Matthew Guichard

Indeed it has been some time since I penned the popular Civil Jury Verdicts column. Same old story: Very few attorneys are reporting their jury verdicts to me. I will say, trials are getting out in our Contra Costa Superior Courts, so I know there are cases to report. I also know local lawyers who are going to trial in other venues, including Federal Court. And, I am aware of significant settlements here in Contra Costa Superior Courts, as well as in other venues. I will mention all of those cases in our Civil Jury Verdicts column. You just have to report those cases to me. Sounds like a broken record doesn’t it?

Now let’s get down to some case reporting.

Moore vs. Wiebe, Case No. S-1500-CV-282514 LHB was tried in Kern County Superior Court, before the Honorable Lorna Brumfield. Plaintiff was represented by Solomon Green of RG Lawyers, LLP of Encino, California. Our own Bob Slattery along with Denise Billups-Stone of the McNamara firm represented the Defendant.

The Plaintiff, a 49-year-old medically-disabled welder, sued the Defendant, a neurosurgeon M.D., for complications he developed after a laminectomy, facetectomy and a tethered cord release. The surgery took place at Bakersfield Memorial Hospital.

Prior to the trial, the Plaintiff offered to settle for $250,000. Defendant offered to resolve the case by a CCP 998 offer of a dismissal in exchange for a waiver of costs. Doesn’t exactly sound like a meeting of the minds.

After a two week trial, the jury found for the Defendant doctor, in a unanimous verdict. The ouch part for Plaintiff in such med mal cases is there are generally significant expert costs and Plaintiff may very well be on the hook for those.

Thanks to Bob Slattery for reporting the case. He regularly reports cases to me, but looks like he has now transitioned into a mediator (See my next edition of Bar Soap), so I may not see any more Bob Slattery cases. Remember that “Mediation privilege? ” It means he cannot report the mediation cases to me.

An interesting note on medical malpractice cases: My research has reflected over the years medical malpractice cases have the lowest percentage of an outcome in favor of Plaintiffs of any type of personal injury matter.

In June of 2014 I wrote about Arnold vs. Padrah. Contra Costa Superior Court Case No. MSC12-02895. The Honorable Steve Austin presided. Clyde Long just reported an appellate decision in that same matter.

Recall at the time of my report there was a verdict, but the bifurcated trial on the issue of punitive damages had not yet taken place, and Judge Austin had not yet ruled on the Plaintiff’s quiet title claim of prescriptive easement. Clyde promised to let me know the final result. It took 29 months from start of the trial to the appellate decision.

The jury subsequently awarded $20,000 of punitive damages on top of the $68,000 damages award. Judge Austin granted a prescriptive easement in favor of Plaintiff, and awarded costs of $112,000. The total judgment was $200,000. The judgment was appealed by Defendant. The Court of Appeal recently affirmed the judgment in its entirety.

Many things are happening locally with our legal community. So many in fact that it is impossible to learn about them, much less comment on all of them. But I will give it a try.

MCLE Spectacular, Spectacular!
You actually don’t need my reminder, but the Contra Costa County Bar Association’s 22nd MCLE Spectacular is taking place Friday, November 18, 2016. It is an event not to be missed. Not only is it a good opportunity to pick up necessary and meaningful legal education credits, but it is also a great opportunity to see and catch up with old friends. See you there.

Mock Trials
I had the privilege of sitting as a judge at the Federal Building in San Francisco for the Empire Mock Trial program for national high school teams. I saw several colleagues from Contra Costa County also sitting in as jurors and judges. Many of you regularly assist with our local Contra Costa County High School Mock Trial Competition. Volunteer for the Empire program if you have the chance. I sat in on trials for teams from Cleveland, Miami, Riverside (California) and Washington State. Very impressive performances by all.

CourtCall Bandwagon
Back on my bandwagon concerning CourtCall appearances. Those appearances actually result in more court time than less. Please attorneys, listen to the Judge and offer information which is helpful to calendaring and case analysis. It is not a time to bring up discovery disputes, long-winded stories or long-winded excuses. It is painful to listen to attorneys wax eloquent on irrelevant issues and the entire audience in the courtroom an unwilling participant. Hey, I have an idea; pretend you are actually in Court! I did hear an excuse from a CourtCall participant which made me laugh. An attorney stated the reason a case had not been timely mediated as agreed was due to “Attorney lethargy.” Nice!
So, I have a thought about those pesky CMCs: Let’s go to the tentative ruling format. In most cases the parties file timely CMC statements and the Court issues a tentative CMC ruling setting further hearings, mediation completion dates and trials. No appearance is necessary, and we do not have to hear any more lawyers on CourtCall. That is of course unless the Court’s tentative ruling requires attendance.

People on the Move:
I note Manoogian Law has moved to 800 South Broadway, Suite 304, in Walnut Creek. And, not sure if I mentioned it before, but Robert M. Slattery (Bob) has officially wrapped up his litigation practice after 40 years and has transitioned into a full time “Neutral.” I’m happy for Bob, but a bit sad as he was a regular contributor to reports about “Local Civil Jury Verdicts.” Also, I’m not sure if it is just the local water, but we continue to hear of lawyers leaving firms (big and small firms that is) and going solo. An advantage is the only partner one has to deal with is that one in the mirror each morning and profits (if there are any) don’t have to be shared. Don’t forget to let us know if you have gone out on your own, or joined another firm. I love to write about people on the move, and speaking of people on the move, local retirees are making me jealous! I see many former government lawyers at bocce who report they love retirement and they love that retirement check coming in each month. Must be nice!

Rotary
I was invited to join one of our local Rotary Clubs. No surprise, I accepted the invitation. Very enjoyable presentations and pleased to see so many of our local attorneys as members of the various local clubs.

Super Lawyers
So, I thought I was something special being a Super Lawyer, but then I started to see that every single lawyer in the state is a Super Lawyer or a Top Lawyer, or a NorCal Top Lawyer, or an East Bay Top Lawyer, or a Top Ten Lawyer, or a member of The National Association of Distinguished Counsel, or whatever. We are clearly an over-performing group! Congratulations to us all!

Fee Arbitration
I sit on the panel as a State Bar Fee Arbitrator. Just a reminder to ALL attorneys: Ensure you have a legal services agreement with your client(s). (Hint: This would probably be an excellent topic for our MCLE Spectacular next year.) It is required in most matters and I cannot tell you the number of cases in which there is NO agreement. The first question in any fee dispute matter is “Did you execute a legal services agreement…?” And a little tip to go on top of that, even if there is a written fee agreement, the fees cannot be unconscionable. That means at a minimum there must be some relationship between the fees charged and the work performed.

Passings
Sadly I am reporting regularly on those we lost recently. Jim Hazard and Ted Merrill recently left us. Jim a long time local lawyer, previously served on the Walnut Creek City Council. He was a top notch attorney, a member of ABOTA and settled many a civil case in his role as a mediator. I only knew Ted Merrill as a judge, but many remember him as the head partner at the Merrill law firm in Danville. That firm later became the Gagan et al firm. As a Deputy DA, both my first murder trial and my last murder trial were held in Judge Merrill’s department.

I was also very sad to hear of the untimely passing of John T. Nejedly. John was a local attorney, a member of the Contra Costa Community College Board, the son of former District Attorney and State Senator John A. Nejedly, the brother of Contra Costa County Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho and the brother of Central Costra Sanitary trustee James Nejedly. He was only 52 years old.

Musings
Circling back a bit on the concept of continuing legal education, I must say I am inundated daily with offers of programs on social media marketing for lawyers. For some years continuing education seemed to focus on evidence, ethics, mediations, etc. Seems now most of what I see involves marketing, web site crafting, blogging and how to be a super lawyer (just kidding on that last one). Nothing wrong with that, just a change in how we do business I guess.

Keep those cards and letters coming. I cannot write about your news if you don’t let me know.

Matthew Guichard and Erika Portillo are members of the One Hundred Club of Contra Costa County. In case you don’t know what this club is we’ve posted the below from their website:

“The One Hundred Club of Contra Costa County was formed in 1984 by a group of concerned citizens who care about the welfare of families of peace officers and firefighters who lost their lives as a result of and while in the line of duty in Contra Costa County. We are a 501 (C) (3) Exempt Organizatio…n.

Upon our formation, we became the sixty-second club formed in the United States.”

You can learn more about it here and ways that you can help:

http://www.100clubcontracostacounty.org/

We have joined the Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce. You can find us here: http://www.walnut-creek.com/walnut-creek-business-directory2

If you live in the Walnut Creek area and need legal services, please keep us in mind. We are a top notch law firm and get great results for our clients. We can help you get the best result possible.

Bar Soap: Judge Arnason Celebration Tops them All

Every time I report on an interesting local event, I keep thinking nothing can top it. Recall my mention of the MCLE Spectacular, the Annual Installation Luncheon, Contra Costa County Mock Trial Competition and other Bar Association events. Well, I do believe the Celebration to Honor the Life of the Honorable Richard E. Arnason topped them all. The ceremony took place in the Supervisors’ Chambers, with a reception afterwards at the Classic Courthouse. I must say it was a truly wonderful event. Unknown to many, Judge Arnason was a private man, and his funeral was a very private invitation-only ceremony. Because he was such a remarkable, respected and beloved man in our legal community many thought there should be a public ceremony to celebrate the life of Judge Arnason. Many thanks to all who worked so diligently to put the program together, particularly our Bar Association Executive Director Theresa Hurley.

The Judge Arnason program started out with an honor guard from the Martinez Police Department. The master of ceremonies was our presiding judge, The Honorable Steven K. Austin. Speakers included Judge Arnason’s long time court clerk Virginia Nelson, Public Defender Robin Lipetzky, District Attorney Mark Peterson, Attorney William Gagan, and the Honorable James J. Marchiano. Each one of the speakers had something interesting to say about Judge Arnason and his record-breaking term on the bench. Incredibly Judge Arnason spent just short of 50 years on our local bench. That is a record in the State of California. After he left the bench, Public Defender Robin Lipetzky found a spot for Judge Arnason to hang his hat at her offices in Martinez. I love that fact, as she obviously recognized Judge Arnason could not just hang it up, but needed a place to read his “advance sheets” and to continue his lifelong legal mentoring of attorneys.

The history of Judge Arnason’s life is one of the truly feel-good stories. He certainly will be missed.

As I often walk the halls of the Classic Courthouse, I note that civil jury trials are often taking place on the third floor. However, it seems harder and harder for me to get attorneys to report the results of those trials. Please do your best to let me know about civil jury verdicts. The Civil Jury Verdicts column is a very popular column in the Contra Costa Lawyer, but it doesn’t get written without reports from those involved.

Not sure if many of you know of the delightful work done by Justice James Marchiano in writing “Bray Building Stories” and “More Stories from the A.F. Bray Courts Building”. Get your hands on them if you can. Let me know if you would like me to help.

Last time I reported on the Contra Costa County Mock Trial Competition. We now have the results of this year’s competition. Miramonte High School came in first, followed by Acalanes, Heritage and California, as the top four schools. Keep an eye out next year and be sure to volunteer some time on that program. Contact John Lance at the Contra Costa Office of Education for information on volunteering.

Interesting legal issues arise with “self-driving cars.” The Yolo County California Inn of Court put on a very informative and thought-provoking program involving self-driving cars. A video of that program has been sent to the National Inns and it is available in the national program data bank. One of my partners Will Portello is in that Yolo County Inn. A few interesting points: (1) Is someone a DUI driver if the sole occupant of a self-driving car? (2) Does one need a driver’s license to occupy a self-driving car? (3) Can someone who is disabled be the lone occupant of a self-driving car? And what if that occupant is blind? (4) Does the accident avoidance program for a self-driving car choose between running into a child in a cross walk, or swerving into the oncoming lane of traffic to avoid a collision with the pedestrian? There are lots and lots of questions and legal issues. Sounds like we need an article on the topic. Who wants to volunteer?

I do recall I asked those of you who have been designated as “super lawyers” this year to let me know. Do not just limit it to “super lawyers.” Brag a little and let me know if you have achieved any other honors. I am very happy to mention such honors in the column.

I often receive confidential requests regarding the evaluation of persons applying for superior court judge positions. It’s nice to see friends and colleagues applying for positions as judges in the California Superior Courts. Keep an eye out for bar association programs for attorneys contemplating applying for positions on the bench. I see our own bar association is putting on such an event in May.

Although he was not an attorney, Dr. Mario M. Menesini was a very active member of our Contra Costa community for many years. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District recently dedicated its environmental laboratory in Pacheco in honor of Dr. Menesini. He was way out front on issues related to the environment and assisted in the drafting of legislation to protect our environment. The lab is named the Dr. Mario M. Menesini Environmental Laboratory. Dr. Menesini passed away on April 28, 2013.

I know I mentioned in the last column that Patricia Kelly moved her office to Walnut Creek — just did not have the address. I do now have that address. Pat’s new address is Law Offices of Patricia M. Kelly, 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300, Walnut Creek 94596.

On a funny note, I reported in my last column that Harvey Sohnen had retired. Harvey reported to me he felt a bit like Mark Twain reading his own obituary. In fact, Harvey has not retired. He is still working away in the same place in Orinda. Sorry Harvey.

It’s nice to see the Honorable William Kolin, Ret., has landed at Alternative Resolution Centers.

My friend Andy Port reported that Emard Danoff Port Tamulski & Walovich LLP has closed, and the members have joined Sedgwick LLP as part of Sedgwick’s admiralty practice.

And now my all-too-frequent report on attorneys who have passed away recently. Charles E. Townsend of Orinda passed away on April 5, 2016. You might recognize the name, as he was a founding member along with his older brother of the powerhouse firm of Townsend & Townsend.

Alvin Buchignani of Moraga passed away on March 11, 2016. He practiced law for 55 years, right up until the day he died.

William H. Plageman, Jr., of Oakland passed away on April 1, 2016. Bill graduated from Boalt Hall in 1968 and worked for years as a partner at Thelen, Marrin, Johnson, and Bridges, and ultimately Plageman, Lund & Cannon.

Keep me posted on your moves, interesting verdicts, interesting settlements or just local gossip. Email me at mguichard@gtplawyers.com.

Inside: Guest Editor's Column, May 2016

How beneficial and realistic would building a border wall and removing millions of undocumented immigrants really be?

Immigration has been a top issue in the 2016 presidential race. In particular, the top contender for the Republican Party nomination, Donald Trump, has been very outspoken about illegal immigration. He has proposed the creation of a “Great Wall” that he plans to build between the United States and Mexico, and the removal of the approximately 11.3 million undocumented people living in the U.S.

Trump’s controversial comments about Mexican immigrants during his June 16, 2015, campaign announcement caused outrage among the Hispanic community, and many corporations decided to end their business relationships with him. In that speech, Trump said Mexico is “sending people that have lots of problems” to America including rapists, drug runners and other criminals.

Although during his campaign, Trump has never provided data to support his allegations and proposals, the number of his followers has increased, according to the polls.

The undocumented people who are living in the U.S. are not only from Mexico, but also from Central and South America, Asia and Europe. Many of them have overstayed their visas, meaning they came to the country legally.

Executing Trump’s proposal of sending undocumented people to their countries of origin may not be as easy as proposed. There are a few things that Trump and other candidates appear to have not taken into consideration. For instance, many undocumented immigrants own businesses, have entered into contracts and have applied for loans to purchase houses, vehicles, services and such.

If they were going to be removed from the U.S., what would happen to the American citizens that have a right to collect money on those loans and services? What would happen with the job vacancies and their much-needed contributions to the Social Security Administration, which are being used to pay pensions to American citizen retirees? Who would fill those jobs? Many U.S. citizen children would be left behind for our foster care system to care for. As a result, many of the public services costs would significantly increase.

The costs related to the transportation of those immigrants to their countries of origin would be burdensome to our economy. According to a report from the conservative American Action Forum, headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of undertaking such an operation would be absurdly high.

More precisely, removing 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in two years would require:

Increasing the number of federal immigration apprehension personnel from 4,844 positions to 90,582 positions.
Increasing the number of immigration detention beds from 34,000 to 348,831.
Increasing the number of immigration courts from 58 to 1,316.
Increasing the number of federal attorneys legally processing undocumented immigrants from 1,430 to 32,445.
The report concludes, “in just two years it would shrink the labor force by 10.3 million workers and reduce real GDP by $1 trillion.”

A system allowing people already here to obtain a work permit with a path to citizenship would be more beneficial than removing law-abiding families who are contributing to our economy and our society as a whole.

It would not only benefit the immigrants by improving the quality of their lives, but it would also benefit the country. People would be able to come out of the shadows and have normal lives without fear. Integration would be easier. As a result, crime would decrease and our society would prosper.

As for that “Great Wall” proposal, is it really feasible to build such a wall? There are millions of men, women and children who live in communities that fall on both sides of Mexico and the U.S. There are many tourists, workers, students and entrepreneurs who cross the border each day. There are billions of dollars that the trade between the two countries provide to our economy, which sustain millions of U.S. jobs. The two countries are economically and socially integrated.

Trump’s plan would severely damage that relationship. According to the fact sheet released by the Americas Society/Council of Americas Integration and Immigration Initiative:

The total value of U.S.-Mexico trade is more than $1 billion every day.
More than 13 million Mexicans traveled to the U.S. in 2010, spending $8.7 billion.
Roughly 6 million U.S. jobs are sustained by trade with Mexico.
More than 20 percent of all U.S. jobs are tied in some way to trade along the border.
As we can see, a wall may not be the best solution. What we need instead is infrastructure upgrades for ports of entry, and intelligence-driven law enforcement operations that target criminal organizations, as Republican Congressman Will Hurd addressed recently at a panel discussing hosted by the Brookings Institution, titled “A complex reality: Security, trade, and the U.S.-Mexico border.”

If we really want to solve the problem without building a wall and removing law-abiding families, we should focus our efforts on comprehensive immigration reform. As proposed previously in Congress, it will strengthen our communities, our economy and our country’s future.

Comprehensive immigration reform would provide undocumented immigrants with a legal way to earn citizenship; improve family-based and employment-based immigration systems (e.g., currently spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents must wait more than two years to reunite with their families, while adult children of green card holders may wait more than 10 years); provide visas to foreign entrepreneurs looking to start businesses in the U.S., creating job opportunities for U.S. citizens; help foreign graduate students stay in this country after graduation; give law enforcement the tools they need to make our communities safer from crime; enhance our infrastructure and technology; and strengthen our ability to address threats to our national security.

Establishing a system to enable much-needed unskilled workers to come to the U.S. legally by applying overseas and increasing the number of skilled worker visas, including visas for highly educated professionals, are among other changes that would produce greater benefits to the U.S. than what Trump is proposing.

Erika Portillo is a partner at Guichard, Teng and Portello with offices in Walnut Creek, San Francisco, Davis and Willows. She practices immigration law exclusively and is fluent in English and Spanish.

As I recall, I have regularly mentioned the Contra Costa County Bar Association’s MCLE Spectacular as the social and legally substantive event of the year. It is a “Do Not Miss it Event.” Now I have rediscovered another: the CCCBA Annual Officer Installation Luncheon.

I must confess, I have missed going the past few years. I did not make that mistake this year. It is truly an important and extremely valuable event. Elva Harding is our new President, and her remarks, as well as the remarks of our outgoing President Nick Casper, were worth the price of admission on their own.

Our Presiding Judge Steve Austin gave a very informative “State of the Court” chat, then we were treated to a presentation by Elizabeth Parker, Executive Director of the State Bar. And finally, a presentation by Jessica Therkelsen. It was also a nice time to chat up with friends. All in all, a very important event for all local attorneys. Do not miss it next year!

Another important event in the county is the annual Contra Costa County High School Mock Trials competition. The annual event is put on by the Contra Costa County Office of Education. Many of our local Superior Court judges and attorneys were privileged to participate as judges and/or attorney scorers. The event occurs over several weeks, culminating in a county winner. That winning team then goes on to the state competition.

If you have an opportunity, please volunteer next year. The performances of the various high school students are truly amazing. I promise you will be impressed with the skill of the students. This year, the case was a criminal case. The mock trial itself is a court trial, with a pre-trial motion, then presentation of the case by teams of prosecuting students and defending students. Another not to be missed event.

Although I did not get enough reports to prepare a Civil Jury Verdicts column this month, I do want to mention one significant trial reported by Bob Slattery of the McNamara firm. The case is entitled Kuhlmann/Perkins vs. Johnson & Johnson et al, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG13675753. The actual parties were the listed plaintiffs and defendants Ethicon Endosurgery, LLC., Johnson & Johnson Healthcare Systems, Inc. and Rakhee N. Shah, M.D.

The Honorable Ioana Petrou presided. Plaintiffs were represented by Richard Alexander, Nina Shapirshteyn and Annie Wu. Genese Dopson and Jae Lee from Wilson Elser represented Ethicon Endosurgery and Johnson & Johnson. Bob Slattery and Peter Sekelick represented Dr. Rakhee N. Shah.

The case involved a claim of medical malpractice and products liability against a surgeon and the manufacturer and seller of a surgical device. Apparently, during surgery the medical device failed, resulting in permanent injury to the plaintiff and resulting damages claimed by her husband. Incidentally, the surgical device was recalled seven months after the surgery. After a seven-week trial, the jury found Dr. Shah was not medically negligent. Congratulations to Bob Slattery for that result.

No settlement demand had been made to the doctor and no settlement offer was made on behalf of the doctor. The plaintiffs did make a CCP 998 offer to settle to the corporate defendants in the amount of $3.5 million. No offer was made by those corporate defendants. The jury awarded $9.8 million against the corporate defendants in compensatory damages, and $70 million in punitive damages against the manufacturer of the product. Ouch!

I know there are a number of trials going out in Contra Costa, so once again, please report those verdicts to me. I cannot report your interesting verdicts if you do not let me know.

Here is a topic I have mentioned before: Court Call appearances. It is most amusing, but also embarrassing, to sit in court waiting for a case to be called and being forced to listen to attorneys appear on Court Call and drone on about issues unrelated to their cases. A little tip for those attorneys: Keep it short and sweet. Respond to the judge’s questions directly. Do not fight about discovery at a Case Management Conference (CMC). And remember, everyone in the courtroom can hear you. Think about that.

I know how we can fix the whole CMC issue. Do as Alameda County does and issue tentative CMC rulings on the day before the CMC. In most cases, there is no requirement to actually appear, but rather the court sets trial dates, mediation completion dates or whatever is necessary and all without having to hear some attorney on Court Call eat his Cheerios and wax eloquent about how smart he is.

While I am on a roll, I want to mention again the issue of the use of “myself.” I hear it every day in court and it’s starting to drive me mad. Our language really allows us to use “I” and “me,” as perfectly understood words. Do not say “Counsel and myself will complete mediation by June 3.” “Counsel and I” is what you should use. Don’t say that he sent the discovery to “myself.” Say to “me.”

Okay, forgive me, but I must mention one more pet peeve. That is uncivil attorneys, otherwise known as jerks. You do not have to be a jerk to practice law. In fact, in most cases, it actually hurts your clients. Remember, it is not about you, it is about your client. You can be firm and you must be professional, but please, being a jerk is not helpful to anyone. One of the goals of the Inns of Court is to mentor and encourage civility in the practice of law. Two tips on that note: Join an Inn of Court and take a breath before hitting that send key.

Every Bar Soap column has reports on people on the move. I find it fun and satisfying to report on most moves. It’s particularly satisfying to hear of attorneys leaving firms to try it on their own. Start your own firm and learn about bills, collections and problem clients. And on that note, Patricia Kelly has moved into solo practice, I am told. On the move to the bench is Hon. David E. Goldstein. Congratulations, David. He has moved from the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office.

Jennifer Sommer has taken up residence in the San Francisco office of Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett, LLP. Craig S. Nevin has joined Youngman Ericsson Scott, LLP, as Senior Counsel. Josh Genser is now General Counsel at Overaa Construction. Genser & Watkins continues, and has moved its offices from Richmond to Walnut Creek. Congratulations in their new endeavors to all who have made moves.

I suppose a Bar Soap column would not be complete without the mention of the loss of one or more attorneys. W. David Walker passed away in December 2015. The majority of his legal career was spent at Craddick, Candland & Conti. He practiced law for almost 40 years.

Keep me posted on your moves, interesting verdicts, interesting settlements or just local gossip. Email me at mguichard@gtplawyers.com.

It has been a bit too long since I penned a Bar Soap column, but no shortage of information to round out 2015, and move into 2016.

The annual MCLE Spectacular was once again the event of the year. Hard to believe it has been 21 years for that great event. Dick Frankel was on the board back when the event was conceived and the worry was, “What if we sponsor such an event, rent the hotel space and no one shows up?”

Well, we all know it continues to be a resounding success each year. So a pretty good gamble, don’t you think? It is, of course, a great way to get those needed continuing legal education credits. But it is also a great way to see old friends, do your own legal marketing and have some fun.

At one time, the CCCBA holiday party was the event of the year. Things are a little quieter nowadays, however. For a long time, the holiday party was at a hotel. The 2015 party at the Bar Association office was indeed a success, but from an attendance standpoint, not quite as spectacular as the MCLE Spectacular.

And speaking of parties, the 40th anniversary celebration by the Veen Firm was off the charts. The party was held at the Waterbar and Epic Roasthouse in San Francisco. Goodness! What an event. For those of you lucky enough to get an invitation, you know what I am talking about. It reminded me of the Zandonella holiday parties back in the day.

On a sadder note, we lost several more friends and colleagues since my last column. Judge Richard Arnason quietly passed away in his sleep at the age of 94. And his private invitation-only funeral service was equally quiet. He certainly was a legal giant in our world and many of us are sad we didn’t get to participate in a final send-off for that wonderful human being.

We can all take comfort in the fact the dedication of the Richard Arnason Courthouse in Pittsburg back in 2010 was a grand and wonderful event for Judge Arnason, and that will have to be our send-off memory. On a more personal note, my mother, who was a French and English teacher at Alhambra High School, taught Judge Arnason’s children, also “back in the day.”

Equally quiet was the passing of David Del Simone. David was a delightful and talented criminal defense attorney. We met when I was a deputy district attorney. He was a real force in the West County legal community. David was a Cal grad and a USF law school grad. Look up his obituary in the October 11, 2015, Contra Costa Times, and you can get a real sense of that wonderful man.

Most of you probably heard of the sad and untimely passing of Mark Coon. He, too, was a special lawyer. He and I had a nice chat on a Friday night at the Veen party in San Francisco and he was gone the following Monday. For those of you who did not know Mark, he was the city attorney for Concord.

William “Bill” Shinn passed away in October 2015. When I first met Bill, he was a lieutenant with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. He was a true professional and a no-nonsense public servant. Bill rose all the way to commander in the Sheriff’s Office, and then ran for City Council in Concord. He served for almost 10 years on the council, and during that time, was vice mayor and mayor (just not at the same time). Although Bill was not an attorney, he certainly was a part of our Contra Costa legal community.

I always like to mention people on the move in this column. Let’s start that topic with judges on the move. The judicial assignments for 2016 came out and there are a few changes of note. I say “note” only because people often ask me about those assignments and I generally refer those asking to the Contra Costa Lawyer magazine. Here are the latest assignments.

As far as lawyers on the move, here is what I have heard: Richard Frankel is now on his own with an office on Front Street in Danville. So I guess that means Stuart Goldware is also on his own, with an office in San Ramon. Amy Foscalina has hung her own shingle as well. Looks like she may have a Livermore office now. Rumor has it that Terence Church has left Brown, Church & Gee. Wait until next time for more information on the move and the remaining partners. Happy hunting to all who have made those recent moves.

Greg Rolen is a partner at Haight Brown & Bonesteel in San Francisco, continuing his legal work in, among other areas, public entity litigation. Attorney Sharon C. Collier of Archer Norris recently achieved board certification in civil trial law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. Congratulations to both Greg and Sharon.

I am always pleased to learn that someone actually reads my columns. Recall in my December column, I made a little tongue-in-cheek comment about the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) and how difficult it is for anyone to qualify, given the fact fewer and fewer cases actually go all the way to jury verdict in our civil courts.

Well, I do know David Samuelsen of Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds, Allard, Cowperthwaite & Gelini read that article. He kindly advised that ABOTA changed the entry level eligibility requirement in recent years. The new requirement to apply as a member is to have “completed 10 civil jury trials to jury verdict as lead counsel.”

Thanks, David, for that information. Don’t forget, folks, that ABOTA is also by invitation only. One has to be a nice person, competent and sponsored by ABOTA members. It’s not enough just to have tried 10 cases to civil jury verdict.

Please keep those reports, rumors and gossip coming, so I can tell all in my next column. Email me at mguichard@gtplawyers.com.

We understand getting pulled over for a DUI is a huge problem and embarrassment. Here’s a link to commonly asked questions. CA DUI FAQs

We’re here to help if you need more assistance. We have the experience you need to navigate the courts and DMV. Give us a call at 925-459-8440. We can help.