April 30, 1998
(213) 229-7326 T 44444-00272

Commission on Structural Alternatives
     for the Federal Courts of Appeals
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C.

Dear Justice White and Members of the Commission:

I am writing this letter to you as my statement in connection with the hearing your Commission will hold in San Francisco on May 27, 1998. I write as a practitioner of nearly 40 years of experience, with a significant component of trial practice before federal courts. I write to express my view that any split of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and certainly any along the lines of those previously proposed, would be unfortunate and a detriment to the practicing trial lawyers in the several states of the Circuit.

I have attached to this communication a brief resume which describes the nature of my practice and my experience as a lawyer. That experience has involved maintaining significant involvement with Ninth Circuit activities. I have been a multi-term delegate to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, commencing that activity in the 1970s, a three year member of, and now Chair of, the Senior Advisory Board to the Conference, and a founding Board member and former President of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society. I have handled cases pending in various judicial districts within the Circuit, including all of the districts in California and, for example, the District of Alaska and the Eastern District of Washington.

Others far more knowledgeable than I can speak volumes about the details of judicial administration, case load variations, judicial interaction and other internal aspects of operation of the Ninth Circuit and other circuits; however, from the standpoint of the practicing lawyer, I believe that the present configuration of the Ninth Circuit has enhanced and broadened the scope of practice of every lawyer within the Circuit. Under the present circumstances, I, and other lawyers like me, feel comfortable handling cases arising in many districts, covering many different states, with the feeling that we are familiar with the judicial officers involved and the rules under which the litigation will proceed. We can handle complex litigation in far flung areas, not as strangers entering an alien jurisdiction, but rather as practitioners within the Circuit. This capability affords a broadening and enriching feature of federal practice in the western states which I would hate to see brought to an end by the balkanization of the Circuit.

It is very difficult to discern any substantive benefit from fractionating the Ninth Circuit. Proposals to do so by dividing California, placing one half in one circuit and the other half in the other, do violence to the wishes of the lawyers of California and would constitute a federal gerrymandering of a state which the voters have refused voluntarily to bring about. Alternatively, isolating California as virtually a separate circuit unto itself would sever the state from participation with its fellow western states in a common federal judicial system, to the detriment in my view, of both California and its fellow western states.

Defending the status quo ante for its own sake may be inappropriate, but even more inappropriate is changing a system which seems to be working well simply to bring about change. Accordingly, I hope that your Commission recommends that the Circuit be left as presently constituted.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert S. Warren

RSW/cld

Enclosure

/