Yesterday, I settled a personal injury case at a mandatory settlement conference at the Sacramento County Superior Court.  Settlement conferences are required by California statute.  The settlement conference pro tem judge (a lawyer acting as a temporary judge only for the purpose of facilitating settlement) was excellent.  That experience contrasted with some other pro tems I have had.  As I thought about it, I concluded that the difference was the degree of expertise the lawyer had in the subject matter of the lawsuit.

When I started practicing law, settlement conferences were conducted by judges, not lawyers.  The quality of the settlement process depended upon the quality of the judge.  Now, lawyers volunteer their time to help clear the congested court calendar by facilitating settlements.  Without the pro tems, the delays in bringing cases to trial in California would be insurmountable.  In my opinion, when a pro tem is experienced in the field encompassed by the lawsuit, the likelihood of settlement increases significantly.  The contrary also is true.  Sometimes one or more of the attorneys know more about the underlying law and trial issues related to their case than the pro tems know.  In that case, the pro tem has difficulty maintaining credibility when making settlement recommendations.

I am a certified family law specialist and have participated as a pro tem judge in family law cases in the Sacramento County courts and participated in family law settlement conferences as an attorney representing a client in Placer County, Yolo County, San Joaquin County, and El Dorado County, among others.  I have found that the family law pro tems do an excellent job in family law matters, in part because they are required to be attorneys who focus heavily on family law matters.