4th DCA v. JAMS?

Today's DJ cover story is titled (online) 4th District's Neutrality Regarding JAMS Questioned: Two unrelated cases say the appellate court should not be hearing cases involving the ADR provider. The article explains that "three of the four living retired justices" work at "Orange County-based ADR provider" JAMS, and thus two lawsuits are challenging "the neutrality of the 4th District Court of Appeal to hear cases involving" JAMS.

Jams.

Retired Justices on the JAMS roster include Sonenshine, Wallin, Trotter (who stopped taking new cases at JAMS as of July 1), King, Low, Cooper, McAdams, Morrison, Panelli, Stone, Strankman, and Chuck Vogel.
In today's MetNews see Court of Appeal Allows Misrepresentation Suit Against JAMS.


Also in today's DJ, a letter to the editor from Santa Clara attorney John Haggerty, who argues that when judges rely on their attorney staff, they undermine our traditional adversarial system of justice:

'If courts base their decisions substantially on ex parte presentations from attorneys other than the parties' own attorneys, then those parties are essentially cut out of a decision-making process that vitally affects their lives especially when their attorneys are not even informed of these presentations. To avert such an undesirable result, courts should provide the parties' attorneys with copies of their tentative decisions and any memos from court attorneys upon which they are relying, prior to oral arguments, so that the parties may be provided with fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard."

And The Recorder presents Justice Beds' latest: We Never Got Our Man.