Hon. Richard Curtis, Comm.
Education
A.B. – Stanford University, 1966
J.D. – UCLA School of Law, 1969
1982-2008 Commissioner, Los Angeles County Superior Court
Appointed November 1982; Family Law departments 1983-2003 and 2006-2008
After serving part of a year in 1983 on the Juvenile Delinquency bench
in Sylmar, Commissioner Curtis was chosen as one of two commissioners to
open the Family Law Departments in the then-brand new North Central
District (San Fernando 1983-84). He served a year in the Southeast
District (Norwalk 1985) and two lengthy assignments in the East District
(Pomona 1986-1994) and North Central District (Burbank 1994-2000). In
2001 he was assigned to the Central District (Mosk courthouse). He
served on the court's Automation Committee (Subcommittee on Public
Access) and the Family Law Committee (Subcommittees on Legislation,
Family Court Services, and Family Law Webpage [co-chair]). The
co-drafter of an unadopted 1994 bill to govern "move away" litigation,
the objectives of which were since vindicated in In re Marriage of Brown
and Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, 960-961, he has testified in the State
Capitol on a number of measures relating to Family Law and procedure.
He has authored tracts on “Credits Relating to Use of Family Residence”
(2003) and “California’s Child Support Machine: Reflections on
California’s Unfortunate Choice of a Complex, Net-Income Based Child
Support Guideline and Its Unjustifiable Cost to Ordinary Family Law
Litigants” (2008) that have appeared in Los Angeles County Bar
Association publications. He has served on many bar/bench Family Law
panels over the years. Most recently he was on the drafting subcommittee
of the joint bar/bench committee that produced the Los Angeles County
model appointment order for Parenting Plan Coordinators (special
masters) to be used for intensely conflicted child custody cases.
His proudest achievement came after he produced his “Domestic Relations
Reading List” booklet in 1991-1993. The booklet was a compilation of his
thumbnail reviews of various books of interest to dissolving and
reconstituting families which were sprinkled with his own personal
observations from his experiences on the bench. His comments about the
books were designed to get people to think about their lives and about
more peaceful and satisfying choices they could make for their and their
children’s futures than to engage in litigation.
Partially as a result of creating the Reading List, in 1994 he was
presented with the Warren Burger “Peacemaker” Award by the National
Council on Children’s Rights. The award is given each year to lawyers
and judges who uphold Justice Burger’s admonition that the legal
profession owes the public a duty to heal the wounds of litigation and
not to deepen them.
Commissioner Curtis brings his passion for achieving peaceful
resolutions to his new career as a private Family Law neutral.
1981-1982 Sole Practitioner
General civil and criminal trials and appeals.
1970-1981 Deputy Public Defender
1970-1976 Los Angeles County
1977-1981 State of California
• Specialized in Criminal Appeals during 11 years of public practice
• Principal experience was in Court of Appeal and Supreme Court
• Published cases of note: People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303
[death sentence reversed]; People v. Atchison (1978) 22 Cal.3d 181
[instructional error amicus brief]; People v. Borunda (1974) 11 Cal.3d
523 [material witness disclosure]; People v. Garcia (1978) 86 Cal.
App.3d 314 [invalid punishment; firearm instructional error]; People v.
Stevenson (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 976 [diminshed capacity instructional
error]; People v. Bruce (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 580 [invalid knock-notice
entry]; People v. Bremmer (1972) 30 Cal.App.3d 1058 [insufficient
grounds to search probationer]; People v. Abdon (1973) 30 Cal. App.3d
972 [invalid forced entry to serve warrant]; Finley v. Superior Court
(1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 342 [expert report for consultation purposes is
subject to attorney-client privilege]; People v. Mercurio (1970) 10
Cal.App.3d 426 [booking search of arrestee on traffic infraction
improper when s/he is not taken first before a magistrate].
This page was last modified in June 2008
Disclaimer: Please be advised that the contents of this web site and any other statements contained herein are for informational purposes only and are not intended to be represented as legal advice in any way.