Introduction to the Podcast and Guest

Hon. Stuart Rice 0:01

Being a zealous advocate is the number one duty of an attorney. I never lost sight of that as a judge. I love zealous advocacy. But zealous advocacy does not mean interrupting your opposing counsel while he or she is talking.

Announcer 0:15

Welcome to the California Appellate Podcast, a discussion of timely trial tips and the latest cases and news coming from the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. And now your hosts, Tim Cole and Jeff Lewis.

Tim Kowal 0:30

Welcome everyone. I am Jeff Lewis. And I'm Tim Cowal. Both Jeff and I are certified appellate specialists, and as uncertified podcast hosts, we try to bring our audience a trial and appellate attorneys some legal news and perspectives they can use in their practice. If you find this podcast helpful, please recommend it to a colleague.

Jeff Lewis 0:46

Yeah, if you don't find it helpful, uh send it to your opposing counsel. Tim, today we are honored and privileged to bring Judge Stuart Rice to the podcast. Judge Rice retired from the LA Superior Court, where he served as a judge for more than two decades after an appointment in 2005, including service on the Complex Civil Litigation Panel. He also worked at what I consider my hometown court, the Torrance Courthouse, which is like a small community court where the lawyers and judges have great relationships with each other. From the bench, Judge Rice presided over an extraordinary range of matters, class actions, mass torts, complex commercial litigation, insurance coverage disputes, employment cases, and probate. And along the way, he handled high-profile proceedings ranging from claims arising out of the January 2025 Palisades fire to mass

The Role and Impact of American Inns of Court

Jeff Lewis 1:33

tort sexual assault litigation against a major university. And before joining the bench, Judge Rice was a senior partner at Rice and Rothenburg, where he handled civil tort and probate litigation and juvenile defense. His service to the profession is hard to summarize in a sentence. He served on the State of Board of Governors, the Judicial Nominee's Evaluation Committee, the Legal Services Trust Fund, and as president of the California Young Lawyers Association. And as a judicial officer, he was elected president of the California Judges Association for 2017 and 2018. And served on the Judicial Council of California during that same period. And he's currently entering his fourth consecutive year as president of the California Judges Foundation. He's also a member of the statewide task force on civility in the legal profession, which is one of the things we want to talk to Judge Rice about today. And he served as the chair of the LA Superior Court's Temporary Judge Committee for 15 years, as a three-time member of that court's executive committee, and as president of the Benjamin Aranda III chapter of the American Inns of Court. That's where I've had the pleasure of meeting Judge Rice for the first time. In fact, Tim, I have a perfect unblemished record of litigation in front of Judge Rice, as I've never lost in front of him. I also have never had actually a case in front of him. But I know him by reputation. He had a great reputation on the bench. And thank you so much, Your Honor, for joining us on today's podcast.

Hon. Stuart Rice 2:51

It's my pleasure to be with both of you, Jeff and Tim. Thank you.

Jeff Lewis 2:55

Your Honor, let's start with the Ens of Court. We met there uh just before the pandemic. For listeners who aren't in members and aren't familiar, what is the American Ends of Court?

Hon. Stuart Rice 3:05

So the American Ends of Court grew out of the society in the UK. They've had it for hundreds of years. And quite a while ago, uh one of our chief justices of the U.S. Supreme Court imported it to America, and there's branches all over the country. Uh when I came to Torrance from downtown, I wanted to immediately get involved with the community. And I knew about the robust ends of court chapter in the South Bay, the Aranda Ends of Court, named after a deceased judge, a well-thought-of judge in the South Bay community. And I found it to be really an important part of my integration into the South Bay legal community. And I met amazing people, including one guy named Jeff Lewis, who uh really, really smart guy. And uh it gave an opportunity for judges who chose to participate, uh, a handful of us did, and as you already alluded to, I eventually did serve as its president and a lot of lawyers from different aspects of the profession. What I found when I joined, however, I thought it was a bit top-heavy. People had been in the inns for a long time, and it was a great source of collegiality and civility. So when your opposing counsel was somebody from the inns, there was never any acrimony. And and when I was president, one of the things I I uh introduced was these uh pupillage groups, which which are a big word for basically seminar groups that each put on an educational program once a year, is that I required that every pupillage group add two new members that were either law students or lawyers five years or less. And that really began the end kind of changing its demographics so that we had a lot more young attorneys. And I used to bring all my judicial externs and and uh it actually turned out to be it added a networking function to the ends. One of my externs ended up getting his job as a lawyer through somebody that I introduced him to at the ends. But the most important part of it is the when you are with people in a legal environment, but not in the courtroom, not as adversaries, when you are opponents, you just treat each other with respect and dignity and courtesy as we really should do for everyone. But that helps foster that aspect of our profession, which is in many, many instances sorely lacking.

Tim Kowal 5:23

You mentioned those uh uh pupillage groups. I was not uh that's the first time I've heard that word. I had to look it up while you were giving the rest of your answer. It's uh basically a kind of a mentor-mentee type of relationship between uh just between more elder and experienced lawyers and and newer lawyers. That is part of it.

Hon. Stuart Rice 5:41

The pupillage group mostly they meet separately from the the larger end meetings because everybody, every group is going to put on an educational seminar at some point during the year. As a judge, I was the head of my particular pupillage group, as were other judges and other senior attorneys. I always wanted to make sure my pupillage group had a couple young people, one because of the mentor-mentee relationship, but more practically, I wanted to make sure I had somebody in my pupillage group who was good at tech to make sure we were able to do the PowerPoint and everything and do it properly. And it was a really a really a great mix of the young, the older, and people from the bench. I always had judicial externs. That was very important to me as a judge to help young people feel comfortable in in the courtroom. And uh I felt the same way in the inns and really gravitated toward the younger attorneys, make sure they had a chance to interact with somebody from the bench.

Jeff Lewis 6:36

Yeah. To interact with the judge outside the courtroom setting is so invaluable. Tim, imagine this having lunch or dinner at a judge's house or at a restaurant with a mix of a judge, some old lawyers, some mid-level lawyers, and some brand new baby lawyers. And being able to ask the judge or the older lawyers, hey, I had this ethical issue come up. I don't know how to handle it. How would the how would the bench perceive this or how would you think we should resolve it? And you get because there's no court reporter, nothing in these meetings is ever repeated, you get really candid advice uh from the veteran lawyers and the judges. It's it's a fantastic program.

Hon. Stuart Rice 7:07

It is, as I was telling Tim before we began, I'm not I'm no longer a sitting judge. I have I am much freer to talk. I can talk about cases, I can give legal advice. It was tricky at times in the ends when somebody would ask me for straight out legal advice, and you just really can't do it, and I would have to decline in that instance. But if you can word it in an academic way, then I could participate in in those discussions. Every once in a while, one of the lawyers who had a case in front of me would cross a line and I'd say, stop right there. But uh for the most part, it was just a great way for everyone to interact within the South Bay legal community, which has a reputation for collegiality and the inns is part of that.

Jeff Lewis 7:49

Yeah, absolutely. And and one last thing I'll add is uh I had a matter, a very contentious matter. Your Honor probably had a bunch of these when you were in Torrance with tree and view disputes up in uh Pallos Verdes. And I had both the bench officer who was presiding and my opposing counsel in the inn, and we were able to maintain, even during trial, a collegial environment where once a month we'd see each other have drinks and discharge a little bit of the of the tension that sometimes can build up during trial. Yeah, it's fantastic.

Hon. Stuart Rice 8:17

Well, Jeff, I could spend the rest of the hour talking about my uh view dispute cases, but I'll just tell you about one. And uh if I ever wrote an autobiography, this one's going in there. Basically, it was a fight over a view where somebody had a big olive tree and and I was not round one. They'd already kind of settled the case years earlier, but it didn't go away. It ended up back in in front of me in for round two. And I actually hired an arborist under Evidence Code 700, made them uh pay for it, and sent him out to evaluate whether the tree could be trimmed and how the view was being blocked and all of those things. What I did not realize when he wrote his first draft of the report is that he was a total environmentalist regarding trees, and his whole report was about don't touch the tree. And I just wanted to know whether legally uh there was anything that could be done to accommodate, uh potentially accommodate both sides. And uh, we did resolve it for a time, but uh the reason I wanted to talk about this one is about two months ago I was doing a mediation, and I did not know the lawyer, but she said she knew me. And uh, when the mediation was over, she said, the reason I know you is that I'm now involved in this view dispute in Paloz Verdes. I'm doing an appeal, and you were involved in it a couple rounds ago. So it's still they're still fighting over this olive tree 15 years later after I thought we had resolved it. So these neighbor disputes, sometimes they never end. As soon as that tree grows a little more, another round of fighting.

Jeff Lewis 9:46

Your Honor, that case is the oldest active case in Los Angeles Superior Court, and it is about 31 years old. It's been going longer than I've been practicing law. I'm familiar with that case. Yeah. You were just one of like seven or eight uh judges who touched that case. There's Judge Kaufman, uh retired arbitrator, Judge Gregory O'Brien. Right. Yeah, a bunch. Anyway. Okay. And let me just say one other thing about the ends of court. It's not just the South Bay, there's like an appellate ins of court. They have subject matter ends of court. There's one in Long Beach. So there's like by geographic, but there's also by practice areas, right?

Hon. Stuart Rice 10:19

Absolutely. When I sat downtown, I joined when I was sitting in criminal,

Civility in the Legal Profession

Hon. Stuart Rice 10:24

I joined the criminal that's down to the larger LA community ends of court. And then when I moved to Civil, I was in the civil ends of court downtown, but was never quite as involved as I was in the South Bay Ends. Yeah, they're all over the country. Anybody that's listening who has an interest in getting involved in an ends of court, there's a way to do so. There's a Western Regional Office that I went to a couple of their conferences, and and uh I think that anyone in any community could find an in if they tried hard enough. Yeah, absolutely.

Tim Kowal 10:52

Yeah, and we're gonna talk, uh, we're gonna talk about civility later on. Uh Jeff has some questions about that, but I wonder if I could just ask now if you see any link between uh well, you mentioned that there's still uh lots of ins of courts, but has there been a decline in the number of inns and the number of membership of the ins of court over the last several decades? I'm thinking of the Robert Putnam bowling alone thesis about how all the the Elks Lodge and the Moose Lodges and the all the different uh organizations over the last 50 years have been in decline and does cause a lack of social cohesion and lots of different other social problems. And I wonder if that relates to the lack of civility, and you have a lot of younger attorneys maybe siphoned off from the elder attorneys. That's why I thought it was such a great example that you brought up about the uh the pupillage groups that can help the younger attorneys get brought into the ways of the practice that the elder attorneys have been brought up in rather than just being siphoned off. And we have younger attorneys becoming the Instagram generation of uh of attorneys, and maybe they just develop their own ways of doing things, and maybe we just have uh kind of isolated uh bowling alone type of practices between generations.

Hon. Stuart Rice 12:01

Well, I think anecdotally, at a minimum, uh the generation raised differently than us with uh with a device to communicate through. There's far less uh talking between attorneys, and I think the desire to join a bar association, which I did immediately, I moved here from Massachusetts. I didn't know anyone, I was an associate at a three-partner, and I was their only associate law firm in Long Beach, and I immediately joined the Long Beach Bar, the Long Beach Barristers Club, and a few other organizations so that I could meet people. Uh I don't know if that's automatically the instinct of young lawyers today. So, but our inn, I can only really speak to our inn and the South Bay. I've rejoined the inn now that I've retired. When I was in complex in downtown LA, it was too difficult for me to get to the meetings, but I've now rejoined and it is flourishing. It is as big as ever, and 40 to 60 people come to every meeting, and uh everybody knows one another, at least on a on a superficial level. The Long Beach Inn, which I used to go to when I was in practice, is still going strong. But I think Bar Association memberships have fallen off in some ways, and it's really unfortunate. I try to go to the South Bay Bar installation and judge and lawyer of the year event every year, and it's such a great energy there. I do the same in the Long Beach, and I always attended a lot of bar events as a judge. I felt that that was part of my job is to be out there in the community, and now that I'm in the private neutral world, I'm still attending, and uh I enjoy that. I I enjoy being in person with people as as much as possible. But I think with the younger generation, a lot of them uh are were appearing in front of me remotely as toward the latter years, and I think they became very comfortable with that. And I'm hearing from from colleagues, friends that are of older generation at big law firms who are having trouble getting their young lawyers to come to the office. They don't want to they don't want to come to the office, they want to work from home. There's certain comforts in that and certain efficiencies. But we were talking a little bit before we began. Uh in terms of being a judge, you asked me, Tim, if how I felt about uh remote appearances, and I can certainly understand

Transitioning from Judge to Mediator

Hon. Stuart Rice 14:05

their importance and the access to justice aspect, but I always told the lawyers, if you have something before me in which you could win or lose, not just the status conference, you will do your best work if you are in the room and certainly for trials. So uh I think the practice has changed because you're not always in the in the room. When I was in Torrance pre-COVID, I mean my courtroom was every seat was filled every morning with motions and status conferences. And I think listening to other cases being heard is educational to everyone, especially the younger lawyers.

Jeff Lewis 14:36

You could take a temperature of how the court is feeling that day uh in terms of patience, uh, for long argument or short argument. You can say hello to the staff, which is the most important people in the room. There's nothing, no substitute for personal appearance. Your Your Honor, uh, you're with Jams now doing arbitrations and mediation. I wonder how have you adapted to remote Zoom mediations and if you find them effective.

Hon. Stuart Rice 15:01

Yes, it was very difficult for me to leave the bench. I I really love being a judge, and as was mentioned in my intro, I was in complex and doing some uh very important cases that would have an impact not just on that particular group of people involved in the case, but on potentially in society as a whole. And but my it was my time. I I'd spent two years as a commissioner and twenty twenty years as a judge. And having the opportunity to go into what we call private judging or being a neutral was just a wonderful opportunity, which one I wanted to take advantage of because I really wasn't ready to stop being involved in the law. And the transition was a little bit tough to not wearing the robe, but uh I have to say that joining Jams has been just just wonderful for me. And I'm doing a variety of things. I'm have a great number of arbitrations. I've only adjudicated one so far, but I have a lot of them coming up. I've done a great many mediations and a variety of subject areas, and I've also been hired on a few cases already as what we call a neutral evaluator, where I'm really a consultant on the case to the lawyers know what they're doing, but they want a judicial perspective. And uh that kind of work has been really rewarding. I'm I don't meet the client, I'm not on the papers, but I'm I'm providing a perspective that only my experience could can give. And uh been I've been hired on a on a couple of mock trials that are coming up, uh, where there's maybe a jury that's been hired to hear the case, but they also want to know what the judge thinks about what the jury did and how they did it. But your specific question is about remote mediations. I prefer to do them live, but I I will do them either way. Now that I've learned how to put people in their own room and Zoom, and now I'm much more comfortable doing that. I still believe, as I said earlier, that we're at our best in person. But I've had many a remote mediation that has resolved. There's just a barrier. I just think there's more of a barrier between the people when you're not together in person. For example, when I would uh do settlement conferences in court, I would leak I would take the bench for a couple minutes just to give the lay of the land. Then I would step down from the bench and I'd say to counsel, please introduce me to your client, shake their hand, and then say to them right out of the gate, there's gonna be times during the afternoon when I'm gonna want to meet with your attorney on his or her own, and they'll keep you posted. We want to make sure you feel involved in the process. But I find sometimes you just want to talk to the lawyer, get a sense of what the relationship is between lawyer and client, whether there's any client control issues. It's harder to do when they're on the screen in the same virtual room. So I do pre-meetings, which are very helpful, and I discuss that very issue with them in pre-meeting. What's your relationship with your client? Is there any conflict between you that's making it harder to settle the case? Is it okay if I meet with them alone? How should I go about that? And going to give you my cell phone number if you want to call me while I'm in the other room. So it there's ways to make it as personal as possible. But if I had my way, even though I have to drive downtown, I would do them live. I find there's a better energy, bet better energy for everyone, and including me. Okay.

Jeff Lewis 18:09

Okay. Yeah. And and to be able to meet at the coffee machine, at the jam's office, uh, with the lawyers and the mediators, and you uh have small talk and you learn certain things that can help resolve the case, in my experience. So I'm a big fan of in-person mediations. Your Honor, a few weeks back we had a former associate uh justice of the California Supreme Court on, and he told us that in the first 13 days into his retirement, he played 13 days of golf straight. What were the first few weeks like for you when you left the bench and entered uh the world of jams? What did you do?

Hon. Stuart Rice 18:42

Well, thinking about the people on the California Supreme Court, you must be talking about Justice Chin. And I I've played golf with him at conferences, and he is the person that swore me in when I was president of the California Judges Association. I think of him very fondly, and I know how much he loves golf. I also play golf similarly to him, not very well, but I enjoy it. And I did not play 13 days in a row. I did play a few times over the first month, and I was not getting any better. And uh that was frustrating. So I began to take lessons and I got even worse. So uh although golf is still part of my life, I don't want it to be the main part of my life. I feel the intellectual stimulation and contributing to our legal profession as I as I am able is really my first thing doing in retirement, such as it is. It's not really, I'm not really retired, just uh in the next chapter. But I I did not meet with any of the the providers in the the uh world of of uh private mediation arbitration and neutral evaluations until after I was off the books. I had left the bench, but I still had vacation accruing. So I began my process thereafter. It took a couple months before I finally made my decision and uh got on board with jam. So I started in early October. I my last day as a judge was July 28th. So for those first couple months, it was just adjusting to the transition. And now I feel very much at home in my in my new world. Now I can have lunch with people on a day when I'm not working all day, and uh we don't have to stop at 110 to make sure we're back in the courtroom at 130 for our calendar. When I meet with people that are still sitting as judges and I go downtown or to torrents, I make sure that we start early enough so that they can get back to their court in a timely manner. But I I am free to be at a more relaxed pace, have much more flexibility in my schedule. Um, like for example, today I had a couple of uh arbitration conferences this morning. Very happy to to meet with you and and participate on your podcast this afternoon. And we'll be playing nine holes at Recreation Park Golf Course at 5:30 this afternoon with some uh lawyer friends from my time as a lawyer in Long Beach. So uh what we call this a Stuart Rice Day, or I get to do a little bit of everything on on this particular day.

Tim Kowal 20:51

That's

Judge Rice's Preferences in Case Selection

Tim Kowal 20:52

right. Well, in in in addition to flexibility in schedule, I assume you you uh are enjoying a little bit more flexibility in which cases that you take. As a superior court judge, I assume you'd just more or less have to take what comes to you. Maybe maybe you're able to develop a little bit more uh discretion, or I don't know if you had any control over the assignment of cases that came to you uh when you were on the bench, but now I assume that you're enjoying something like 100% discretion over which cases you take.

Hon. Stuart Rice 21:19

It's absolutely true, Tim. Uh there's a canon in the judicial code of ethics, which is you have to take every case assigned to you unless you are recused from it. And you can't say, I don't want this case because this lawyer was behaved inappropriately in my courtroom, or I'm not interested in this subject matter when you're a sitting judge. And uh in this world, I can say no or yes to anything based upon timing, subject matter. I'm relatively new, so I am saying yes to most things. The only I mean, uh with all respect to lawyers that practice in this area, but I did make it quite clear right at the beginning I don't want any lemon law cases. Uh when I transferred from Torrance to Los Angeles before I went to the complex. Courts when I was in a regular independent calendar court, downtown especially more than in Torrance, we had so many Lemon Law cases on our docket, and uh I had enough of them. They're they're important to the people involved, but I don't need to be doing them in my in my retired life. I like variety, so I'm enjoying the variety that I have here. I do have a lot of arbitrations in the employment arena, and that's not just because of me, that's because society has changed. Most companies have their employees sign a contract which has an arbitration agreement as part of it. And if the arbitration agreement is upheld, those cases have to go to arbitration. It's weird being on the other end of that. I heard probably 200 motions to compel arbitration, most of which I granted, but not all. And uh now I'm the one getting those arbitrations. And I'm meeting a lot of the cases that I have in arbitration, the lawyers, I know them, but I know them from appearing in front of me, not as friends or anything. And it's so interesting to be in this less formal world, which I'm enjoying as well. I call them by their first name, and uh many of them want to tell me stories about that case they had in front of me and something about their opposing counsel. Now that the case is completely over, I can hear those kind of things and and participate uh with them. Every once in a while, though, they want to also complain about some of my colleagues, and I I don't really want them to do that. But it's it's very different when you're not on the bench because never mind uh remote appearances, but a judge on the bench, there is certainly a barrier between that judge and the lawyers and the way you have to interact.

Tim Kowal 23:30

Since you are in a more informal environment in mediations and arbitrations, do you deliberately do things or establish a rapport with uh with the litigants and with the attorneys that you wouldn't have done while you were on the bench?

Hon. Stuart Rice 23:42

I think in a very general way, Tim, I'm the same. I always thought it was essential, especially in a settlement conference and now in mediation, to establish rapport with both sides. That both sides feel a trust in you, that you're looking out for their best interests, and then when you say something, it it has resonance. I do find, however, in this new world that I'm a little less formal. The rapport remains equally important, if not more so, because I'm no longer the person who's going to be ruling on their case. Many civil judges did not do settlement conferences on their own cases, but I I did it routinely when asked or when I suggested it, and they were willing to do so by signing a stipulation that nothing I did would be able a cause to uh recuse me, because you do meet ex parte when you do settlement conferences. But I find that when a lawyer wants to talk to me about a case we had together while we're caucusing separately, I I enjoy that. And I'll comment back. I had one lawyer say to me, Judge Rice, do you remember that case where you called the defendant the A-word? I don't know whether we curse on this podcast. I said, I did not do that. I do remember telling the lawyer that there was no way I was going to be able to grant summary judgment. We said, Well, you didn't call him that, but for all practical purposes, that's what you So now we could we could interact and banter back and forth about this story, which would never happen while I was uh still on the bench, and I think that we laughed and it really established a good rapport. It's an interesting case. It was a wrongful death case with a police shooting, a very, very serious matter. Person was at a concert sitting on a blanket with his family, and uh things got out of hand, and he was shot and killed by a police officer, and the police claimed that he had a gun. Family said he did not have a gun, and then the police entity brought a summary judgment motion, and my comment, which the plaintiff lawyer interpreted as what I told you earlier, I just said to him, I said, Counsel, material issue of disputed fact. What could be more disputed than whether there was a gun or not in a police shooting? How can I possibly grant this motion? So that those were my true words. But having the opportunity to have that kind of conversation now that I'm not on the bench, that would never have occurred while I was still on the bench,

Navigating Complex Cases in Mediation

Hon. Stuart Rice 25:52

even if I had another case with that attorney.

Tim Kowal 25:54

Well, we want to give you the opportunity to broadcast now. If there are cases out there looking for arbitrators and mediators, uh, what kind of cases is uh Judge Rice looking for? What most gets uh all your cylinders firing? Is it meaty legal issues? Is it certain subject matter? Is it just interesting players and facts and stories involved? Is it excellent attorneys, all the above, I guess, probably.

Hon. Stuart Rice 26:16

Well, certainly all of the above. But for me personally, having spent the last four years in in the complex courts in Los Angeles, there are nine of us, probably the largest group of complex judges in state court in the country. It was mentioned that I had all the Palisade fire cases. I also had all the cases in California involving allegations against Johnson and Johnson for uh allegedly causing ovarian cancer and women and other cases of that magnitude, huge class actions involving employment issues or issues involving variety of companies, employment cases against big companies. So I I actually wrote an article not that long ago for the Daily Journal about how to be successful in complex mediations, and I touched on a variety of complex cases that would go to mediation, a wide variety of subject areas, but are all complex. So I I have been involved in a few so far, but I would like to do more mediations, uh, helping to try to solve cases of great magnitude in terms of number of plaintiffs and the complexity of the issues. Some cases that you're not going to get resolved in four hours or even a full day, really need to lay out a whole strategy for doing that. It really requires a lot of collaboration with all parties. All parties have to be open-minded to doing that. I also recognize that there's many cases that handling tort cases, probate cases, employment cases, breach of contract. I'm open to all of that. And all I ask is that if you're paying good money to have me help you mediate, that everybody comes with an open mind and a good spirit, and to be civil and to fully participate in that process. So I don't want to limit myself, but I did write that article for the Daily Journal because that is really where my heart and mind uh take me for the most part. But I still very much enjoy all the other subject areas that I have mentioned. And it's really a good feeling to help facilitate resolution. Uh and that moment when it comes when you say, okay, we've done it. Actually, a case that I've been working on for a few months, I got a text while I was in Greece last week saying, Judge Rice, we got it done. We'll send you a copy of the release when we get back. Because I had left some direction before I went. And in that instance, Tim, it really doesn't matter what the subject area was, although it was a very complex legal issue, just uh the fact that I was able to participate with excellent lawyers, top-of-the-profession lawyers, who we all worked together to to the goal that everybody sought. And that was very rewarding.

Tim Kowal 28:43

And I think Jeff wants to take us into our next topic about civility.

Jeff Lewis 28:47

Yeah, Your Honor, we bumped into each other in a couple week period of jury duty, and then I saw this fantastic presentation you gave, the South Bay Bar Association on civility, and that's what really caused me to pick up the phone and ask you if you'd come on the podcast. Uh, so let's talk about civility. Uh, you sit on the statewide task force on civility uh in the legal profession. How did you end up on the task force? What's it trying to do? And is it about rule changes, cultural change, or both? Tell us about.

Hon. Stuart Rice 29:14

Well, that was a that was a collaboration

Promoting Civility in the Legal Profession

Hon. Stuart Rice 29:17

between the California Lawyers Association and the California Judges Association and other groups that were interested in promoting civility in the legal profession. I was asked by the then president of the California Judges Association to be one of the California Judges Association representatives to the Civility Commission. There were j many judges, appellate justices, and great many lawyers from different aspects of the profession. And uh our meetings were were by Zoom, and we had a great, great number of people involved. And we we discussed these same issues. We did make some rule change proposals, some of which have been adopted. We also suggested, and that's been adopted, as you probably know, that lawyers that have become lawyers at 2014 going forward, there's a section, there's a sentence in the oath that they take about treating each other with dignity, respect, and courtesy, doesn't use the actual word civility because people concluded that the word civility is too amorphous. But now uh those of us, I even had to do it this year as I rejoined the bar. You have to attest to the state bar that you have taken the new oath. So what does that do? Do you think uh people are gonna behave differently because they now have to recite a sentence that they're gonna act with with those goals in mind? I suppose I mean disciplining a lawyer for being a jerk on the phone is not gonna happen, but there are things that do rise to the level of discipline. There's still a big debate about whether you can discipline an attorney for a lack of civility. That in and of itself, as we say, civility is a hard word to define. It's kind of an umbrella for bad behavior, but there are things that are going on that uh could lead to discipline. But more importantly, and this is, as you remember, Jeff, this is what I talked about when I uh spoke to the South Bay bar about civility. The whole idea that to be an effective litigator, you need to be, you need to behave in a way that reflects a lack of civility, that you need to be so aggressive that that's how you're gonna be effective for your client's outcome. Being a zealous advocate is the number one duty of an attorney. I never lost sight of that as a judge. I love zealous advocacy. But zealous advocacy does not mean interrupting your opposing counsel while he or she is talking. I'm gonna give you a chance to respond. Zealous advocacy doesn't mean we're not gonna provide you with discovery responses and you can pound sand or bring a motion, but everything's overbroad or not reasonably calculated, and we're not gonna give you anything. That leads to a lack of ability to reason to go forward to to make progress in that case. And then at this seminar, I cited many recent appellate decisions. There's way more of them than there used to be, in which lawyers are are either sanctioned or penalized or get a reduced fee award or bigger fees are awarded for their opponent, all because of a lack of civility. So

The Impact of Civility on Legal Outcomes

Hon. Stuart Rice 32:10

I would attest that a lack of civility not only is not effective, it actually is a detriment to your skills and your ability to be the best lawyer you can be on behalf of your client. And so I think that's very important. Uh and the appellate courts are are starting to reflect that in their opinions. There was one opinion where which I read in which, even though the decision was in favor of the lawyer who was then reprimanded in the decision for lacking civility, they've went out of their way to comment upon the inappropriateness of that lawyer's conduct at different aspects of the case. And that was a case in which his client's position was not ruled adversely. So, but most cases, like there's like to take Lemon Law, for example, it's really attorney fee driven. And there's been a couple of written published appellate decisions where a judge, a trial-level judge such as myself, had reduced an attorney's fee request, which was in the 250,000 area, to 30,000, and the the attorneys appealed, and that those decisions were affirmed because of the obvious uh over litigation and lack of cooperation and discovery, which gave rise to much higher fees than otherwise would have occurred had the people been willing to work together.

Tim Kowal 33:26

Aaron Powell Is that an underused tool? I wonder if that's an underused tool in your view, Judge Rice, reducing fee requests based on lack of cooperation, lack of civility, over litigating minor unsubstantial points.

Hon. Stuart Rice 33:40

Aaron Powell Well, in my conversations with my colleagues in complex, we met every week. We talked about our cases, we asked each other for their views, we made sure that I had this lawyer appear in front of me today. Have you had that law firm in front of you? Have you found them to be this or that? And we talked to one another. And also when I was in an independent calendar court as well, many of my colleagues that were, it's perfectly appropriate to reduce fees when the fees have to be fair and reasonable. If there's an attorney's fee provision in a contract or in the a code, like the Lemon Law statutes or employment statutes, the prevailing party, if it's the plaintiff, gets fees. So you have to entertain it, but they have to be fair and reasonable. So if they are not fair and reasonable, and one of the reasons they would not be fair and reasonable is that simple discovery was propounded. You didn't agree, you went to an informal discovery conference with the court, which I required, almost always resolve the issue with the parties, but it's not an order, it's a recommendation by me, but I'm the one that's going to rule on your motion. And if that then results in a motion, and then they still don't respond, requiring another motion, and maybe a motion for terminating sanctions, that's at least five figures in attorney's fees, maybe six, that would not have occurred had there been cooperation, as I believe we're all required to do. So I think that's a common ruling for judges when they're faced with that situation. I also think it's important, and I mentioned this in the in the session that Jeff attended. I I know when I was in practice, I remember I had a case in Orange County, and I almost never brought discovery motions, but I was getting absolutely no cooperation from the other side, so I brought a discovery motion, and the case before mine was a discovery motion, and the judge yelled at both lawyers, really in a way that I felt was inappropriate then as an attorney. And although he ruled in favor of the moving party, he sanctioned both sides. And I think that's a completely inappropriate ruling by a judge, as opposed to a reduction in fees. I mean, I found, and I this is important to me, and I don't know if if everyone does it, but I think if there's a bully in the case, somebody who's really making it difficult for the other side, it's I think the court has a responsibility as well to not paint both of them with the same brush when

Judicial Responsibility in Maintaining Fairness

Hon. Stuart Rice 35:54

really one side is completely the wrongdoer. Often they're both, they're both at fault, but but many times not. And I always made sure that I was very careful to not just take that case because judges don't like discovery motions and uh automatically assume that both attorneys are are failing in their duties to their client, to the profession, and uh to the court.

Jeff Lewis 36:17

That's interesting to know, Your Honor. You know, I always have this view of judges like parents when kids are arguing in the backseat saying, he looked at me, he touched me, that judges don't really care so much about who started it or who looked at who, but just cut to the chase. But I guess you're saying sometimes there's a need for uh the court to take a look and see who's the instigator, who's the bully?

Hon. Stuart Rice 36:36

I think that's very important because it happens more and more. And I think the court has it has a duty to to protect the sanctity of the case and make sure that everybody is being treated fairly. So if you have a case where one side is getting away with inappropriate tactics because you are you as a judge see this, like you said, with children, you don't necessarily try to distinguish which of your kids is the instigator, then you aren't really treating fairly the person who has really done nothing wrong and really does not want to be in your courtroom fighting about this, but the other side won't take, won't pick up the phone or has written really inappropriate uh emails, which of course they want to attach as an exhibit. I have an example that comes to mind when I was in Torrance. Uh, there was a deposition, the transcript was attached to the motion. A transcript by itself doesn't give you anything. It doesn't show the decibel level of the voices going back and forth. But very quickly, what happened was the attorney whose client was being deposed said to the other attorney, You're in my client's space, please move back and uh give my client some room. Don't tell me how to behave, where to sit in my own conference room. I will sit as I wish. And all right, so there you got you got two people squabbling. There's no judge there. They're squabbling unnecessarily, right out of the gate. But it it ultimately turned out to be the the person who made the first comment about get out of my client's space. He just wouldn't stop. He just kept saying it. And then he said, I've given you your last warning. And he called 911, reported an assault, and a deputy sheriff, taxpayer's money, came to that deposition. There had been no assault. So that I was never a big sanctioner. I didn't really find it I could uh show my displeasure without sanctioning, but sometimes the code requires sanctions when there's no substantial justification. That was an easy case for major, major sanctions. You're gonna pay for the court report, you're gonna pay for that attorney's time, and you gotta and therefore and that was a that's a terrible example of a complete misuse of uh resources by somebody who's uh authorized to practice law in our in our community.

Tim Kowal 38:41

I was thinking we interviewed uh court reporters on the program, and uh that that profession is always trying to recruit new members, uh new court reporters to alleviate that crisis. I'm not sure if that's maybe that's a good example of of a very interesting uh exchange, or maybe it's a bad example of a room that you do not want to be in.

Hon. Stuart Rice 38:58

Well, I've been involved with issues involving court reporters because they're such an essential part of the of the court system. And years ago during the recession, as at least Jeff knows, and I assume you know as well, Tim, that in LA we uh we stopped providing court reporters in civil courts. You want a court reporter you had to bring your own and uh save the court some money. It isn't something we wanted to do. And there's still some issues in the legislature about court

The Crisis in Court Reporting

Hon. Stuart Rice 39:22

reporters. We we want to protect court reporters, but very few people are going into that profession. And why is that? It's not that it's not a great profession. You can make good money, it's you're involved in the law, but it's obviously a profession that that is heading for to be obsolete at at some point in the future. We don't know exactly when. So very few people are attending. So as people retire, the courts are scrambling to have court reporters available even for the for criminal felony cases and misdemeanors now. We got a law passed so that you can do electronic recording and misdemeanors. So it's become more and more of a problem in terms of what had been a very important part of the legal profession, and something's gonna have to be done. We're at a sort of at a crisis point right now. But I don't think people aren't going to court recording school because lawyers misbehave. I don't think that I don't think that's why. It's a story you'll never forget.

Jeff Lewis 40:11

Your Honor, other than not calling 911 at a deposition, what are some concrete things that lawyers can do tomorrow to be more civil or to help lower the temperature uh and and serve their clients better?

Hon. Stuart Rice 40:25

Well, there's a specific example of depositions because you have no referee, right? And sometimes being an aggressive questioner in a deposition helps you to be effective. But it's really important that we remember that we're all colleagues, we're all part of a learned and honored profession, and we need to treat each other as such. Now, it is an adversary system, so there is going to be conflict. I don't expect everybody to always get along beautifully. I mean, I have many examples from my career as an attorney where, for I may I'll give you one example where I ultimately had to say to this attorney, don't talk to me ever again. Anytime you want to talk to me, you have to put it in writing. Because she would misquote me to the judge. There was one time we rode downstairs in an elevator together after a long hearing, and I said, Let's talk tomorrow. She said, No, we need to talk right now. It was basically in my face. And uh, when I got to work in the morning, I had a five-page letter about all the things I had conceded, and I hadn't said one word. So I had to take action. It's not who I am, but I said, do not ever talk to me again. Uh, you gotta protect yourself, and sometimes you gotta seek relief from the court. But there are there's people in every walk of life, and a lot of them are are litigants because they're drawn to this. I did, I taught a class on this and did some research called high conflict personalities who have diagnosable conditions, many of which uh we see in all parts of our lives. And so when your opposing counsel falls into one of these categories, there's really no reasoning with that person, and uh you're gonna live with that case for as long as you have to, but you need to protect yourself and your client. And there were times I had many cases, but as a judge, it's easier. I know so-and-so's coming into my courtroom tomorrow. I'm still the judge, I have the last word, I'm not in a deposition alone with this person, but I did not allow them to take control of the courtroom or push me around, and I would take appropriate action when required. So some of it is just it just goes with the territory. But I think that things like struck back to the ends of court, boda is another group. I mean, I was not part of a boda when I was a lawyer, but as a judge, I've gone to many of their events. And as you know, a boda is really a it's a membership organization for people that have tried a certain number of jury trials, and their whole mantra is collegiality and civility. I spoke at one of their events and they gave me a hat which said civility

Collegiality Among High-Stakes Litigators

Hon. Stuart Rice 42:44

in the legal profession was what it said on the hat, and I had to say, hmm, is this an inappropriate gift? But since I had spoken on a panel, I think I could take the hat. But these guys, when I was in complex especially, I gotta tell you this, the higher, the higher value of the cases, for the most part, the better the attorneys get along. Argue about what matters. When I was and then and when something, when I say, counsel, you should have been able to resolve this. I don't really understand why. What's the problem? What's the underlying issue here? And then they'd each state their position, and then inevitably they'd look at each other, look at me, and say, we'll have a stipulation to you by the end of business tomorrow. Not every time, but I found that the civility in the complex courts was at a much higher level than when I was in a regular civil court.

Tim Kowal 43:31

Yeah, isn't there an expression to the effect that the amount of vitriol sometimes is inversely proportionate to the stakes? The lower the stakes, the more petty and vindictive you will get to get that prize.

Hon. Stuart Rice 43:43

I think that's I think there's some truth to that. I think when the stakes are really high, and if you're lead counsel and a major mass tort litigation on either side, playing it for defense, you've been around for a while. You've seen it all. You're opposing counsel. You're probably both in a boda together. And uh Boy, they fight tirelessly on the issues that matter, but they don't interrupt each other. And when I ask them to meet and confer, they do. And there's something to be said for that. I think that's something we could look into more and figure out why is that. I think your point, Tim, is really well taken. Now and then, though, I remember I had a case in Mosque where the lead partner from the defense firm and the lead partner from the plaintiff's firm both came to court on a discovery motion. As I said, I had very few. I could count them on both hands over several years. But they both came in, they both said, I don't do discovery motion, both of them. I apologize for being here. But what they did to me, it just was one of those situations. That isn't a normal thing for those lawyers, but they both felt like this person, the other side had crossed the line. And I ended up meeting with them in chambers and uh did what I could to resolve it. But they that case required a ruling. I had to make a ruling. They were they were so far past the point of reason. And that that is going to happen from time to time, but that should be the exception in the way you practice. How enjoyable is the practice when you're constantly at war with European.

Jeff Lewis 45:02

One of the reasons Tim and I gravitated, we don't work together, but we're we we're both appellate lawyers. And one of the reasons we've gravitated to a pellet work is the bar is so small and collegial and there's no discovery. And maybe once or twice in my career I've seen a request for sanctions on appeal. It's a different practice of law.

Hon. Stuart Rice 45:19

It certainly is. It's much more esoteric and uh and it's put in writing. And as you know, I'm sure you haven't been accused of this, but if you write things in your brief that the appellate justices feel is uh intemperate, they're gonna call you on it. It's never effective. There's a that's another good example. I mentioned that in the in the seminar that I did that you participated in, is that the court of appeal is gonna call you on it when you just it's or when you criticize the trial judge by calling them names, you know, I gave you that one example, uh, the word escapes me now, but this uh suit this succubistic, I think. Succubistic. This Lord accused the uh the judge of being succubistic, which is really a female demon. And this Lord wants to show how smart he was by knowing a word that nobody else knew. And did he really think the court of appeal was gonna say, hey, good use of language?

Jeff Lewis 46:08

Well, he was right. It got the court's attention. Yeah. Yeah.

Civility and Mediation Strategies

Jeff Lewis 46:13

Yeah. Your Honor Justice Minn told us uh when he was on the podcast that one of his pet peeves, when people come to mediation, is not sharing briefs. They want the brief to be confidential, they don't share it with the other side. Do you have any pet peeves or any uh best practices you want to share in terms of lawyers coming to you for mediation to ensure a successful mediation?

Hon. Stuart Rice 46:33

Well, next month I'm on a panel for the Beverly Hills Bar on civility in mediation. So combine all those things together. So uh yes, I find that I find that very point that Justice Chin mentioned to be one of my pet peeves as well. So when I have my pre-meets, because the briefs always say confidential. So this is what I've done. I put this in my article for the Daily Journal. Sometimes lawyers with good reason do not want to share their brief with the other side because they're sharing with me strategies. Why we think we're really strong in this arena that they don't necessarily want to share with their opponent, especially if the case doesn't resolve. So this is what I've suggested. Write a second version of your brief. I'm not going to require you to disclose things to the other side that's really valuable for me to know. But you you should be able to provide the other side with a brief, and that has been working. So so far, nobody has turned me down on that. And even if they don't get that second brief, it's better than no brief. They get it on the morning of the mediation, it's still valuable. So that's one thing I've done so that I I could convince the lawyers not to keep their brief secret. It's really important that both sides have a sense of where the other side stands before that that mediation. Another one of my pet peeves, which I'll mention at this seminar that I that on which I'm the on the panel, is I usually you ask the plaintiff to make their demand uh first, right? So one of the problems in mediation for some reason is that nobody wants to appear weak, like they're giving in. So if you want the plaintiff to go first, they're never, almost never going to make a reasonable demand, despite my entreaties to do so. If you ask for that amount of money, they're gonna give you a nuisance value offer. We're not gonna be off to a good start. Well, Your Honor, I have to go first. And uh okay, so they come in, so I did one, and the number was in the eight eight figures, and on a case that was probably gonna settle in six figures, and uh, and I'm in a room with six defense attorneys, one of whom was a very experienced and knowledgeable lawyer who mostly worked for insurance carriers. And when I came in with that number, I'm sure he's been in a hundred settlement conferences and mediations. He went like this, well, it's gonna be a short day. So I said, Council, how is that helpful? You've never had a plaintiff make a demand that's unreasonable. I'm not asking you to pay it, and I expect you to make a nuisance value response. I told him to make a lower demand, but he didn't. But that is not helpful.

Tim Kowal 48:53

Well, there's a there's a whole psychology to settlement and negotiation, and I have never claimed to have it because you're trying to play the psychology of the other side and the psychology of your client and your relationship with your client. You want to make sure that you're able to tell the client at the end of the day that I got you a good deal.

Hon. Stuart Rice 49:08

Right. Sometimes that's why these pre-meets are helpful. I've met with many a plaintiff counsel who said, look, they've never really made me a reasonable offer. That's because my client won't let me go below X. And until I get my client to go below X, they're not going to make me a I said, Well, thank you for sharing that with me. That's that's helpful for me to know. And I thought the lawyer had written a great brief, and first thing I did at the actual mediation is sung the praises of that lawyer in front of her client. What a great job she was doing, how effective her brief was. And by the end of the day, that the client was saying, I asked her, I said, Do you mind if I talk alone with your attorney? Which I had kind of rehearsed with the attorney. And she said, if it's okay with my attorney, it's okay with me. Changed the whole dynamic. And we got the case resolved. So, but I also had a case where a mediator's proposal is so the day is coming to an end, and nobody has been willing to make that move, despite all of my attempts. So we're still over a million dollars apart. And I said, Counsel, I I just don't feel like uh you either side has been willing. I talk to them separately. I don't usually meet with them together. I just feel as though the day's coming to an end. I'm willing to do a second session with you, but it wouldn't hurt if I do a media's proposal. And for your listeners, that basically means I give a number to the same number to both sides. Sometimes I explain my reasoning as to how I got to that number. And they either say yes or no to me in writing in a week. They don't say, well, that's too much, but we'll do this. It's yes or no. They can still dialogue after that if they want, with me or without me. But it's yes or no. So if one says yes and the other says no, then there's no settlement. But the number I picked was not the midpoint. I don't necessarily go to the midpoint. Lawyers are scared to death of the midpoint. That's why they don't want to go up or down, because they think the mediator's, I'm not going to go to the midpoint. So I picked a number that I thought was fair for both sides based upon what I knew of the case. It required over a $300,000 move by both sides after a whole day of mediation. And they both said yes. So I think coming from me as the mediator, they weren't the one looking weak somehow, that perception to their client. But everybody, I feel I used to do free settlement conferences when I was a lawyer for the court. That's very different than now. You're you're hiring me, you're paying me money. You don't have to be there. So your goal is resolution. So if your goal is resolution, then let's work it at getting to resolution. So sometimes it does take a mediator's proposal to get it done.

Jeff Lewis 51:30

Your honor, I want to circle back on something I heard a few sentences ago. I've seen incivility at depositions and at trial and discovery. Did I hear you say you're speaking about incivility at mediation?

Hon. Stuart Rice 51:42

Well, we're wording it in a positive way. It's civility and mediation. So not incivility, but of course we'll talk about incivility. But so civility and mediation, see the the incivility is not as obvious because you're you're not in the room together, right? And I have many lawyers and they don't want to be in the room together. So even though when I did settlement conference in my courtroom, everybody's in that room, in the courtroom together, but I would always caucus with them separately. But I don't I don't have a hard and fast rule either. Sometimes if sometimes it might do some good to put people in the room together, but usually not. So in mediation, the the lack of civility is the example I just gave you, right? What is the point of does he want me to know that he thinks the plaintiffs are being the plaintiff didn't hear him say that. So there isn't there isn't going to be a a fight, but that's still a lack of civility. And uh and also it it's it's unproductive for for the success of the day.

Jeff Lewis 52:37

Yeah. I guess lawyers like that are doing a little bit of theater for their client, I suppose. I'm not excusing it, but uh I'm just trying to imagine why somebody would do that.

Hon. Stuart Rice 52:44

Yeah, there was no client there. There's six lawyers in the room, but the client was an insurance company. The insurance, there was one insurance rep there, that's true. There was one adjuster there. Maybe it was for their benefit. But also, when you start badmouthing the other lawyer to me when we're alone, I mean, what is that for? That's that's a lack of civility, but sometimes they're trying to show me how unreasonable the

The Adam Z. Rice Memorial Scholarship

Hon. Stuart Rice 53:06

other side is being. That could be effective advocacy, but there's a way to do that without name-calling, things like that. So Yeah.

Jeff Lewis 53:12

So listen, Your Honor, we're we're approaching the end of the hour. I did not want to end, though, without touching upon the scholarship in your son's name. Do you want to share with our audience a little bit about what that scholarship is and talk a little bit about that?

Hon. Stuart Rice 53:26

Well, thank you, Jeff, for asking about that. It's very important to me and to my wife. When I was outgoing president of the California Judges Association, making my final address at our annual meeting to the judges in attendance, uh, the basic point I made was that there are two things that I love the most in my life. One is my family, and the second is being a judge and what this organization has given me. And so I would like to combine those two things and start a scholarship in memory of my son, who unfortunately uh died in a traffic accident while studying abroad when he was 21, between his junior and senior year uh at Cal. And uh it was interesting. Just today, my wife and I were having lunch and uh we were talking about Adam. It's been 11 years, but he's with us every day. So we have the Adam Z. Rice Memorial Scholarship that is administered through the California Judges Foundation, of which, as you mentioned the intro, I am now the president. At the time, I was I was not on the board, but it just so happens that I was chosen to be on the foundation board. That's the charitable arm of the California Judges Association several years ago. And now I'm in my fourth one-year term as president. And so the Adam Rice Scholarship is part of what we do. We also give money to different courts that are doing outreach programs to teach civics on leadership, a lot of things. But the Adams Scholarship, which you asked me about, uh, it's designed for incoming law students or existing law students who demonstrate a financial need. Financial need is the number one criteria to obtain this scholarship. You also have to be a good student, but being a good student is secondary. So what we do is we we let every law school, every ABA law school uh know that you can apply for this. We have a social media presence, let all the schools know. And the kids have to prepare a two-minute video. And in that two minutes, they need to introduce themselves to us, let them know about their financial need, and then we always have an academic prompt. Uh, this year's prompt is about artificial intelligence and how the legal field could uh has an impact on artificial intelligence. And the applicants, we've been doing this for about eight years now, and I wish we had more money to give. My wife and I initially ceded the scholarship, and then a lot of judges have donated to it. It's interesting because when a judge, I could not fundraise outside of sitting judges, couldn't even fundraise to retired judges or commissioners, never mind lawyers. And a lot of people wanted to donate to it, but I couldn't ask them. But now I'm a retired judge, so now I can actually ask, ask for money. That's not what I'm doing here. You asked me about it, and I'm very proud of it. But we have given scholarships to, we could give to so many more kids. And I have uh one of my former externs who comes from very humble beginnings. I asked him to be on the selection committee, and he he sometimes straightens me out because not all the two-minute videos are as sophisticated as some of the others. And he he will say to me, Yeah, but did you hear what he said? Did you hear about what he's done that he's basically raising his eight-year-old brother by himself and things like that? And he also told me, because I'd like to give the kids more money. It's frustrating that because we're really not changing their lives. We're giving them enough money to buy books or something for that year. But he said to me, You don't know how important it is to a kid who comes from nothing to get a scholarship from the California Judges Foundation, how that helps their self-esteem and their realization. And I've been mentoring a bunch of the kids now that I've retired. This year's winner's got a letter that didn't just say, Congratulations, here's your check. It said, you also have free mentoring until you have your first job as a lawyer. You can write to me or call me anytime. If you're having trouble with a subject in law school, I can put you in touch with one of my former externs. I have a whole community of externs that help them with academic issues. I help them with job searches and externships and just when they need a pep talk. And uh it has been so rewarding. Of course, I'd much rather have my son back, but we are doing my wife and I are trying to do some things in his name. And this is one which has given us so much joy. And some of these kids, I don't know how they've gotten themselves to law school. Like this young woman that's she's in her mid-20s now, and and I'll never forget her video, but she's calling me a lot now. She's incredibly bright. And uh she basically said, Well, in terms of my financial need, I never knew my father, and my mother died of lung cancer when I was 15, and I've been on my own ever since. I mean, these that's just one example. There's so many examples of kids with nothing, grew up in the foster system or came from another country holding the hands of their younger siblings, and uh here they are on their on the verge of becoming attorneys, and and the fact that we're doing something to to assist them in that regard is very rewarding to us. And and thank you, thank you for asking about it.

Jeff Lewis 58:06

What a what a what a mitzvah, Your Honor. Please send us a link and we'll we'll include a link in our show notes so people can learn more about the foundation if they want to learn more about it, okay?

Hon. Stuart Rice 58:14

I would appreciate that. That would be wonderful.

Tim Kowal 58:16

And it comes right up on Google if you search for the Adam Rice Scholarship. It's hosted right at the caljudges.org website, but it'll come right up on a Google search, Adam Rice Memorial Scholarship.

Hon. Stuart Rice 58:26

You found that so quickly, Tim.

Tim Kowal 58:28

Like I said, it's very very easy to find.

Hon. Stuart Rice 58:30

Yeah. Well, very good. Well, I appreciate you asking me about it, uh, Jeff. It's very close to my heart and it combines all the things that matter to me. Adam would have been a great lawyer, but he was much more interested in being a filmmaker. But uh, I don't think he would mind that we uh have this scholarship in his name to help uh kids that come from poverty. He was always interested and and concerned about homeless issues and and how do people live that didn't grow up the way he did. So we're we're proud to have this in his name.

Jeff Lewis 58:58

Well, you're you've been more than gracious with your time and patient uh with my technological challenges. I think we're gonna wrap up this episode here. Tim, was there anything you wanted to add?

Tim Kowal 59:07

No, and if you have uh suggestions for future episodes, topics, and guests, please email us at info at calpodcast.com. And I want to thank uh Judge Stuart Rice for joining us and uh hope to have you back another time. You uh obviously have a wealth of knowledge on all things uh judiciary, and I think I feel like we only just barely tapped the surface on the subjects that we covered today. So look forward to uh if you if you're willing to uh to come back and join us again sometime.

Hon. Stuart Rice 59:30

I would. This was a real pleasure to be with you. You're both so uh eloquent and well prepared, and the questions you asked me were all of great interest to me, and I hopefully was able to contribute something to you and your listeners. And it's uh it's been a blast to be with you this afternoon.

Announcer 59:45

Thank you.com. That's C A L Podcast dot com. Thanks to Jonathan Caro for our intro music. Thank you for listening, and please join us again.