stakeholders, members receive bias training and cultural sensitivity training. State Bar of California Council Access & Fairness

32. THE POTENTIAL POOL- WHO QUALIFIES THE QUALIFIED? Formally: Local and Minority Bar Judicial Appointments Evaluation Committees -- Appointments through bar association policies and protocols: membership, including diversity thereof, is known and made public; specific criteria for evaluating candidates State Bar of California Council Access & Fairness

33. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness The Potential Pool -- Ethnic Applications and “JNE” Commission Evaluations 2006-2009

34. The Potential Pool -- JNE Ratings by Ethnicity 2006 - 2009 (raw numbers) State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

35. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Ethnic Diversity of Appointments January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2009 * Diversity information compiled by COAF

36. The Potential Pool -- JNE Ratings by Gender 2006 - 2009 (raw numbers) State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

37. The Potential Pool – Applications and Appointments by Gender - 2006-2009 State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Sources: Applications –Governor’s annual SB 56 reports; Forwarded –JNE’s annual SB 56 reports; Ratings – JNE’s annual SB 56 reports; Appointed – COAF

38. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Gender Diversity of Appointments January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2009 * Diversity information compiled by COAF

39. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Diversity in the California Courts *Data compiled by the by the Courts Working Group of the State Bar’s Diversity Pipeline Task Force for the June 2006 Summit on Diversity in the Judiciary.

40. State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness Gender Diversity in the Courts

41. HOW TO INCREASE JUDICIAL DIVERSITY Recruit and encourage minorities, women, LGBTs, attorneys with disabilities, etc, to apply Push for better retirement system to attract more applicants State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

42. HOW TO INCREASE JUDICIAL DIVERSITY Encourage more judicial mentoring programs – ACBA model State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

43. HOW TO INCREASE JUDICIAL DIVERSITY Level the playing field by providing opportunities for women, minority, and LGBT judges, as well as judges with disabilities, etc., to sit on assignment on the appellate courts State Bar of California Council on Access & Fairness

44. HOW TO INCREASE JUDICIAL DIVERSITY Educate public on importance of diversity, and provide status report on levels in communities Encourage courts in each county to put on court-sponsored programs on how to become a judge State Bar of California Council Access & Fairness

45. TIME FOR YOU TO JOIN THE EFFORT TO INCREASE JUDICIAL DIVERSITY? “. . . It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation, not merely for the vitriolic words of the bad people and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people, who sit around and say ‘wait on time.’ Somewhere we must come to see that social progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. So we must help time. We must realize the time is always right to do right.” Excerpt from address by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Auditorium, Stanford University, April 14, 1967 State Bar of California Council Access & Fairness