Fall 2011 • Issue 41, page 1
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang: Dedication, Civility and Eloquence on the Bench
By McFarland, Beverly*
The
Honorable Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, Superior Court of California, is
currently one of two civil law and motion judges managing receivership
cases in Sacramento County. RN’s Beverly McFarland recently spoke with
Judge Chang, who obtained her B.A. in International Studies from the
University of Washington in 1982 and her J.D. in 1985 from McGeorge School
of Law.
Government Service
Judge Chang’s path to the bench was illuminated by a desire for public
service. After pursuing her interests in international law at McGeorge,
she became a Trial Attorney (and later Senior Trial Attorney) in the
Office of Chief Counsel representing the IRS in civil and criminal tax
matters before federal District and U.S. Tax Courts. She was also
appointed as a Special Assistant United States Attorney representing the
IRS before the federal Bankruptcy Courts. She then joined the Office of
the Attorney General of the State of California; among her accomplishments
as advocate for the State, she obtained a $63,000,000 recovery against a
major Wall Street investment banking firm, the largest civil settlement
ever paid in the firm’s 100-year history.
Judge Chang left the Office of the Attorney General to serve as Senior
Deputy (and later Chief Deputy) Legal Affairs Secretary to Governor Gray
Davis, supervising and advising state officers, agencies and departments
in litigation, legislation, government ethics, and other legal matters.
During her tenure, among other things, Judge Chang reviewed parole and
extradition decisions, and represented the Governor in the Proposition 187
mediation and Class III gaming compact negotiations with Native American
tribes.
Appointment to the Bench
Governor Davis appointed Judge Chang to the Superior Court bench in 2003.
Initially her case load was dominated by felony and misdemeanor criminal
arraignments and jury trials. Now, in her civil law and motion department,
she hears and decides a wide variety of pre-trial matters including
discovery motions, petitions to compel arbitration, demurrers, motions for
summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, anti-SLAPP motions, writs
of possession/attachment, and applications for temporary restraining
orders and preliminary injunctions.
In our conversation, I asked Judge Chang what prompted her to become a
judge, and how she become interested in receivership cases. She replied:
“Becoming a judge allowed me to continue to serve the public. From the
bench, you are required to examine the arguments and interests of all
parties and reach a resolution. Receivership cases involve a broad range
of skills and interests -- not just making legal decisions, but making
decisions that consider all interests, with creativity and the chance to
do the right thing.”
Receiverships and Receivers
Judge Chang observed that receiverships in California resemble cases under
the federal Bankruptcy Code in many respects, with competing creditors
generally at odds with the debtor and each other; while hewing to the law,
the Court’s decisions must also view the matter from a practical business
standpoint to preserve asset values and balance the rights of the parties.
Judge Chang said, “I try to make decisions to advance everyone’s
interests, and I approach each receivership an opportunity to
problem-solve considering both legal and business constraints.” It became
clear that prior to ruling on a receivership dispute, she devotes
considerable time and effort to this balance of concerns.
I asked about the receivership cases that Judge Chang and her colleague,
Judge David Brown (the newest member of the Law and Motion Departments),
were seeing at this time in Sacramento County Superior Court. Each Law and
Motion Department hears over 100 cases in a typical week, of which an
estimated 10% are receiverships. Judge Chang noted until around September
2011, when receivership filings slowed overall, equity receiverships
accounted for about 70% of those cases, with rents and profits
receiverships at about 30%.
Judge Chang stressed that the receivers she appoints are her agents,
expected to provide service at a fair cost and make decisions without
compromising their neutrality. If a receiver requires counsel for “good
reasons”, Judge Chang said she generally approves that request. However,
she requires as much information as possible in the application for
employment, clearly stating the need for legal representation, the scope
of work required, terms of payment, and expected cost.
Changing Attitudes in the Courtroom
Judge Chang told me that over the past few years, she has witnessed a
change in the level of professionalism and civility in the courtroom among
counsel of all ages and levels of experience: “Old-school civility”
appears to be fading. Her advice to counsel is to be respectful and
courteous. It is never wise to interrupt the judge or opposing counsel, or
to be rude or “pushy” with court staff – such behavior is unacceptable and
counterproductive.
What Others Have to Say
I requested comments about Judge Chang from two very experienced members
of the Sacramento legal community – an attorney and a receiver, both of
whom often appear in her courtroom.
The receiver’s comments: “Judge Chang is supportive of the receivers she
appoints and has a clear expectation that you will bring a high level of
professionalism and ethics to the task. Like most judges, she does not
like to be surprised by her receivers, nor embarrassed by their work. She
has always been conscientious, informed and “up to speed” on the cases in
addition to having obvious experience in adjudicating receivership law.”
The attorney’s comments: “I think that Judge Chang in the receivership
context is extremely fair and does not appoint a receiver without careful
thought and investigation, and she acts without bias. She is careful to
explain her reasoning to all parties. Judge Chang also takes an active
interest in receivership sales. She is rigid when it comes to application
of state and local rules, so be sure to be extremely prepared in her
courtroom.”
A previous article in Sacramento Lawyer described Judge Chang as
soft-spoken, unpretentious, eminently gracious, and friendly. I have
always found her to be an eloquent speaker, very smart, and sincere. And
to add to that list, she has willingly given her time to educate our
community at the California Receivers Forum, law and practice seminars at
Loyola Law School, and other local programs.
Personal Notes
Judge Chang is married to Keith Yamanaka, a lawyer who is the Chief Deputy
Director of the California Student Aid Commission, the state agency that
administers the Cal Grant Program and other higher education financial aid
for California high school students. She is very proud of her daughter,
Midshipman 3rd Class Alexandra Chang. Alexandra is in her second year at
the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, having been
nominated to the academy by U.S. Congresswoman Doris Matsui, and is now
studying to be a surface warfare officer.
Knowing that she had received numerous awards for outstanding achievement
in community service and other activities on and off the bench, I asked
Judge Chang whether she had any spare time for hobbies. She responded with
a big smile and excitement, “Golf, and I am totally addicted to it!” She
also told me that she enjoys reading fiction and history books, and she
has another hobby after my own heart -- cooking and baking.
As I always say, if you want something done well, find a very busy woman
to do the job. Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang is a great example for all of
us.
*Beverly N. McFarland has four
decades of real estate and business experience, serves as a court
appointed receiver, Chapter 11 Trustee and is the CEO of an asset
management company, The Beverly Group, Inc., located in the Sacramento
region as well as the Northern California coastal area. Ms. McFarland is a
founding member and past chair of the California Receivers Forum (CRF) and
the Sacramento Valley Chapter, has participated and instructed at all four
Loyola Law School Law and Practice seminars sponsored by CRF. She is also
a member of the CRF Bay Area Chapter and serves on the Northern California
Board of the Turnaround Managers Association. The opinions expressed in
this article reflect her experiences only and may vary greatly from others
according to the circumstances surrounding the plan to be administered.
|