Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Judge Properly Denied Seventh Request for Disability Accommodation for Lawyer
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a seventh disability-accommodation request brought by a party contesting the state’s approval of a rancher’s timber-harvesting plan, the Third District Court of Appeal held yesterday, saying that a lawyer with bipolar disorder is entitled to only so much leeway with respect to meeting deadlines.
Plaintiff Friends of the South Fork Gualala (“FSFG”) contended on appeal from a decision of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) that Sonoma Superior Court Judge Bradford DeMeo erred in declining to modify a schedule to afford its San Francisco lawyer, Daniel Garrett-Steinman, extra time to prepare a supplemental brief and to postpone a hearing.
FSFG argued that, under California Rules of Court, rule 1.100—which provides for a disability accommodation for “any lawyer, party, witness, juror, or other person with an interest in attending any proceeding before any court of this state”—DeMeo was obliged to grant the request.
“We decline to endorse such a wooden application of rule 1.100,” Justice Jon B. Streeter said in his opinion affirming the judgment.
Previous Requests
Six previous requests, he recited, “were actually or in effect granted,” causing delays. He noted that Public Resources Code §21167.1 says that CEQA have calendaring priority and are to be “quickly heard and determined.”
Streeter remarked:
“Having filed a proceeding subject to calendaring priority, FSFG was obliged to move the case forward with dispatch.”
He said that “from the trial court’s perspective, there was no end in sight to Garrett-Steinman’s requests for more time.”
The jurist observed:
“Because FSFG was free to obtain other counsel, no credible argument can be made that it was effectively denied access to court services.”
FSFG’s Suggestion
He noted that at one point, FSFG invited DeMeo to order Garrett-Steinman to withdraw as counsel. The judge declined to do so.
Streeter commented:
“This extraordinary suggestion from FSFG that, if the court had concerns about Garrett-Steinman’s need for more time, it should kick him off the case—surely, an invitation to commit error if there ever was one—points up a fundamental flaw in the position we are asked to adopt here. It was not up to the court to assess whether, in order to keep the case moving forward, Garrett-Steinman should step aside in favor of some other lawyer. It was up to FSFG to make that decision, and at an even more basic level if such a step was warranted, it was up to Garrett-Steinman himself as an officer of the court to make the decision.”
The case is Friends of the South Fork Gualala v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, A168163.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company