HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE January 22, 1997 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Joe Green, Chairman Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman Representative Brian Porter Representative Norman Rokeberg Representative Eric Croft Representative Ethan Berkowitz MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Jeannette James COMMITTEE CALENDAR OVERVIEW: Alaska State Department of Law OVERVIEW: Alaska State Court System PREVIOUS ACTION No previous action to record WITNESS REGISTER BRUCE BOTELHO, Attorney General Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300 Telephone: (907)465-3600 CYNTHIA HORA, Deputy Attorney General Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals Department of Law 310 K Street, Suite 308 Anchorage, AK 99501-2064 Telephone: (907)269-6250 CHARLES, "Chris", CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel Alaska Court System 820 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907)264-8228 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-1, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order by Chairman Joe Green at 1:00 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Vice-Chair Con Bunde, Representative Brian Porter, Representative Norman Rokeberg, Representative Eric Croft, Representative Ethan Berkowitz and Chairman Joe Green. Representative Jeannette James was excused. CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN provided organizational guidelines and committee procedures which should be adhered to by committee members for meeting purposes. Number 325 OVERVIEW OF THE ALASKA STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAW: CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Bruce Botelho, Attorney General, Department of Law, provide an overview of the responsibilities and obligations of the Department of Law. BRUCE BOTELHO, Attorney General, Department of Law, introduced major management staff of the department. Cynthia Hora had been appointed Assistant Attorney General for the criminal division. Ms. Hora previously served for six years as head of the department's Special Prosecution and Appeals Division. Barbara Ritchie serves as the deputy attorney general for the civil division and Fred Fisher serves as the new director for the Administrative Services Division. Also in attendance from the Department of Law were Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, who serves as the department's lead legislative liaison on criminal matters and Chrystal Smith, Legal Administrator and serves as the primary legislative liaison relating to civil division matters. Joan Kasson primarily tracks the department's oil and gas activities. Her primary role had been monitoring expenditures by outside counsel and cost control mechanisms the department felt should be in place because of the amounts of money the department necessarily expends. Number 478 ATTORNEY GENERAL BRUCE BOTELHO advised members the department was organized in three divisions; Administrative Services Division, Civil Division and the Criminal Division. He pointed out that the criminal division was responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases and provides legal services for the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Corrections. ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO explained that the department had developed a practice in the criminal division of having all appeals coming from the various district attorneys offices around the state managed in one central location with people who specialize in appellate practice. ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that the department had reorganized this year by moving two units relating to white collar and environmental issues, previously within the civil division, into the Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals (OSPA), where they would be subject to the same kind of screening procedures that other criminal cases require. That arrangement was accepted by the federal government. Another change that had taken place within the department's organizational chart from last year was the funding of a full-time district attorney in Dillingham, Alaska which had proven quite successful. Number 670 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO explained that the department's civil divisions were located primarily in Anchorage and Juneau, with a third office located in Fairbanks, Alaska. The Human Services Division was responsible for children's proceedings, services to the Department of Labor and Education and also the unit responsible for prosecuting juvenile delinquency cases. Attorney General Botelho advised members that had been area the department had been concerned about because of under-staffing and were considering shifting that responsibility to the criminal division. He expressed the department's eagerness in working with the committee on youth and justice legislation which would impact that section and how the state dealt with youth crime. Number 760 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that the Environmental Law Section dealt with environmental enforcement and defense issues, as well as monitoring the Exxon-Valdez litigation and providing support to the Exxon-Valdez Trustee Council. ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO noted that the Oil, Gas and Mining Section dealt with taxes, royalties and the statehood compact. He referenced the Dinkum Sands Case, United States v. State of Alaska, which was scheduled to be argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on February 24, 1997. Currently, $1.4 billion is held in the U.S. Treasury pending the outcome of that case. A special master, who was appointed approximately 17 years ago, had rendered his opinion last year and most of those funds, based on his report to the Supreme Court, would flow to the U.S. Treasury and not to the state of Alaska. Attorney General Botelho noted that under that decision it was recognized that the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), would belong to the state of Alaska, not the federal government. Number 880 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that the Collections and Support Section was fairly new to the department. He explained the reason for that was to consolidate the department's expertise in two areas; child support enforcement and collection of debts, fines and judgments owed the state. Attorney General Botelho estimated that the department had generated approximately $2.3 million in recovery of fines that the court system had been otherwise unable to collect. Number 935 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO went on to state that the Governmental Affairs Section provided legal services to the Department of Administration, the Governor and Lt. Governor. The Legislation and Regulations Section screens all the Governor's legislation and also reviews all regulations. Attorney General Botelho advised members that there was a statute which requires the regulations attorney to approve all regulations prior to becoming final. He noted that that had been an area of concern for the Department of Law. Over the past two years the department had had two management reviews, conducted at their request, by the Conference of Western Attorneys General. Attorney General Botelho pointed out that one of the major frustrations they found among the department's client agencies, as well as legislators, was the delay in the department's ability to move regulations through the process. He noted that they had had an ongoing multi-agency task force that was formulating recommendations for the department to re-think how the department reviews regulations. One of the outcomes of that task force involved a legislative proposal to attempt to streamline advertising and notice requirements. Number 980 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO continued noting that the Fair Business Practices Section dealt with regulatory policing of the public utilities commission and occupational licensing. He noted that there were numerous boards where disciplinary action had been required. Also, the department has had the Consumer Protection Section included in the Fair Business Practices Section, although it was funded as a separate subunit. ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that the Natural Resources Section had three dramatic responsibilities which consisted of land and fish and game management issues statewide. The Statehood Defense Unit, which was created through the budget process the previous legislative session, dealt with how the department deals with RS-2477, navigability and endangered species, and also the entire range of issues that pertain to Native sovereignty and other Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), types of challenges. Attorney General Botelho noted that there was one other statehood defense issue which was the Statehood Compact case. He advised members that the department had completed its briefing on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals; however, the federal government had recently requested an extension of time to file their brief. Number 1105 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO informed members that the mental health lands case was scheduled to be argued in front of the supreme court in Anchorage on February 10, 1997. It was his hope that case would be brought to a successful conclusion, although the department anticipated that the state would see further attempt to have the case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court because of federal law issues involved. Number 1150 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO conveyed some of the management improvements which the department had undertaken. He noted that one of the concerns of Legislative Audit in the past was the department's time-keeping methodology. For the past ten months, the department had been utilizing a universal time-keeping system for all civil division lawyers which would enable the department to report to the legislature exactly how the lawyers were spending their time and the state's money. Attorney General Botelho noted that that had also allowed the department to set uniform rates on how much is charged state agencies for attorney services. ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO referenced the department's monthly and periodic reports relating to significant litigation, and hoped those were helpful to members of the legislature. He advised members that the department had been emphasizing the importance of the Department of Law being one department; not as a criminal division and a civil division. Attorney General Botelho explained that management had been focusing on cross training opportunities, joint management and trying to create a culture of professionalism that allows a person to identify himself or herself as a state lawyer rather than a criminal division employee or civil division employee. Number 1300 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO addressed some of the department's most important policy issues they were currently facing. With respect to the Venetie case, Attorney General Botelho advised members that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused the state's request for rehearing. Currently, the department was preparing to take a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, adding that the department had 90 days from the actual decision to do so. Attorney General Botelho stated that in the mean time, they had negotiated with the plaintiffs and the Native American Rights Fund, a stay of the 9th Circuit decision, pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. He explained that the 9th Circuit was not bound by that stipulation, that the department would have to receive permission by the court to actually have the order entered. ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that over the last ten days, the department had been actively reviewing resumes of law firms and individual counsel who specialize in U.S. Supreme Court practice in Washington, D.C. One law firm, and individual in particular, had been considered and Governor Knowles was expected to meet with the leadership that afternoon to discuss that law firm. Attorney General Botelho explained that the law firm chosen would assist the department in doing the extra legal work of attempting to push the federal government in a particular direction, and not to get them to actively oppose the state's efforts. That outside counsel would also focus on preparing the state's petition for review. ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO felt it was important for the committee to know that there were between 7,000 and 7,500 requests made to the court each year for petitions, and in the past several years had only granted between 90 and 100. The department's goal, and what was necessary to achieve, was to make the case so persuasive, because of its importance and impact, that it would be worth one of the 90 cases the court would consider. Number 1445 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members, with respect to tidelands issues and litigation, that the 11th Amendment states that a federal court does not have jurisdiction to hear a case where a state had not given consent to be sued. He went on to say that a state was only permitted to waive that suit if there had been an Act by the legislature that would provide an unequivocal indication that such waiver had taken place. There had been two cases in the U.S. District Court in Anchorage where the court had thrown out a case because the state was an indispensable party but could not be joined because there was no finding of an express waiver. Attorney General Botelho explained that he did not, on his own, have authority to waive the state's protection against suit. This was particularly important at the present time in the case involving Peratrovich [Ph] v. United States, which was a fish and game issue dealing with the ANILCA. Attorney General Botelho advised members that the state of Alaska claimed that the federal government did not have jurisdiction or title to waters in Southeast Alaska; those are waters of the state and not the federal government. He explained that the only way the state could get into the suit was to be a defendant. Number 1585 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that as a consequence of that situation, the department would be asking the committee to consider legislation that would grant authority, in discrete cases, for the attorney general to waive sovereign immunity for the purpose of protecting the state's interests in a better way. Number 1620 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if a waiver were granted, through resolution by the legislature, if it would affect only the three respective cases. Attorney General Botelho did not know whether a resolution would be the appropriate tool, or if it would actually require a formal act in the form of legislation. He felt that it would require legislation. Attorney General Botelho advised members that the department was specifically looking at a waiver that dealt with submerged lands only. ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO pointed out that the legislature had recently changed Criminal Rule 16 to require reciprocal discovery. He explained that the state has the burden to produce evidence to the other side, and that burden would also apply to the defendant. Attorney General Botelho advised members the matter had been challenged several times and asked that Deputy Attorney General, Cynthia Hora, update the committee on the status of that litigation. Number 1830 CYNTHIA HORA, Deputy Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Department of Law, advised members that the division waited for a serious felony case in which to litigate the issue. The case chosen was State of Alaska v. David Summerville [Ph], who had been charged with a number of counts of sexual assault in Fairbanks, Alaska. In accordance with Criminal Rule 16, the department provided discovery and then made the request for discovery from the defense. The defense objected and moved to quash the request by alleging that Criminal Rule 16 was unconstitutional. The state then filed in opposition and Judge Savell ruled that Criminal Rule 16 was unconstitutional under the 1974 Alaska Supreme Court decision, Scott v. State of Alaska. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA informed members they then filed a Petition for Review with the Alaska Court of Appeals, asking them to review the case. The court of appeals refused, noting that they were bound by Scott v. State of Alaska, and would affirm the criminal rule as unconstitutional. At that point, a petition for hearing was filed in the Alaska Supreme Court asking for discretionary review. That request was granted in late December 1996, with four members of the court voting to take the petition and one member dissenting. Deputy Attorney General Hora advised members that the brief, which could be up to 50 pages, was currently being drafted by an attorney in the Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals. Deputy Attorney General Hora pointed out that the Alaska Supreme Court had also asked the Public Defenders Agency and Office of Public Advocacy to file amicus briefs. Number 1930 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked who the dissenting judge was. Deputy Attorney General Hora responded that it was Judge Rabinowitz. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what the gist of Scott v. State was. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA explained that requiring a criminal defendant to release, or disclose the names of alibi witnesses and their statements, violated the privilege against self incrimination as set forth in the Alaska Constitution. She pointed out that the department's argument to the Alaska Supreme Court was that the privilege should be personal to the defendant, which was one issue that had not been addressed in Scott v. State. The state was asking that the court rule that disclosure of anything, other than statements by the defendant, not be privileged because it was not personal to the individual. Number 1990 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members another major concern of the department's criminal division involved two recent decisions which dealt with the right to jury trial. Number 2008 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA advised members that the first case was State of Alaska v. District Court which involved the minor consuming alcohol statute. The current statutory scheme provides that 13- to 17-year-olds cited for minor consuming would involve an administrative revocation of the minor's license, and a citation is issued which brings the case into the court system. Deputy Attorney General Hora advised members that the Alaska Supreme Court, in the case Baker v. City of Fairbanks ruled that if a person lost a valuable license in a court proceeding, the individual would be entitled to a jury trial. Deputy Attorney General Hora advised members that the state then filed an original application asking the court of appeals to declare that jury trials would not be required in those types of cases. She noted that the court relied on Baker v. City of Fairbanks, and ruled that those individuals would be entitled to a jury trial and court appointed counsel. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA explained that there was language in the decision that indicated that the courts would uphold the administrative drivers license revocation and no jury trial would be required in the administrative context. She advised members that the statute provides that a court ordered revocation would run concurrent with the administrative revocation and the department's recommendation would be to remove the court ordered revocation and maintain the administrative revocation of the minor's drivers license. Number 2106 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA continued pointing out that the second and more troubling case was one that came out on December 27, 1997 called State of Alaska v. Dutch Harbor Seafoods. That case involved a commercial fishing violation which the law terms as violations. A first offense would be punishable by a $3,000 fine, and a second offense would impose a fine in the amount of $6,000. If the person was found to have committed the violation, the court would order the forfeiture of the illegal catch. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA advised members that Dutch Harbor Seafoods expressed the want for a jury trial because the value of their illegal catch was $150,000. Under the Baker v. City of Fairbanks case, Deputy Attorney General Hora explained that it addressed fines indicative of criminality as being subject to jury trials in criminal cases. The department approached the court of appeals who denied the state's request for discretionary review. The state then filed with the supreme court, who basically said that the forfeiture of the illegal gain was essentially restitution and a jury trial would not take place. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HORA informed members the department had filed a petition for rehearing which stated, basically, that the issue was neither criminal nor civil and a jury trial should not be provided in those types of cases. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if those types of situations could be dealt with in the small claims court. Deputy Attorney General Hora's response was that that would require a constitutional amendment. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referenced the Venetie case and asked if the state lost at the supreme court level if there would be a federal statutory fix available. Number 2336 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO felt that would become the arena for debate as to whether there would be some acceptable middle ground to resolve the issue. It was his sense that the delegation was clearly committed to finding a solution in the event that the supreme court chose not to take the case, in the first place, or to rule against the state. He noted that one of the big issues of debate was timing in terms of when it would be appropriate for Congress to begin working on the issue. The state was concerned that if it happened too soon and the supreme court was aware there was Congressional activity, that they would be less inclined to accept the state's petition in the first place. Attorney General Botelho felt that Congress was the forum they would immediately switch to, at the point, if the supreme court decided not to take the case; however, should the court decide to take the case, there could also be some reason to begin the Congressional process anyway. VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE referenced the Venetie case and asked what types of resources and funds the department anticipated spending on that case. Number 2450 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO anticipated that the first stage would range between $100,000 and $150,000 in terms of outside counsel. That figure did not include work being done in-house. VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked that the attorney general speak to the recently filed tobacco industry bill. TAPE 97-1, SIDE B Number 000 ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that tobacco industry companies were challenging the state's authority to increase taxes on tobacco and tobacco products. He explained that the next step the state would take would be to file an answer or a motion to dismiss. Both of those options were open to the state and the department was consulting with other states, tactically, because the issues raised in the case were issues being raised in several others. Attorney General Botelho advised members that Alaska was one of the only states where the litigation was occurring in federal court, rather than state courts. He pointed out that the concern of Alaska and other states was that there might be some decisions made that could be adverse to state interests across the country in terms of how the Medicaid scheme worked, generally, and whether there would be an exclusive remedy for recovery that would preclude the state, or any state, to collect. The department was currently studying the issue closely, and had 20 days from the date the suit is served on the state to file an answer. Attorney General Botelho noted that the suit had not been formally served on the state, but had simply received a courtesy copy. Number 65 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referenced the issue of providing a waiver to the attorney general for specific purposes and questioned whether there would be a type of continued legislative power or oversight of the waiver. ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTELHO advised members that his staff was prepared to work with the committee in an attempt to fashion an appropriate mechanism for that exercise. OVERVIEW OF THE ALASKA COURT SYSTEM: Number 364 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel, Alaska Court System introduced Ms. Stephanie Cole to members of the committee, noting that Art Snowden, the current Administrative Director, would be retiring in the near future. Ms. Cole had been unanimously selected by the supreme court as his replacement. Ms. Cole had served as Deputy Director of the Court System for the past 14 years. MR. CHRISTENSEN spoke briefly about the basic structure of government in Alaska. He explained that Alaska had the same basic governmental structure as the federal government and the other 49 states. It was initially believed that the best way to ensure liberty was to limit governmental power by taking the three basic governmental functions and splitting them up. Those three powers included the legislative power to pass laws, the executive power to implement and enforce the laws and the judicial power which has the power to apply laws to individuals. MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that the three branches were separate, but equal, which meant that no branch was supposed to be more powerful than the other branches. Those branches have been set up so there would be checks and balances whereby each branch has been given certain powers which allow it to control the power of the other two so that they cannot defeat its primary function. Mr. Christensen provided an example of the legislature's power of the purse over the other two branches, or the Governor's veto power over legislation, or the supreme court's authority to be the final interpreter of the Alaska Constitution. MR. CHRISTENSEN continued to say that each branch was not limited to its own power, but also have some limited powers that belong to the others. An example of this would be where the Executive Branch's power was primarily executive, however the Governor's veto power was a legislative power. MR. CHRISTENSEN noted with respect to the operating budget that the executive branch comprised approximately 88 percent of state government, and the university, 11.5 percent of state government. He pointed out that the legislature and the judiciary, together, comprised barely two percent of state government. Number 540 MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that the judiciary had 57 justices and judges, each with their own individual power base. He noted that the supreme court, as a general rule, takes no position on legislation, although would express any technical problems they might find with legislation, and provide fiscal notes in order that the legislature be aware of the fiscal impact of legislation. MR. CHRISTENSEN explained that under the State Constitution the judicial branch was comprised of three components. The Judicial Conduct Commission, which was essentially the judges ethics committee and was made up of three lawyers, three judges and three public members. That commission is charged with investigating complaints against judges who are accused of violating the Judicial Cannons, which was a very strict ethics code that places tremendous limitations on a judges financial affairs, as well as their ability to socialize. The second component was the Judicial Council made up of three members of the Bar, three gubernatorial appointees and the Chief Justice who acts as a tie breaker. The duties of this council are to evaluate candidates for judicial office and submit a list to the governor for him to select a judicial nominee from. The Judicial Council also compiles information to provide voters when judges stand for retention on a regular basis. The council is also responsible for conducting studies to improve the state's system of justice. MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that the primary component of the judicial branch was the court system. The court system has approximately 700 full-time and part-time employees, of which 57 are justices or judges appointed by the governor. There are five supreme court justices, three judges on the court of criminal appeals, 32 superior court judges and 17 district court judges. Mr. Christensen expressed that there were also 39 magistrates who are hired by the presiding judge in each of the four judicial districts, and serve at the pleasure of the presiding judge. Number 670 MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that approximately 70 percent of the court system's employees were a range 15 or below and scattered throughout the state at 59 different court locations; superior court and district court locations. MR. CHRISTENSEN informed members that Alaska was one of five states having a fully unified judicial system. Most states have municipal courts, county courts and courts funded by different entities. In Alaska, all courts are state courts and fully funded by the legislature. Mr. Christensen did note, however, that some of the court system's costs are driven by what the municipalities do. MR. CHRISTENSEN went on to say that Alaska had four levels of courts. Two of those were created by the constitution; the supreme court and the superior court. The two other levels were created by the legislature; the district court, which was created at the time of statehood, and the court of criminal appeals, created by the legislature in 1980. MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that in FY 96, approximately 143,000 court cases were filed in the state, which was a two percent increase from the previous year. He noted that those numbers included a 16 percent increase in the felony case load, which was the most expensive kind of case handled by the court system. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what percentage of the increased felony load was due to the felony, driving while intoxicated (DWI) law. Mr. Christensen could not immediately answer that question and did not think that statistic was in the court system's annual report, but would check into it for the representative. VICE CHAIRMAN BUNDE felt the numbers of cases expressed by Mr. Christensen did not appear to coincide with what the newspapers and media were saying about a decrease in crime in the state of Alaska. MR. CHRISTENSEN responded that even though there may be fewer people committing crimes, there were actually more people being charged with those crimes because of an increase in the number of police officers. By the police being more efficient, the crime rate may have gone down, but the number of cases actually seen by the courts were either staying the same or going up. MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that one problem the court system has, in terms of handling their case load, was that unlike many executive agencies, including the Department of Law, the court system has no discretion to accept or reject cases. He noted that with no control over their case load, and as the population continued to increase, the court system would continue to realize an increase in the case load. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if a jury trial were requested, would the court system be required to hold a jury trial. Mr. Christensen explained that the Constitution sets out certain rights to a jury trial. He pointed out, however, that only about five percent of all civil cases actually go to trial; the other 95 percent settle out of court. With respect to criminal cases, Mr. Christensen noted that only about 10 percent of those actually go to trial, and the remaining 90 percent plead out through the plea bargaining process. MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that aside from the appellate courts and the trial courts, the court system had one other arm which was the Office of the Administrative Director, that is the support system that keeps the courts going. This office entails a court rules attorney who drafts all the court rules and presents them to the supreme court; a personnel office, a print shop, micrographic shop which microfilms all the records, adding that the court is required to maintain all court records since statehood. The court system also maintains the state law libraries and has a technical operations branch which maintains the court system's computer system and court room recorders. MR. CHRISTENSEN expressed that Alaska was the only state that did not utilize court reporters. Alaska tape records all court proceedings which saves the state a dramatic amount of money. Mr. Christensen noted that the accounting division was also a part of the administrative office. He was pleased to report that the accounting division, the previous year, had been able to collect approximately $4.5 million in court fines, with an additional $1.5 million in filing fees and other fees which are turned over to the state's general fund. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT declared a possible conflict of interest stating that he had previously clerked with the court system, and through his personal business, occasionally hires judges to present lectures. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ also declared a possible conflict of interest as he had previously been employed by the Department of Law as a district attorney, and also as a trial lawyer in the courts. ADJOURNMENT Number 1588 There being nothing further to come before the committee, Chairman Green adjourned the House Judiciary Committee meeting at 2:27 p.m.