Kelso’s reasoning faulty
Professor
Kelso’s objections to several recent California Supreme Court opinions are
obviously sincere, but reflect more an objection to the illogical outcomes than
to the court’s legal reasoning.
Professor Kelso’s repeated reliance on “common sense” to
support his objections is clearly out of bounds. Juries are allowed within
limits to reach a verdict on the basis of their untrained and undisciplined
“common sense.” Indeed, juries often apply their own beliefs and prejudices
with disastrous results … as seen in the infamous People v. O.J. Simpson verdict. In contrast, judges are not supposed to be governed by “common sense”
or any similarly nebulous and undisciplined tools.
We can see the results of judges using their personal
prejudices and personal senses of what is right in three recent U.S. Supreme
Court cases: Citizens United holding that bribery is speech; Town of
Greece holding that mandatory, government-organized Christian prayers at
public hearings is not an establishment of religion; and Hobby Lobby exempting corporations from compliance with the law because, after all,
“corporations are only human.” All three of these decisions were reached by
five judges who allowed their religious and neo-con beliefs to guide them in
writing what are clearly long-chain molecules of illogical nonsense.
A closer examination of the CSC cases that were autopsied by
Professor Kelso using the blunt instrument of common sense reveals that, while
the decisions may lack logic, they are in fact supported by the law.
James Luce
Peralada, Spain
ADA requires interpreters for deaf
I have met several consumers who have encountered lawyers
who refuse to provide an interpreter in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The ADA clearly states that law offices, as places of public accommodation,
must furnish auxiliary aid. For example, interpreters must be qualified to
interpret and the cost should not be passed on to clients. Nor are lawyers allowed
to encourage or force their clients to bring their own “personal” interpreter.
There is no question
that the ADA clearly outlines the responsibility of lawyers to ensure effective
communication between lawyers and deaf or hard-of-hearing clients. These
clients are seeking to get detailed, often technical information that can
affect their legal rights. Lawyers need to consult with a deaf or
hard-of-hearing client to determine what type of auxiliary aid is needed to
ensure effective communication. Many deaf or hard-of-hearing clients have
complained about lack of equal communication access and say they could not make
an informed decision.
The lawyer must pay
for the sign language interpreter unless the lawyer can prove that it would be
an undue burden in light of all of the resources available to the lawyer,
including tax credits and tax deductions. “Undue burden” is a fairly tough
standard, though, in that it isn’t enough for a business or any entity to
simply say, “That costs more than I want to spend,” or “I don’t have that kind
of money in the budget.” A court will look not only at the bottom line of an
entity’s balance sheet, but also at the expenditures. In terms of providing a
sign language interpreter, the lawyer cannot pass the cost to the individual
client.
Hal Suddreth
Tri-County Greater
Los Angeles Agency on Deafness
Ventura
California Bar Journal letters must include
full name with a daytime telephone number
and complete address. Send letters to
cbj@calbar.ca.gov.