A vast majority of the court clerks in the jurisdictions in which we practice are really very good: they are patient, understanding, professional, and accepting of the mistakes of counsel or their staff when we're not aware of the intricacies of local procedure. Bless these clerks, they make the practice of law much easier.
But practice long enough, and you will have met at least one court-clerk-from-hell. You know, the one who seems bound and determined to not let you file your brief (due today), to "bounce" your document for violating subsection (A)(2)(c)(ii) of the local rules, or simply because the margins on your brief "seem off" (many years ago, this actually happened and as God is my witness, the clerk whipped out a measuring tape and checked).
For those of us who have had that experience, here's today's dose of schadenfreude. In Voit v. Superior Court, No. H037034 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2011), the California Court of Appeal called out a Superior Court Clerk who repeatedly rejected an attorney's filings:
The actions of the court clerk’s office are quite troubling. "It is difficult enough to practice law without having the clerk’s office as an adversary." (Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 777 (Rojas).) Whether Voit’s motion has legal merit is a determination to be made by a judge, not the clerk’s office. No statute, rule of court, or case law gives the court clerk’s office the authority to demand that a petitioner cite or quote precedent before his motion will be filed.If a document is presented to the clerk’s office for filing in a form that complies with the rules of court, the clerk’s office has a ministerial duty to file it. (See Carlson v. Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1276.) Even if the document contains defects, the clerk’s office should file it and notify the party that the defect should be corrected. (See Rojas, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 777.) Moreover, there actually is precedent allowing courts to appoint counsel for indigent inmates facing civil suits. (See Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908.) By unilaterally refusing to file Voit’s motion, the clerk’s office prevented the court from applying this precedent, or any other relevant law, to Voit’s particular circumstances. The clerk’s office’s actions violated Voit’s rights under both the federal and state Constitutions to access the courts. (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 3.)
Slip op. at 2-3.
The lawyer prevailed and got his document filed. The clerk has been publicly benchslapped in a published opinion. But will it matter? All we can say is that we'd like to be a fly on the wall next time that lawyer needs to go down to the Superior Court and file another document.
Voit v. Superior Court, No. H037034 (Cal Ct App Dec 14 2011)
