Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2021, Volume 34, Number 3
Content
- A Lion in Winter: Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace at 92
- California LITIGATION
- Can California Protect Employees from Entering into Mandatory Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements and Avoid Federal Preemption?
- Chevron Corp. v. Donziger and Paying the Piper
- Dirty Harry Turns 50: What If Harry Had Worn a Body Cam?
- EDITOR'S FOREWORD No Longer on Demand
- Flood v. Kuhn: Paving the Way for Athletic Bargaining and Free Markets
- From the Section Chair
- "Present at the Creation"
- She's No Rookie: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett Emerges as a Key Influencer in Her First Term
- Table of Contents
- The California Supreme Court, 2020-2021: Tracking the Impact of the Pandemic
- Three Recent Decisions on Section 998 Settlement Offers
- "Isn't that Special": The Limited Powers of Special Masters
"Isn’t that Special": The Limited Powers of Special Masters
By Mark T. Drooks & Thomas R. Freeman
Mark T. Drooks is a partner at Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C. in Los Angeles.
Thomas R. Freeman is a partner at Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C. in Los Angeles.
The Church Lady’s words may be particularly apt when it comes to the appointment of special masters in California’s trial courts. Used appropriately, special masters can be extremely useful to the parties and the court. They can bring expertise to a complex case or issue, parse a large or technical record for the benefit of the trial court, and make recommendations to the court on matters presented by the parties. But the expertise and resources special masters bring to that job — in conjunction with their typically broad investigatory mandates under a trial court’s order of appointment — may lead some to inadvertently overstep the bounds of their appropriate authority as judicial agents.