 |
 |
|
|
 |
ISSUE V.6 |
|
FEATURED ARTICLES |
|
Special
Report Business
Law Criminal
Law Employment
Law Real Property
|
|
FEATURE OF THE MONTH |
|
ARCHIVE OF PAST ISSUES |
|
TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE |
|
Interview |
Interview with Mitchell E. Abbott, Partner at Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles and contributing author to California Administrative Mandamus published in June 2003 by CEB.
Mitchell E. Abbott received his A.B. (magna cum laude) in 1972 from the University of California at Davis, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and his J.D. in 1975 from the University of Virginia Law School, where he was Notes Editor of the Virginia Journal of International Law. Mr. Abbott has practiced for 28 years with Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles, specializing in municipal, environmental, and business litigation, and has handled more than 100 appellate matters. He is a contributing author to California Civil Appellate Practice (3d ed Cal CEB 1996); California Civil Discovery Practice (3d ed Cal CEB 1998) and California Administrative Mandamus (3d ed Cal CEB June, 2003). Mr. Abbott is certified as a specialist in appellate law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization and is immediate past Chair of the State Bar Committee on Appellate Courts. His e-mail address is <mabbott@rwglaw.com>
Susan Godstone is a freelance writer, researcher and editor. She graduated in law from Warwick University, England and has worked for over 15 years in legal publishing, both in the UK and US. She is the Managing Editor of Case 'n Point. Her e-mail address is <sgodstone@aol.com>
SG: How did you get into appellate law practice?
MA: I’ve handled a lot of appellate work since my very first day of practice, largely as a result of the nature of this firm’s business. For many years, we have represented cities, public agencies, and other governmental entities. In these kinds of disputes, the issues are often contests of principle, and an unusually high percentage of cases get appealed. In a typical commercial case, the parties will evaluate the amount of money in controversy, their chances of succeeding, the amount of attorneys’ fees that they are incurring, and how difficult the money will be to collect. Many of those cases will then end up being settled for x amount. On the other hand, a law suit contesting, for example, the result of an election, or challenging the legality of a tax, or protesting the revocation of somebody’s conditional use permit to operate a business – those are tough cases to settle.
SG: Have you seen appellate law practice change very much since you first started out?
MA: Yes, as the law has changed and developed certain issues that used to get litigated a lot have now been resolved either by Court decisions or statutory amendments, and other issues have come more to the forefront. For instance, twenty years ago there wasn’t an anti- SLAPP Statute. This has been a very active area for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in the past five years.
SG: Is there somebody, in particular, who has been a big influence on your professional life?
MA: Yes, Glenn Watson. He’s my senior partner and the person who I came here to work with. He has been my mentor throughout my career and I am still actively practicing with him. He’s been a terrific influence on my life.
SG: Is there a quality about him that you particularly admire?
MA: He has always been a lawyer’s lawyer. He was the person that other lawyers would hire when they had a particularly tough case. He is extremely thorough, diligent, and relentless in his approach. These are the qualities that I’ve tried to incorporate into my own practice and have encouraged new associates to adopt.
SG: I understand that lawyers from your firm have recently contributed to the third edition of CEB’s California Administrative Mandamus book?
MA: Yes, we’ve been involved in seven chapters of the new edition. I was involved as a co-author on three of them. This area is part of our firm’s daily practice, it’s what we do, so it has been wonderful to be given the opportunity to contribute to this book.
SG: Who do you think will be most interested in the book?
MA: I think there are three potential audiences. Historically, the book has been a useful resource for the Courts, particularly Courts that don’t handle a lot of administrative mandamus cases. In downtown Los Angeles, for example, the writ and receivers department will handle about three administrative mandamus cases a day, and they have a real expertise. In other Courts, administrative mandamus cases are somewhat rare, and I think the book will be useful to them. I think it will also be a useful resource for more experienced lawyers like us, because there are always unusual issues that need to be researched and this is a very thorough book. The third audience is general practitioners – lawyers who don’t do administrative mandamus very often but still need to be aware of the rules. The third edition is a very substantial expansion on the previous works, and this reflects the fact that administrative mandamus is becoming a more important part of the legal landscape. We hope that lawyers and judges will find the book a helpful resource.
SG: Do you have a most memorable case in this area of the law?
MA: Two or three cases come to mind. In each of these cases, in my opinion, the cities had picked counsel who were genuinely trying to comply with the law, do the right thing, and make sure that the administrative hearing was conducted by the book. In each of these cases, we had able, resourceful, energetic, and aggressive lawyers on the opposing side. When the court upheld the administrative decision and denied the petition for administrative mandamus, it was very satisfying—a sort of vindication of what our firm had been saying all along. The cities were not out with an axe to grind; they were trying to roll the ball right down the middle of the alley; and the Courts’ decisions were the right ones, despite the oppositions’ attempts (and in these cases the opposition had considerable resources) to prove the opposite.
One case, involved extremely wealthy adjacent homeowners, vehemently opposed to a project that the city was considering. They hired one of the largest law firms in the US and spent over a million dollars on technical experts and lawyers at the administrative proceeding stage, and then on the administrative mandamus proceeding challenging the sufficiency of the Environmental Impact Report. In the end, the trial court ruled in favor of the city and subsequently the EIR that the city had prepared won an award from the Society of Planners for the best EIR of the year.
SG: Can you talk a little about the difference between administrative mandamus and traditional mandamus?
MA: That’s something our lawyers begin learning as first-year associates. The administrative mandamus petition is basically an appeal to the Superior Court of a quasi-judicial administrative proceeding held by an administrative agency, for example, a planning commission, the city council, or the zoning review board. Other examples include DMV license revocation proceedings, and proceedings by state regulatory agencies involving licensed professionals. No new evidence is presented. Everything is based on the records that were presented to the administrative agency, so it’s very much in the nature of an appeal and many of the considerations for both the petitioners and the respondents in those cases are similar to the considerations you have in an appeal. Traditional mandamus is a more general remedy used, for example, when a public agency is doing something that they shouldn’t be doing, or is not doing something that they should be doing. Mandamus is the way you apply to the Court for an order to compel them to do something or stop doing something.
SG: So, traditional mandamus is less likely to be about a decision that’s come down from a quasi-judicial body?
MA: Yes, that is correct. Traditional mandamus can involve something as important as a city refusing to call an election or put a measure on a ballot; or the city refusing to turn over documents requested under the Public Records Act. Administrative mandamus, by definition, is a far narrower and a more specialized category. Not, however, in the number of cases heard. Every time there’s a proceeding before the department of motor vehicles to revoke somebody’s driving license it can be reviewed by administrative mandamus.
SG: There must be many public bodies and agencies.
MA: There are 58 counties and over 400 cities in California, and each one of them has subordinate boards and commissions. There are redevelopment agencies in most cities focused on issues of urban blight, and then there are water districts, library districts, school districts, and countless other special districts – all of them are governmental bodies.
SG: California Administrative Mandamus focuses on California. Is the law the same outside of the state?
MA: California administrative mandamus procedure is reminiscent of the procedures used in the federal government and other states to review administrative agencies, but there are a number of refinements and nuances that are strictly specific to California.
SG: What do you do when you’re not being an appellate lawyer?
MA: I read quite a bit, I cook, I listen to music. I’m also involved with my church, and I’m a member of the American Kite Fliers Association!
New
Edition!
California
Administrative Mandamus
3d edition, approx. 950 pages, 2 looseleaf volumes, 2003
CP32890, $189.00