Blog Post < Previous | Next >
Marin County
Thoughts On An Election – Mike Coffino v. Sheila Lichtblau For Judge
Many people have asked me how they should vote in the November 8th race for a seat on the Marin County Superior Court. The two candidates are outwardly compelling. Mike Coffino is a Deputy Public Defender trying to break the monopoly of former Deputy District Attorneys on Marin’s bench and has represented the poorest of the poor. Sheila Lichtblau, a Deputy County Counsel, is a woman who touts her minority and gender status as someone who can give a fair shake to everyone.
Mr. Coffino has an argument; as a public defender, in California’s poorest county, Lake County, and its richest, Marin County, he has represented those who are most discarded in our society and cannot afford a legal defense. He has done this job while representing indigent people who have a Constitutional right to representation - even those who may be guilty. Mr. Coffino has also worked as a litigator in a high paced law firm, giving him the background to sit on both the criminal and civil bench. In speeches, Mr. Coffino has stressed that the rule of law would guide his decisions.
Ms. Lichtblau’s argument, however, is curious, given her background in County of Marin County Counsel’s Office. County Counsel is considered by many in Marin to be an entity that enables Marin’s powerful politicians to ignore the community, and Marin County Counsel’s office is regarded by some attorneys in other County Counsel offices as being unusually litigious.
If elected, will Ms. Lichtblau bring that same style to the bench? More importantly, after years with the County Counsel’s office, when presented with claims against the County’s most powerful political entity, will she be capable of objective judgment?
In recent years, the County of Marin has fought against community and environmental groups’: requests for public records; efforts to achieve full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and attempts to achieve transparency through the state’s open meetings act, the Brown Act. The County may argue that its aggressive approach with community groups defends the County’s and taxpayers’ financial interests. While that may well be true on some personal injury, contract and employment cases, it rings hollow with cases filed by community groups.
In most cases, the County could have settled recent complaints by recirculating an EIR, providing most of the public records requested, or simply saying it would not repeat an action that allegedly violated the open meetings act. Indeed, as the Marin Independent Journal[1] has pointed out, no liability would have to be admitted and fee awards - paid by the taxpayer - would have been avoided. Instead, the County Board of Supervisors, presumably counseled by County Counsel, has aggressively skirted legal lines and decided to litigate these government transparency cases, incurring high judgment costs and legal costs from its own attorneys.
My own experience with Marin County Counsel has been extremely disappointing, and I say this from having spent over 5 years as Deputy County Counsel in Santa Barbara County. Attorneys for the Marin County Counsel’s office have disparaged me in the press and in pleadings, ignored my emails and phone calls, scoffed at settlement proposals, and mislead me about County correspondence. Other attorneys in the Marin bar community have reported similar experiences.
Ironically, this opinion was corroborated by a Deputy County Counsel, himself. At a Bar Association event, the Deputy – after a few drinks – expounded with glee about how he loved to aggressively litigate Public Records Act cases. He was not crowing about defending bogus slip and fall or disgruntled employment cases against the County, but about citizen claims attempting to loosen the fierce grip that Marin County keeps on its documents; documents that actually belong to the … public.
Where does this leave Mr. Coffino, Ms. Lichtblau and the election? I am not sure. But I do know that Ms. Lichtblau comes from an organization whose approach to dealing with community and environmental groups is combative and demonstrates an unusual lack of willingness to discuss settlement. One example of this approach was Ms. Lichtblau’s own defense of the Marin County Library Commission in Hale v. Marin County Library Commission.
In this case, Mr. Hale objected to the Commission’s decision making process to push out a skilled and valued library director as a violation of the Brown Act, the state’s open meetings law. The background in this case is sordid and the Commission’s decision was painful for the former director, library employees and those, including pro per litigants, paralegals and solo practitioners, who relied on that former director for help in legal research assistance.
The case revolved around the Commission’s failure to provide required public notice and notice to the Director himself, about the hearing where the Director was going to be asked to resign. The case was removed to Alameda County because the Marin County Superior Court appoints two members to the Library Commission and as I understand it, communications were made between Court staff and members of the Commission regarding the issue.
First, Mr. Hale, a community activist, who represented himself pro per, with no experience litigating a Brown Act case, actually beat Ms. Lichtblau on his first cause of action. That is, after the suit was filed, the Library Commission agreed to cease and desist such future actions. (This belies Ms. Lichtblau’s later claims in the Independent Journal about the County’s supposed complete “win.”).
As the Independent Journal editorial board had asked in a previous Brown Act case, why didn’t the Library Commission just agree to cease and desist? The Library Commission, which was presumably advised by Ms. Lichtblau, could have simply conducted a do-over and avoided litigation. And why didn’t Ms. Lichtblau simply negotiate this issue away after the suit was filed? She could have done that at any time. Well, count the Library lucky - if Mr. Hale had engaged an attorney, the Library would have had to pay his fees on the cease and desist issue that Mr. Hale won.
Meanwhile, the court continued to review the other cause of action: a demand to cure and correct the decision to force the Library Director out. After reviewing some of the pleadings, my opinion is that Ms. Lichtblau conducted a very aggressive litigation strategy by invoking technical requirements from the enormously complex Code of Civil Procedure to run Mr. Hale ragged and to get the case dismissed. But Alameda County Judge Evelio Grillo was having none of it and essentially instructed Ms. Lichtblau to focus on the merits of the action and to put up with Mr. Hale’s lack of familiarity with procedures.
Judge Grillo eventually ruled – rightly in my opinion - in favor of the Library Commission because Mr. Hale had not properly exhausted his remedies before filing his cure and correct demand. But in the meantime, the Library Commission members, staff and patrons had to endure months of litigation and the County taxpayer footed another bill for litigation in a case it could have avoided or settled. And at the end, after the case was over, Ms. Lichtblau even publicly accused Mr. Hale of personally improper action, a loaded and serious accusation that Mr. Hale had no available forum or ability to defend.
So, was Ms. Lichtblau simply doing her job by just being a tough litigator or was her approach part of a pattern of the Marin County Counsel’s office extremely combative litigation culture? That culture is set by County Counsel Steven Woodside, who has made a career of defending the politically powerful in three different counties and was described by the Independent Journal as a” triple dipper,” a recipient of three different pensions. Mr. Woodside’s modus operandi in battling community group attempts to be heard[2] contrasts sharply with that of my old boss, the highly revered Shane Stark. Mr. Stark, the former Santa Barbara County Counsel, routinely convinced his Board to do the right thing and keep the County’s governance processes open and clearly legal in order to avoid costly and embarrassing litigation.
So, if elected, would Ms. Lichtblau follow the apparent Marin County Counsel culture in which she was nurtured, or give a fair shake to those who are less politically powerful in Marin? It is hard to say but keep in mind that Ms. Lichtblau would not be recused from hearing cases that involved Marin County, the Marin Open Space District, SMART or any other agency, unless she was the attorney in the exact same case.
For all of these reasons, I urge voters to support Mike Coffino. I think he would make a fine judge. If Ms. Lichtablau prevails, I hope she can leave that Marin County Counsel culture behind.
[1] http://www.marinij.com/opinion/20160608/marin-ij-editorial-taxpayers-could-have-saved-72000