THE ROBING ROOM

At the very beginning of the settlement, she told a plaintiff who was obviously vulnerable and very physically disabled, that he would never ever win the case and that he ought to take whatever he could get. Did not talk about the facts of the case, but rather implied that the status of the parties would be the deciding factor. Bullied plaintiff and his counsel. Boasted about her presiding over many trials and that she can therefore predict outcomes. Her U.C. Irvine bio says that she only presides over four trials per year. Even worse, she pitted plaintiff and his counsel against each other by telling the attorney that she should take no fees because she was going to lose the case anyway, and that all settlement proceeds should go to her client just to get the case done. This would appear to be unethical settlement conduct, to try to pit attorney and client against one another. Attorney seriously considered withdrawing from the case due to the conflict she had created. On another point, she boasts about her public service, but has clearly no understanding of private practice. It is doubtful that she would have told a public servant to forego their salary so that it could go towards resolving a case. One doubts that she told defense counsel to contribute his fees to a settlement. Bizarre settlement conference. Very exhausting.