Impartiality and Due Impartiality and Due ProcessProcess

Reflections on the California Reflections on the California Supreme Court’s Decision inSupreme Court’s Decision in

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Board,State Water Resources Control Board,

45 Cal.445 Cal.4thth 731 (2009) 731 (2009)

Frank R. LindhFrank R. LindhGeneral CounselGeneral Counsel

Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California **//

October 6, 2009October 6, 2009*/ See disclaimer, p. 2

22

Conference of California Public Conference of California Public Utility Counsel (CCPUC)Utility Counsel (CCPUC)2009 Annual Meeting2009 Annual MeetingMonterey, CaliforniaMonterey, California

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this presentation are the presenter’s own individual views, and should not be construed as representing the position of the California Public Utilities Commission or its Legal Division, or any other agency of the State of California.

Special thanks to Manuela Albuquerque, Esq., former City Attorney, City of Berkeley, California, who made a presentation about Morongo to the League of California Cities in May 2009 (and who authored an amicus brief in the Morongo case).

33

Procedural Due ProcessProcedural Due Process• U.S. Constitution: Procedural due process

protects liberty and property interests. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).– Applies to the States under 14th Amendment.

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).

• California Constitution: Recognizes and protects a liberty interest in freedom from “arbitrary adjudicative procedures.” People People v. Ramirez, 25 Cal.3d 260, 268-269 (1979).v. Ramirez, 25 Cal.3d 260, 268-269 (1979).

44

Impartial AdjudicatorImpartial Adjudicator• “[A] neutral and unbiased adjudicator

is a fundamental component of a fair adjudication.” Breakzone Billiards v. City of Breakzone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal.App.4Torrance, 81 Cal.App.4thth 1205, 1234 (2000). 1205, 1234 (2000).

• People have the right to a tribunal that “meets standards of impartiality.” “Biased decision makers are impermissible.” Clark v. City of Hermosa Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 48 Cal.App.4Beach, 48 Cal.App.4thth 1152, 1170 (1996). 1152, 1170 (1996).

55

Presumption of ImpartialityPresumption of Impartiality

• In California (as in federal cases), decision makers enjoy a presumption of impartiality (except for pecuniary interest situations). Breakzone Billiards, Breakzone Billiards, supra supra 81 Cal.App.481 Cal.App.4thth at 1236. at 1236.

• This presumption can be overcome only by evidence showing “an unacceptable probability of actual bias…” Id.Id.

• California has not embraced an “appearance of bias” standard. Id.Id.

66

Separation of Functions:Separation of Functions:Advisory vs. AdvocacyAdvisory vs. Advocacy

• Decision-maker must be advised by lawyer who is different from lawyer serving as advocate at hearing. Midstate Theaters, Inc. v. County of Midstate Theaters, Inc. v. County of StanislausStanislaus, 55 Cal.App.3d 864, 870, 871 (1976)., 55 Cal.App.3d 864, 870, 871 (1976).

• Lawyer advising decision-maker must be ethically walled off from lawyer serving as advocate. Howitt v. Superior CourtHowitt v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.App.4, 3 Cal.App.4thth 1575 1575 (1992).(1992).

• Lawyer advising staff whose decision is being appealed may not advise decision-maker on appeal. Nightlife Partners v. City of Beverly HillsNightlife Partners v. City of Beverly Hills, 108 , 108 Cal.App.4Cal.App.4thth 81 (2003). 81 (2003).

77

Court of Appeal Decision in Court of Appeal Decision in QuinteroQuintero

QuinteroQuintero v. City of Santa Ana, v. City of Santa Ana, 114 Cal.App.4th 810 114 Cal.App.4th 810 (2003)(2003)

• In Quintero, the City of Santa Ana was represented by an assistant city attorney in a hearing before the City’s Personnel Board in which a city employee was contesting the termination of his employment.

• The same assistant city attorney also acted as counsel to the Board in other matters.

• The Court of Appeal found an unacceptable “appearance of bias and unfairness” and ordered a new hearing.

“For the Board to allow its legal advisor to also act as an advocate before it creates a substantial risk that the Board’s judgment in the case before it will be skewed in favor of the prosecution.” 114 Cal.App.4th at 817.

88

Supreme Court Decision in Supreme Court Decision in MorongoMorongo

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Board,Control Board,

45 Cal.445 Cal.4thth 731 (2009) 731 (2009) • Facts:• Morongo Band of Mission Indians was current holder

of a license to divert water.• In April 2003, the Water Board issued a notice of

proposed revocation of that license.• Morongo requested a hearing to contest the proposed

license revocation, and Board issued a notice of public hearing, identifying Staff Counsel Olson as a member of enforcement team prosecuting case.

• Olson also was serving as advisory counsel for the Board in an unrelated case.

• Court of Appeal upheld a superior court decision disqualifying Olson on due process grounds.

99

Supreme Court Decision in Supreme Court Decision in MorongoMorongo

(continued)(continued)Question Presented:

“In an administrative proceeding to revoke a water license, does it violate the license holder’s constitutional right to due process of law, as the Court of Appeal held here, for the agency attorney prosecuting the matter before the State Water Resources Control Board to simultaneously serve as an advisor to that board on an unrelated matter?”

1010

Supreme Court Decision in Supreme Court Decision in MorongoMorongo

(continued)(continued)Holding:• No presumption of bias, absent

pecuniary interest.• No showing of bias in this case,

hence no due process violation.

1111

Supreme Court Decision in Supreme Court Decision in MorongoMorongo

(continued)(continued)• “In construing the constitutional due process right

to an impartial tribunal, we take a more practical and less pessimistic view of human nature in general and of state administrative agency adjudicators in particular [than did the Court of Appeal]. In the absence of financial or other personal interest, and when rules mandating an agency’s internal separation of functions and prohibiting ex parte communications are observed, the presumption of impartiality can be overcome only by specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias. ” (45 Cal.4th at 741.)

1212

Supreme Court Decision in Supreme Court Decision in MorongoMorongo

(continued)(continued)• Presumption of impartiality can only be rebutted by

specific evidence demonstrating actual bias, or a combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias.

• Absent such rebuttal – provided advisory and advocacy functions are appropriately separated – “we remain confident that state administrative agency adjudicators will evaluate factual and legal arguments on their merits, applying the law to the evidence in the record to reach fair and reasonable decisions.”

Morongo, supra, 45 Cal.4th at 740

1313

Supreme Court Decision in Supreme Court Decision in MorongoMorongo

(continued)(continued)What is not enough to rebut the presumption of

impartiality:

• Contemporaneously serving as advisor to the tribunal in one case, while prosecuting an unrelated case before the same tribunal. (Morongo court of appeal decision reversed.)

• Sequentially doing so. (Query: Is Quintero still good law?)

• Having advised the tribunal at some prior time on an unrelated matter.

• Having had some prior professional or social relationship with the decision-maker.

Morongo, supra, 45 Cal.4th at 741

1414

Why Why MorongoMorongo Matters at the Matters at the California Public Utilities California Public Utilities

CommissionCommission

1515

Advisory vs. Advocacy:Advisory vs. Advocacy:Permutations in CPUC Legal Permutations in CPUC Legal

DivisionDivisionADVISORY

• Providing legal advice to Commissioners and ALJs on matters before the CPUC

• Representing the CPUC before other tribunals (e.g., FERC and FCC)

ADVOCACY• Representing DRA

in contested cases before the CPUC

• CPSD attorneys in investigations and enforcement cases.

1616

CPUC Legal DivisionCPUC Legal DivisionSeparation of FunctionsSeparation of Functions

• CPUC Legal Division appropriately separates advisory attorneys from advocacy attorneys.

• Legal Division, however, does not separate advisory from advocacy attorneys by means of the Division’s organizational structure.

• Morongo decision confirms that Legal Division’s operations do not pose a due process problem.

• A policy question – but not a legal question – remains as to whether this organization structure best serves the public interest.

1717

CPUC Legal DivisionCPUC Legal DivisionCurrent Organizational Current Organizational

StructureStructure(October 2009)(October 2009)

18

TelcoHelen Mickiewicz Asst. GC

(7)

Transportation & Water

Jason ZellerAsst. GC

(8)

Energy Procurement

Mary McKenzieAsst. GC

(11)

FOSS, TravisGASSER, LauraTHOMAS, SarahVO, HienWITTEMAN, ChrisYUN, Sindy

BERDGE, PatrickBARRERA, LindaBONDONNO, MariaBROWN, AllisonFAIRCHILD, PeterGRUEN, DarrylSHEK, Selina

CLAY, ChristopherDORMAN, ElizabethHOOK, CharlynLEE, DianaMcQUILLAN, Elizabeth OBIORA, NoelPAULL, KarenPOIRIER, MarcelSALVACION, Lisa-MarieSHAPSON, Mitchell

Energy TransmissionHarvey Morris

Asst. GC(13)

BROMSON, JonathanCAGEN, BobCHASET, LarryHEIDEN, GregLEE, ClevelandLIPPI, KimMOLDAVSKY, EdPELEO, MarionRASHID, RashidSTODDARD, JackSHER, NicholasTUDISCO, Laura

State AppellateHelen Yee

Asst. GC (11)

ANGELOPULO, PaulCASTRO, StacieDRYVYNSYDE, GeoffHOLZSCHUH, DaleJOHNSON, CatherineMcCRARY, MonicaMILEY, MattPARK, Sophia PRATT, CarrieYOUNGSMITH, Emy

Advisory Arocles Aguilar Asst. GC (12)

Margie LezcanoSupport Staff Supervisor

(17)ALVIAR, JanetBEAUREGARD, JeanneEUSEBIO, ImeldaGONZALEZ, RoscellaGEE, BerlinaHILL, AlbertLARK, JoanneLUNDY, CharleneMARCINKOWSKI, HalinaMARINDA, AngieMUNIZ, SuePEREZ, MarthaREDSUN, RachelROJO, RebeccaSALYER, NanciSARMIENTO, Nellie

Frank R. Lindh General Counsel

Lionel WilsonLead

Deputy GC

ALLEN, JudiBONE, TraciDUMAS, GretchenFILCHEV, Linda GHAFFARIAN, PounehHARRIS, FredMULLIGAN, JackPERLSTEIN, JoelREIGER, JasonSUN, Jonady HomVLAHOS, Ourania

Cindy PhilapilAGPA

Becky CunninghamAdmin. Asst.

Legal Division Organization October 2009 Number of attorneys in Section including supervisor)

1919

ConclusionsConclusions

• Due process concerns the fairness and impartiality of the decisional process.

• Cases like Morongo and Quintero concern a particular aspect of due process, namely, the roles of attorneys as advisors vs. attorneys as advocates before the decisional body.

• Morongo was rightly decided. Being an advisor on some matters should not automatically disqualify an attorney from being an advocate before the same decisional body on other, unrelated matters.