“Proposition 65 reform is long overdue and Governor Brown deserves a great deal of credit for recognizing that. This is an initiative that was well-intentioned, but it has been far more effective at enriching a small number of attorneys than protecting the public from toxic substances. Right now it is too easy to file Prop. 65 lawsuits and make money off of them. That’s why from 2000 to 2011, private plaintiffs’ lawyers received approximately $96 million from Prop. 65 settlements – over 60 percent of the total settlement dollars paid out. The Governor is absolutely right to require more from would-be plaintiffs and to target the financial incentives that currently exist for plaintiffs’ lawyers.

“The Governor’s proposal also wisely addresses the questionable ‘safe harbor’ levels used to determine what substances the initiative applies to. When Prop. 65 was passed it only applied to 29 substances and now it applies to almost 800. The result has been warning signs that are so commonplace that they do little to serve the public and some businesses post warnings that are not necessary just out of fear of a lawsuit. That is not a sign of a policy that’s working.

“We need to find a way to reduce Prop. 65 litigation while still protecting the public from harm. We urge the Legislature to give the Governor’s proposal the consideration it deserves.”

Additional information about the Governor’s proposal can be found here.

Designed to protect Californians from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm, Prop. 65 requires businesses and landlords to warn consumers if products or environments will lead to exposure levels above certain thresholds. The state maintains a list of about 800 chemicals subject to Prop. 65 warnings.

"When my business was sued under Proposition 65, it was clear that the lawyer was far more interested in collecting attorneys' fees than protecting the environment," said Joe Derian, owner of Party Warehouse in Montebello, CA and a CALA supporter. "When small business owners like me can so easily become the victims of shakedown lawsuits, it hurts California's business climate and makes it more difficult for our state to attract businesses and create jobs."

The law allows the public to sue businesses or landlords for up to $2,500 for each day signs aren't posted about the presence of these chemicals, and is subject to abuse by lawyers who file lawsuits with the sole purpose of extracting settlements from businesses.

"Each dollar extorted from businesses in shakedown Prop. 65 lawsuits is a dollar that can't be spent hiring new workers or otherwise growing California's economy," said Tom Scott, Executive Director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, a nonpartisan grassroots movement advocating for legal reform. "AB 227 is a common-sense measure that will help protect small businesses in California from abusive lawsuits while continuing to pursue the goals of Prop. 65."

Since it was passed in 1986, Prop. 65 has resulted in more than 16,000 lawsuits and more than $500 million in settlements. In 2011 alone, of the $16 million collected in Prop. 65 settlements, over $11 million - almost 75 percent - went to attorneys' fees.

"There once was a worthy goal behind Prop. 65, but it has ended up doing far more to enrich a small number of lawyers than to protect the public from toxic substances," said Kim Stone, President of CJAC. "Unfortunately, the Prop. 65 warning signs have become so commonplace that they are generally discounted. We have become so over-warned that the warnings have become meaningless. The generic warning signs tell us nothing about what substance might be present, how prevalent it is, how we are exposed or how to mitigate the risk."

After announcing their support for AB 227, Derain and more than 100 other advocates for legal reform from across California joined CALA and CJAC for their third annual Day at the Capitol. They met with legislators to discuss the need for legal reforms such as AB 227 to stop lawsuit abuse and help California's economy grow and create jobs.

“While we have had recent success in preventing the plaintiffs’ bar from creating new and more lucrative ways to sue, the fact that businesses view California as the worst legal environment in the nation tells us that other jurisdictions are making improvements and that California can’t afford to just stay the same. Meritless lawsuits clog our overburdened and underfunded court system, making it harder for truly injured people with valid cases to get their day in court.

“California has repeatedly enacted complex, confusing laws and empowered plaintiffs’ lawyers to enforce them, which has allowed some to make a living off of ‘gotcha’ lawsuits. The current system too often allows lawyers to make money even when nobody has been harmed and even when the defendant has done nothing wrong because it is typically cheaper to just reach a settlement than to fight in court. That’s not the kind of justice system we want.”

The full report can be found here.

Kim Stone, president of CJAC, issued the following statement:

“Vexatious litigants have been able to get around the statutory restrictions because of this loophole that existed in the law. They will no longer be able to avoid the restrictions by hiring an attorney just for the initial filing.

“We certainly would like to see more done to crack down on these kinds of plaintiffs, such as allowing them to be deemed vexatious litigants regardless of whether they have an attorney, but AB 2274 is a positive step to help preserve the integrity of the current restrictions. We are grateful to Assemblyman Lara for carrying the bill and we were very pleased that the bill did not encounter any opposition. It is encouraging that the Legislature and the Governor saw the need for this reform.”

Prior to being signed into law by Governor Brown, AB 2274 received broad bipartisan support in the Legislature. The bill will go into effect January 1, 2013.

“We are extremely pleased that Governor Brown recognized that disabled access lawsuits are out of control and that change was needed. This bill should provide some relief to small business owners who are making good faith efforts to comply and it should help reign in unscrupulous plaintiffs’ lawyers who have been exploiting the Americans with Disabilities Act for financial gain.

“There was little optimism going into 2012 that the Legislature would address this issue, but thanks to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s advocacy and the persistence of Senators Darrell Steinberg and Bob Dutton a legitimate attempt at reform has now been enacted. We thank Governor Brown for signing the bill and we hope that it will make a significant difference.”

SB 1186 is an urgency measure and takes effect immediately.

“While the bill does not go as far as we would have preferred, it is certainly encouraging to see the Legislature pass substantive reform on this very complicated issue and we are hopeful that this bill will provide some relief from abusive disabled access lawsuits.

“The authors of the bill, Senator Darrell Steinberg and Senator Bob Dutton, deserve a great deal of credit for seeing this all the way through and making a serious attempt at reform. Senator Dianne Feinstein is also to be commended for her recognition of the problem and for pushing the Legislature to act this year. The bill should be signed into law and we look forward to seeing how it works in practice.”

SB 1186 will now be considered by Governor Jerry Brown, who will have until September 30th to sign the bill into law. The bill would take effect immediately upon being signed.

“Employers across California can breathe a huge sigh of relief today. The Supreme Court wisely recognized that forcing an employee to take a break goes well beyond what is reasonable to require of an employer. Running a business is difficult enough without having to worry about making sure your employees are taking their breaks and then facing a lawsuit if certain employees chose not to.

As a mother, it’s hard enough to force my children to sit down and eat their lunch. But as an employer, I certainly cannot force my employees to take a break, sit down and eat their lunch – even if it’s good for them to do so.”

The opinion can be found here.

SACRAMENTO - California has maintained its #2 ranking in the latest “Judicial Hellholes” report, released today by the American Tort Reform Foundation. The state was ranked #2 in last year’s report as well, and has been included in one form or another every year since the rankings began in 2002. The issues highlighted in this year’s report include meritless class actions, shakedown consumer and disabled access lawsuits, exceptionally high punitive damages, and an inability to stop vexatious litigants.

The annual Judicial Hellholes report compiles the most significant court rulings, legislative actions, and abuses within the civil justice system in various jurisdictions. While the city of Philadelphia claimed the #1 ranking for the second year in a row, this year’s report says of California that “perhaps no other state more clearly illustrates the direct impact of excessive litigation on job creation and the ability of businesses to survive and thrive.”

“These reports have done a fine job of documenting the ways in which California allows abuse by plaintiffs’ attorneys throughout our state,” CJAC President Kim Stone said. “The fact that we continue to rank as one of the worst judicial hellholes in the country shows that we have a long way to go to create a more level playing field between defendants and plaintiffs. As these reports have shown, in many lawsuits the plaintiffs weren’t even harmed and didn’t lose any money, but they are still able to force defendant businesses to waste precious time and resources.”

Among the specific developments cited in the report from the past year are:

California was, however, also mentioned in the report’s “Points of Light” section. The report cites the state Supreme Court’s ruling in August that prevents plaintiffs from recovering “phantom damages”, the difference between the amount of medical expenses billed by a doctor (the “retail rate”) and the amount that an insurer actually pays at the rate that had been previously negotiated with the doctor.

The full report and reports from previous years can be found at www.judicialhellholes.org.

The study relies on a new econometric model that looks at each of the 50 states’ economic and legal environment data - such as number of tort claims filed, frequency of large awards, and the concentration of lawyers practicing - and creates a Legal Environment Benchmark that all states can be compared to. To estimate how businesses would respond to lower tort costs, or “tort tax” relief, the study looks at businesses’ previous responses to tax reductions to determine the resulting impact on employment. The authors find that improving a state’s legal environment is a viable option for stimulating economic activity that does not reduce tax receipts or increase government spending.

“The research continues to show that California’s legal environment is holding our economy back,” CJAC President Kim Stone said. “This is further evidence of why we have to make changes that get businesses to believe that it makes sense for them to be in our state and to hire more Californians. The empirical research tells us there is a problem. The surveys of business leaders tell us there is a problem. It is pretty clear that legal reform is part of the solution.”

California’s total tort costs amount to $32 billion, far higher than any other state, according to the study. California’s legal environment increases tort costs by 16.4% when compared to the Legal Environment Benchmark, which translates to $5.2 billion in higher costs.

The study finds that the increases in employment that could result from reducing these costs range from 0.65% to 1.76% in California, which currently would mean between 115,000 and 320,000 jobs.

The full study, which was conducted on behalf of the Institute for Legal Reform, can be found here.

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) is asking Californians to recognize the impact of excessive litigation in our state as Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week begins today. CJAC is renewing its call for reforming California laws that make it easier for plaintiffs’ attorneys to sue and receive unjust fee awards at the expense of our state’s businesses and public agencies.

While there is no shortage of examples of lawsuit abuse in California, here are a few examples from the past year worthy of special mention:

“I would encourage lawmakers to look more closely in the coming year at lawsuit abuse and the ways we can reduce it,” CJAC President Kim Stone said. “It is important to remember that small businesses are so often targeted and have the most at stake given their limited resources. Small businesses incur 83% of the tort costs in America even though they only bring in 22% of business revenues, according to the Institute for Legal Reform. If we want businesses to do more hiring, we are going to need to reduce these costs.”

CJAC has pushed for a number of reforms to address lawsuits likes these and abuse that takes place in a number of other categories, including:

SACRAMENTO - Today the California Supreme Court ruled in Howell v. Hamilton Meats that a plaintiff may only collect as damages the amount that actually had to be paid by insurers for medical treatment rather than the retail rate that medical providers charge for that treatment. In its opinion the Court stated that it is not appropriate to “expand the scope of economic damages to include expenses the plaintiff never incurred.” The case stems from an incident where a Hamilton Meat truck collided with the plaintiff as she was driving.

Medical providers negotiate reimbursement rates with insurance companies that are lower than the retail rate they would charge to someone without insurance. This allows them to gain access to the insurance provider’s customers and a broader pool of patients.

CJAC President Kim Stone made the following statement:

“The Supreme Court absolutely made the right decision and we are very pleased. This case addresses a situation where a plaintiff had health insurance for which a negotiated rate was already agreed upon, so the retail rate is irrelevant and should not apply. The medical providers were reimbursed appropriately at the negotiated rate. The plaintiff was compensated for all out-of-pocket costs. This is fair and prevents an unjustified windfall for plaintiffs’ attorneys.”

The Supreme Court’s opinion can be read here, and an amicus brief submitted by CJAC to the Supreme Court can be read here.

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) is strongly supporting legislation introduced this week by Senator Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) that would provide some relief for Californians from abusive disabled access lawsuits.

Senate Bill 783 would require a potential plaintiff to notify a property owner of an alleged violation. The owner would then have 30 days to respond with a plan to fix the problem or with a rebuttal to the allegations. If the owner decides to fix the problem, he or she would have 120 days to do so. If the improvements were not made within 120 days, the plaintiff could then file suit.

“Access for the disabled is the law, and is righteous and necessary,” said CJAC President Kim Stone. “Unfortunately, some lawyers are profiting through exploitative lawsuits that do not improve access. Giving property owners 120 days to make the improvements is a reasonable approach that will accomplish the goal of disabled access without putting an undue strain on small businesses that are sometimes facing a choice between reaching a settlement or shutting down.”

California law goes above and beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Under California’s Unruh Act, individuals may recover $4,000 per violation, plus attorney fees. That creates a situation that can be exploited by lawyers looking for technical violations because there is a high incentive for property owners to settle rather than go through costly litigation.

Legislation enacted in California in 2008, SB 1608, enacted several reforms to help businesses meet their obligations and avoid litigation. However, there continue to be serial filers across the state.

“There are numerous cases that have been documented where individuals go from business to business looking for violations, filing hundreds or even thousands of claims,” Stone added. “They know that they can take advantage of our law for financial gain because so many business owners will just settle to make the case go away. The problem is there is no enforcement to make sure the improvements needed actually occur. That has led to a trend of ‘drive-by’ ADA lawsuits where lawyers gets their settlement money and just move on to the next target. This is not the way to improve disabled access.”

The introduction of SB 783 comes after a proposal in Congress this year by California Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), H.R. 881, that would provide a 90-day window to make necessary ADA improvements.

SB 783 is written as an urgency measure, meaning it would take effect immediately upon being signed into law, and will now go before the State Senate for consideration.

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) is calling attention to the 2011 “Best/Worst States for Business” survey released this week by Chief Executive Magazine, in which 550 CEOs participated and found California to be the worst state in the nation for business for the seventh year in a row. CJAC President Kim Stone issued the following statement:

“Legal reform that reduces lawsuit abuse is absolutely essential to making California an easier place to do business. California is consistently ranked at the bottom of states in multiple surveys and reports on economic issues every year. Last year, the Institute for Legal Reform ranked California’s legal climate 46th out of the 50 states and the American Tort Reform Association found the state to be the second worst ‘Judicial Hellhole’ in the country as well.

“Policymakers can’t expect to make economic recovery a reality when business leaders don’t like doing business in California. Businesses in our state have to deal with a legal system that gives plaintiffs an unfair advantage in class actions, makes it easier for plaintiffs to get exorbitant punitive damages, makes it easier to exploit businesses in disabled access cases, makes it easier for plaintiffs to get awards in junk asbestos lawsuits, and the list goes on. It is tough to grow a business under these circumstances, yet growing businesses is what we need to reduce unemployment and to provide the state with the tax revenues it needs to provide critical services. It is time to make things a little easier for business, and reducing the number of lawsuits against them is one important way of doing so.”

A summary of the survey can be found here.

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) praised a new report released today by the California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse titled “At Every Turn…California Chooses Bad Lawsuits Instead of Good Jobs.” The report details how a number of California laws relating to class actions, workplace and environmental regulations, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have cost people their jobs, prevented businesses from growing, and delayed major projects indefinitely that had many jobs attached to them.

“The Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse have done a superb job of providing specific, real-world examples of lawsuits causing job loss and preventing economic growth,” CJAC President Kim Stone said. “This report is very timely as California’s leaders are focusing on ways to get our economy going again. I would encourage them to take a close look at what is in this report and consider not only the economic impact but the basic human impact of lawsuit abuse and how much it can disrupt someone’s life.”

In one case highlighted in the report, a doughnut shop in Reedley, CA was sued for noncompliance with ADA even though the owner’s daughter who helps manage the shop has been in a wheelchair her whole life and had no complaints about access. A nearby restaurant targeted by the same personal injury firm for ADA violations had to actually close. In another example, a lawsuit filed over environmental concerns has blocked a solar energy project in Riverside County that would create 600 jobs and generate enough green energy to power 75,000 homes.

“The ‘common-sense reforms’ identified in the report - leveling the playing field in class action suits, product liability reform, common-sense limits on punitive damages, and practical ADA reform - are proposals CJAC has continually advocated for,” Stone added. “Assemblyman Brian Nestande is carrying a CJAC sponsored bill this year, AB 271, that would give defendants the same right of appeal that plaintiffs have on class action certification. This report helps demonstrate the need for such a bill and we hope the Legislature develops a stronger appreciation for it.”

The full report can be found at www.badlawsuitscostgoodjobs.com.

SACRAMENTO - Kim Stone, President of the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC), released the following statement today encouraging the State Supreme Court to consider making certain rulings prospective only and to allow a brief period of time for parties to implement the Court’s ruling. This comes in response to the 76 lawsuits, according to public filings, that had been filed against a variety of businesses as of yesterday in the aftermath of the Court’s February 10th ruling in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., which stated that merchants cannot request customers’ ZIP codes during transactions:

“The fact that this case went to the Supreme Court shows that there was a great amount of confusion about the law in question. We are concerned by the idea of holding a business liable for actions that were taken before the courts had made a final decision on what the law means, particularly when that business was not even a part of the case.

“Our concern is not with the Court’s interpretation of the law. In this case, however, both the trial court and the appellate court had actually ruled in favor of the defendant prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff, which is further evidence of the uncertainty surrounding the law.

“Less than a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling, more than a dozen lawsuits had been filed against businesses for violations, and that number was 76 as of yesterday. The businesses that have been sued will now have to spend significant time and money defending themselves for actions that at the time they thought were legal.

“Thus, we would respectfully request that in future cases of a similar nature the Court consider limiting the liability that results from its ruling to future violations only.

“We also believe it would be reasonable, given how quickly suits were filed, for the Court to consider allowing affected parties a brief period of time to implement the ruling so that it can be interpreted appropriately and so there is adequate time for the new procedures to be communicated to what in many businesses amounts to thousands of affected employees.”

Senate Bill 603 would allow a person to be designated a “vexatious litigant” whether they are self-represented or have an attorney. Vexatious litigants are those who continually re-litigate decided issues or file meritless and harassing claims. Under current law, only someone who is self-represented can be designated a vexatious litigant. Once someone receives this designation, they must receive pre-approval from the courts for any future filings and pay for a bond to cover the initial costs of the filing.

“Our court system is overwhelmed by the number of cases it has to deal with and we need to make sure that these cases are worth the court’s time,” Senator Berryhill said. “It is a shame that honest, hard-working people can end up having to spend a fortune defending themselves against a lawsuit that has no merit. If we want economic recovery in this state, we need changes like SB 603 that will help free up people’s money so they can spend, invest, and hire rather than defend themselves against lawsuits that have no basis.”

Excessive and unwarranted lawsuits have been identified as a significant problem in California that greatly hinders the state’s economy. The 2010 State Liability Systems Ranking study conducted by the Institute for Legal Reform found that California’s legal system ranks 46th in the nation. The study also found that over two-thirds (67%) of business attorneys say that a state’s legal environment impacts important business decisions at their companies.

“Just because someone finds an attorney to represent them doesn’t mean their claim has merit,” CJAC President Kim Stone said. “Some of the most common vexatious litigants are serial filers of Americans with Disabilities Act claims that target small businesses for technical violations. While not all ADA access lawsuits are without merit, this bill would allow a judge to name a serial plaintiff a vexatious litigant whether or not that plaintiff is represented by a lawyer. Given the state of our economy and the budget cuts our courts are facing, we simply cannot afford to deal with these types of lawsuits.”

SB 603 will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee in the coming weeks.

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California expressed disappointment at the state Supreme Court’s ruling today in a case involving Proposition 64, the landmark ballot measure CJAC sponsored in 2004 that requires plaintiffs to have actually suffered some injury in order to file lawsuits under the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

The court ruled 5-2 in the case of Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court that plaintiffs were actually damaged by the company’s claim that locks it produced were made in the U.S. when a few of the components in the locks were produced overseas.

“We disagree with today’s ruling because Proposition 64 clearly states that plaintiffs can’t file lawsuits based on the Unfair Competition Law unless they have suffered injury in fact and have lost money or property,” said CJAC President Kimberly Stone.

Justice Ming Chin, who wrote the dissenting opinion, agreed.

“In direct contravention of the electorate’s intent, the majority disregards the express language of (Proposition 64) and makes it easier for a plaintiff to achieve standing under the UCL,” Chin wrote, in a dissent joined by Justice Carol Corrigan.

“All plaintiffs now have to allege is that they would not have bought the mislabeled product… This cannot be what the electorate intended when it sought ‘unequivocally to narrow the category of persons who could sue businesses under the UCL.’”

Stone warned that the court’s ruling may further clog the state’s courts, at a time when Governor Brown is proposing to cut $200 million in funding for court operations as part of his plan to balance the state budget.

“Especially in an era when our courts are already overcrowded and facing severe budget cuts, it’s no time to open the floodgates of litigation in cases where no damage resulted,” Stone said.

“Although the opinion was narrow and strongly upheld the central point of Proposition 64 - you still have to have suffered damage to file a UCL lawsuit - it will still lead to more litigation. Making it easier for a plaintiff to achieve standing results in more class action claims and puts further pressure on businesses to settle these cases to avoid the high costs of litigating. This will give businesses already reluctant to locate or expand here because of our poor legal climate further pause and jeopardize the state’s economic recovery.”

Proposition 64, which was approved by a 59 percent to 41 percent margin in November 2004, was put before the voters by CJAC to rid the state of frivolous lawsuits in cases where nobody suffered any real injury or loss. Ironically, as Chin noted, during the campaign to enact the measure, the Kwikset case was specifically noted by CJAC and other sponsors of the measure as an example of the kind of shakedown lawsuit that Proposition 64 was designed to eliminate.

CJAC commends President Obama for supporting the concept of nationwide medical malpractice reform in the State of the Union address. California’s doctors, medical providers, and legal reform advocates are willing and eager to work with Congress and the Administration to bring reforms that have worked successfully for many years in California to the rest of the nation.

At a time when trial lawyers are working hard to weaken or repeal California’s landmark Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), we are encouraged that the President last night said he was “willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one … suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.” MICRA has done just that in California.

MICRA allows for unlimited economic damages for past and future medical costs, lost wages, and punitive damages in medical malpractice cases - and also provides up to $250,000 for speculative, non-economic damages (so-called pain and suffering), while limiting attorneys’ fees so that more money goes to the patient.

The law has stabilized medical malpractice insurance costs, preserving patient access to thousands of physicians, nurses, hospitals, clinics, dentists, and other healthcare providers. In fact, just increasing the amount of non-economic damages allowed under MICRA from $250,000 to $500,000 would raise healthcare costs in California by at least $9.5 billion annually, according to a 2008 report by California’s former nonpartisan legislative analyst. That translates into $1,032 annually for a family of four.

SACRAMENTO - Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger embraced diversity in his judicial appointments, appointing trial court judges with experience in a wide spectrum of the law, according to an analysis by the Civil Justice Association of California, the state’s leading advocacy group for legal reform.

That diversity is sharply different from the appointees of Schwarzenegger’s predecessor, Gray Davis, who selected most of his judicial appointments from a much narrower pool - a large component of which included trial lawyers.

“Elections have consequences, and one of the greatest consequences is the makeup of the state’s judiciary,” said CJAC President Kimberly Stone. “The wide disparity in the backgrounds of the judges appointed by Governors Davis and Schwarzenegger clearly demonstrates that governors leave a big mark on the courthouse for many years.

“We urge Governor Brown to keep the big picture in mind as he begins to appoint judges because the men and women he appoints will play a major role in shaping the state’s overall legal climate, which for too long has been near the bottom nationally and makes it less likely that companies will locate or expand in California. In addition to racial diversity, judges can and should come from all walks of legal life: prosecutors, litigators, business lawyers, court commissioners, government attorneys, and others.”

California ranked 46th in the Institute for Legal Reform’s 2010 survey of the lawsuit climates in each of the 50 states, a regular assessment of state liability systems conducted by the respected, nonpartisan Harris Interactive market research firm. That’s down from 44th in the previous year’s survey.

During his seven years in office, Schwarzenegger appointed 585 Superior Court judges. Of those, 32 percent were lawyers in private practice, 27 percent came from district attorneys’ offices, and 19 percent were court commissioners - lawyers elected by Superior Court judges and given the power to hear and make decisions in certain kinds of legal matters.

In comparison, 48 percent of Davis’s 263 appointees during his five years in office were lawyers in private practice, 16 percent came from district attorneys’ offices, and 13 percent were court commissioners. CJAC compiled the background of the appointees based on press releases issued by each governor. (Charts fully outlining the backgrounds of the judges appointed by each Governor are available below.)

The differences in approach were particularly noticeable when examining the areas in which the lawyers in private practice engaged.

Schwarzenegger picked lawyers who practiced in virtually all areas of the law. The largest number of private practice lawyers and sole practitioners he selected were general practice lawyers (18 percent), followed closely by attorneys in civil defense (15 percent), business law (13 percent) and general civil law (11 percent).

In contrast, 61 percent of the private practice lawyers appointed by Davis practiced business law, and 29 percent were plaintiffs’ attorneys or workers’ compensation lawyers. In fact, Davis appointed almost as many trial lawyers (36) as he did prosecutors (41). In contrast, Schwarzenegger appointed just 17 personal injury lawyers, which accounted for only 9 percent of his private practice appointees.

In California, most Superior Court judges are appointed by the governor when a vacancy occurs. Voters then ratify that selection at the next election, and the appointee then serves out the remainder of the term. Most trial court judges run unopposed for reelection. Stone said that process is probably the best judicial selection system in the country since politics and political contributions are largely absent, but only when the governor makes good appointments to begin with.

“Governor Brown has stated many times that he wants to rebuild California and make it the Golden State once again,” Stone said. “Appointing common-sense judges who will enforce the law fairly is an enormous part of making that promise a reality.”

SACRAMENTO - The Civil Justice Association of California, the state’s leading advocacy group for legal reform, has selected Kimberly Stone to serve as its new president, the Association announced today.

Stone is currently Director of Government Affairs for Blue Shield of California, a position she moved to early last summer after serving as CJAC’s Vice President - Legislation. She joined CJAC in 2005 as Legislative Director and was especially effective in coalition building and countering legislation detrimental to CJAC members and the civil justice system.

“I am honored to have been selected to lead the Civil Justice Association of California and look forward to continuing the important work of building a stronger California and creating a more fair civil justice system,” Stone said.

“Excessive litigation costs California consumers and taxpayers money that they should not have to spend. California businesses small and large are facing unprecedented challenges in trying to help the economy rebound by creating jobs and revenue for the state. Government entities, too, face unnecessary litigation costs and avoidance expenses during a time of unprecedented financial challenges. I will work to ensure that employers are protected from legislation and lawsuits that drive up costs and make it harder for California to begin growing strong again,” she said.

Stone will officially take the helm on January 18.

“I’ve had the privilege of working with Kim at CJAC,” said John H. Sullivan, who departs the Association this month after becoming its president in 1995. “She understands CJAC’s unique role as an issue-driven organization that works on behalf of a unique coalition - small businesses, individual professionals, corporations of every kind, and government entities. Kim will continue CJAC’s strong policy-making participation with the Judiciary as well as the Legislature and in furthering the Association’s important separate role in the political arena.”

Joe Manero, CJAC Board Chair, said: “Kim will hit the ground running as CJAC president,” Manero said. “She brings an in-depth knowledge of the organization, is well-respected in the Capitol, and has a keen understanding of the complex issues that matter to CJAC’s members. She will be a great leader for the Association.”

Prior to joining CJAC, Stone, 41, was Director of Development of The Adelante Foundation, a nonprofit micro credit organization in Honduras. She cofounded the organization with her husband, who grew up in the country before receiving a mechanical engineering degree at Stanford. She previously served as a deputy district attorney for San Mateo County and as special assistant to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. As a prosecutor, engaged in over 25 jury trials and wrote and successfully argued an appeal before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Stone and her husband have two children.

A graduate of Stanford University School of Law, she received a Stanford undergraduate degree in American Studies. While at Stanford, she was a legislative advocate and legislative committee member for the California Alliance Against Domestic Violence.

Commenting on departing CJAC President Sullivan, Manero said, “John grew the organization into one of the premier advocacy groups in California. His tireless efforts to promote a fair civil justice system have served not just CJAC members but all Californians. Indeed, he has helped make CJAC a model for other civil justice reform groups around the country.”