Calif. Appeals Court Dings Judge Over Contempt Case

A California appeals court came down on a San Mateo County Superior Court judge in a published opinion Friday, criticizing the way the trial court handled the contempt case of an elderly, cash-strapped attorney who failed to pay $10,000 in court sanctions.

In a divorce case, attorney Henry Koehler failed to return confidential documents belonging to his client's parents-in-law, and his side was slapped with the $10,000 discovery sanctions.

When he didn't pay, the court -- apparently Judge Susan Etezadi -- ordered him to serve five days in jail on three occasions.

In a strongly worded opinion (pdf), 1st District Court of Appeal Justice James Richman wrote that judges need to know the due process rights associated with different types of contempt, and that the court's actions "did not measure up to that law, not by a long shot." Richman, joined by Justices J. Anthony Kline and Paul Haerle, granted Koehler's habeas petition, "bringing an end to a most unfortunate chapter in this family law saga."

Koehler couldn't be reached by The Recorder's deadline, but his court-appointed appellate attorney, Redwood City, Calif., solo Barry Karl, said the opinion vindicated his client.

"It was clear that the judicial officers who dealt with this case did not do the research to understand what they were doing," Karl said. "Judges are supposed to treat everyone with appropriate dignity and decorum and fairness under the law, and they didn't do that in this case."

Judge Clifford Cretan ordered Koehler and his client both to pay $10,000, and the appeal court previously affirmed that order.

Cretan said Friday he couldn't comment on the pending case. Friday's 1st District opinion notes that his only involvement in any aspect of the contempt proceedings was when he granted Koehler's request for court-appointed counsel.

The 1st District found four things were "improper" at the third hearing, which Karl said was presided over by Judge Etezadi. (The body of the opinion didn't name her, but she was listed at the end as the trial judge for the case.) The justices also expressed bewilderment that the court had jailed Koehler for failing to pay the sanctions when he'd been provided with a court-appointed lawyer.

"One of the many inexplicable aspects of this case is how a person deemed sufficiently impecunious to be entitled to appointed counsel can be held in contempt and incarcerated for failure to pay a $10,000 fine -- indeed, on the trial court's theory, repeatedly so held and repeatedly incarcerated, apparently ad infinitum," Richman wrote.

The opinion also indicated that the contempt orders might have hurt Koehler in other ways, noting the trial court had submitted a discipline referral form to the State Bar.

Etezadi and the court's lawyer, Joseph Quinn of Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver & Wilson, did not immediately return phone calls Friday about In re Koehler, A125012 .

Subscribe to The Recorder

Source link : law.com