Mickel ”Mike” Arias of Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos has a few thoughts on California's recent designation as the nation's premier ”Judicial Hellhole” by the American Tort Reform Association.

Arias, who this month took office as the president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, the nation's largest state-level plaintiffs lawyer group, spoke with The Recorder about what he makes of the “Hellhole” designation, whether he thinks the plaintiffs bar should make its own defense-friendly jurisdiction list, and what the CAOC's legislative priorities will be under the even-more-solidly Democratic legislature and Governor-Elect Gavin Newsom.

What follows has been edited for length and clarity.  

What do you make of California being No. 1 on ATRA's 'Judicial Hellhole' list?

So, it's interesting. It's not our first time there. We've been given this label for a while. Any time a verdict shows that a product was defective or that conduct was negligent or intentional, and a big damages award comes down it makes a jurisdiction a hellhole. They totally ignore the fact of the Seventh Amendment, which the founding fathers decided was the best way for us to resolve our disputes in this country—by a jury instead of having a king or one person decide things.

Whenever a jury finds for a plaintiff and it tends to be a large amount, it makes our state a bad state for justice. I ignore these things as I think most people do.

They now expand it beyond verdicts and laws and appellate court rulings to legislation that's enacted. Again, if you think about it, these are elected individuals who are put in place by the voters in their states for a reason. They've enacting legislation to protect consumers and victims. They don't focus on the legislation that's not favorable to consumers. They don't ever talk about that.

I read this year where Minnesota was included because of a [$850 million] settlement over groundwater contamination. I think you really have to understand what that organization that put the list together is about.

Have consumer attorneys considered coming up with their own list—one that highlights venues where they think defendants have the deck stacked in their favor?

I wouldn't ever advocate to do that. Every trial lawyer knows there are certain judges and certain jurisdictions that tend not to be favorable because of a particular political belief, or conservative versus progressive. We always do that. But I don't think [we should make such a list] because you're buying into that argument: You're buying into the argument that it's political or it's philosophical.

There are trial lawyers across this country, and I'm one of them, who have gone into jurisdictions where people will tell you it's a tough place to try a case and come out with a successful result because the case itself—the law, the facts—drove someone to believe, even someone who is conservative, that 'This is wrong.'

We should have confidence that if you have a good righteous case and you have good facts and good law you will prevail.

My friends across the country, when we try cases and lose, when I talk to them about their losses they'll tell you it was a tough case. It's a system. It works. I don't think I ever want to advocate to my brethren and sistren at other trial lawyers associations to do something similar. Cases should live and die on their own merits.

What's on deck for the CAOC this year? What are the priorities for your term as president?

My priorities are not just legislative. My priority is engagement by our members. I want to spend a lot of time getting lawyers from San Diego all the way up to the northern tip of California engaged in what CAOC offers to its members, and that's not just education and networking opportunities but to be actively involved in the legislative and political process.

CAOC has been very successful over the last few years getting pro-consumer and pro-victim legislation passed and getting the litigation system to be more efficient. We've worked very closely with the defense bar to figure out which procedural rules need to be adjusted to be consistent with the changing times in litigation.

I think with the composition of the Senate and Assembly in Sacramento, my hope is that we can get some of the legislation we've supported in the past passed. I'm not buying into 'We have three-quarters of the Assembly [who are Democrats] and two-thirds of the Senate' that things are going to be easy. Because many of those individuals aren't necessarily as pro-consumer as we'd like. But I think there's an opportunity with the governor who is more pro-civil justice than Jerry Brown was. I think there's an opportunity to enact some of this legislation that we've tried before that we think is needed. The #MeToo movement. Toxic environmental issues.

Everyone sort of assumes with the new makeup of the state legislature and Gavin Newsom coming into office that you and yours might find open ears in Sacramento. You don't think that's the case?

Gavin Newsom has a lot of constituents and a lot of issues he's going to be addressing. Health care is a big issue for him. Education. I think trial lawyers are advocates for that. I think most of our state advocates for that. Those are issues I think will take time both with the governor and with the legislature. How much time is left for civil justice, consumer protection? I'm hoping there's sufficient time to get those things addressed now.

My belief is that we have a longer horizon here to improve the rights of citizens in California. It doesn't have to happen all in one year. I think to be prudent you figure out the things that need to be addressed now and you prioritize those now.

Your partner Elise Sanguinetti is President of the American Association for Justice, the national plaintiffs trial bar. You led the L.A. consumer attorneys group before taking on the CAOC role. Why has your firm made a priority of holding these sorts of bar positions? 

It's just something that happened organically. It wasn't really planned. Elise and I had known each other for years, but we've only been partners for about three years. The best part is that our partners and our associates and our staff understand what it means to have a bigger impact beyond your own caseload. It's something that I think is just in our firm's blood. You can practice, you can focus on your own firm's cases and make money and so on and so forth. But it's a bigger picture than what just affects you personally. It's hard. I've had three trials this year. We have four offices. Trying to balance our firm's growth, managing that.

Will having this role with the Consumer Attorneys cause you to curtail your own courtroom activity in any way? What does your trial docket for 2019 look like?

My trial calendar for 2019 is as busy as it's ever been, but I have outstanding partners and associates and staff that I work with that help me prepare for those. I look at my trial calendar, and it's got literally 40 trials before the the mid-part of the year. Statistically, those won't all try. But they have to be worked up. I can make it work.

I don't want to shortchange the trial lawyers in California. So my No. 1 priority besides my clients is doing what I need to do for CAOC. But CAOC is a well-run organization without me. The staff there and the lobbyists are amazing. I'm more of a guardian or a manager or coordinator. It's not like I'm running a multimillion dollar company all by myself.