Richard Zitrin

Award of Merit

2011-01-01

Awarded by the Bar Association of San Francisco, for efforts to ensure the success of the Bar’s legal services programs.

Pro Bono Publico Award

2006-01-01

Awarded by the American Bar Association.

State Bar of California annual diversity award

2004-01-01

Awarded by the Bar Association of San Francisco Foundation.

New York University School of Law

J.D.

Law

Oberlin College

A.B.

Government

Seven steps to heaven for new lawyers (and old)

Bar Association of San Francisco First Annual Barristers Conference  San Francisco, CA

2011-10-01

Judicial Ethics and the Supreme Court (Panelist)

American Constitution Society and Alliance for Justice  San Francisco, CA

2011-08-01

Ethical issues in working with the poor

Bar Association of San Francisco  San Francisco, CA

2011-06-01

The Judicial Function: Justice between the Parties, or a Broader Public Interest?

2004-04-01

Because I intend to be prescriptive (or, when it comes to the esteemed members of the bench who may be in the audience, “suggestive,” since it is they who wield the gavels while I -- as any lawyer appearing before members of the bench -- have only words), I must confess some biases before going further. First, I believe in “sunshine in litigation” and openness of both court records and discovery. I believe that courts are public forums, and that arguments about the privacy of disputes should generally be outweighed by the public's right to know. Some have strongly argued that civil courts exist to serve “private parties bringing a private dispute.” I believe, however, that even if the dispute began as a private one, once the courts are involved it is at most a private dispute in a public forum. Once the disputants go to court, the public nature of the forum trumps the formerly private nature of the dispute. This paper makes three arguments. First, while they have obvious duties to the parties in litigation, courts - -and the judges in charge of them -- have other duties to a broader public interest, consistent with the highest goals of judicial ethics. Second, judges can and should take an active role in protecting the public interest by ensuring that information obtained in connection with a legal dispute that directly concerns a substantial danger to the public health or safety remains available to the public regardless of the desires of the parties. Third, although the resources available to most judges are obviously limited, they can nevertheless successfully accomplish such a goal, by (1) modifying the existing court rules governing discovery and case settlement; (2) narrowing the acceptable grounds for protective orders, especially stipulated protective orders; (3) modifying the jurisdiction's ethical rules of professional conduct to prohibit lawyer collaboration in “secretizing” such information; and (4) educating and requiring the trial bench to follow these modifications and rules.

View more

Five Who Got It Right

2003-10-01

The author's account, done as first-person story-telling narratives, of five lawyers the author considers exceptionally admirable and ethical.

View more

The Case Against Secret Settlements (or What You Don't Know Can Hurt You)

1999-04-01

Plaintiffs' lawyers, at least the best ones, are believers in their causes. They're convinced that part of their job is to expose cars that don't steer right or blow up under certain conditions, drugs with dangerous side effects, or clergymen and scoutmasters who molest kids. Defense lawyers, at least the best ones, are dedicated to bringing justice to their clients. They're committed to beating back frivolous claims and plaintiffs with victim complexes, but when legitimate cases come along, they try to settle them quickly and fairly -- and in a way that won't create more innocent victims. Unfortunately, the laws in the vast majority of states combine with the ethics rules in every state to prevent lawyers on both sides from achieving these goals. Because the rules of ethics generally require putting the interests of the client ahead of those of society, lawyers are bound to settle cases in ways which serve the needs of the specific clients while potentially harming the interests of society as a whole. Unless counsel is operating in one of the very few states with strong “sunshine in litigation” laws, there is little that can be done when the defendant demands, and the plaintiff accepts, secrecy as a condition of resolving a case. It is for this reason that I propose that American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.2 be amended.

View more