August 19, 2021

“Congress Proposes New Additions to Ease Burden of Overworked Federal Judges”, Southern California Record, August 18, 2021

By Juliette Fairley | Aug 18, 2021

When Michael Zweiback worked as a prosecutor in the Central District of California, he noticed federal judges worked long hours and juggled an extremely large amount of cases.

“The working conditions of a federal judge are not great,” Zweiback told the Southern California Record. “They’re underpaid when compared to state judges and it’s a very high-pressure job.”

In fact, the number of weighted filings per judgeship for the Central District of California spiked to 691, which is an increase of 10% from 627 a year ago, according to the Central District’s annual report of caseload statistics. That’s compared to the national average of 535 weighted filings per judgeship.

“California’s caseloads, just like everywhere else in the country, have been crushingly high from the immigration cases that are pushed as a priority on the criminal side to the more complicated class action cases that you see filed in California all the time,” Zweiback said. “The complexity of the cases have gone up too and the judges in all of the districts in California certainly need some form of relief.”

The need for relief is being addressed by both the House and the Senate.

Last week, U.S. Senate Democrats introduced a bill that, if approved, would add 77 new district court seats while the House introduced a bill to add 203 new judges, according to media reports.

“The 203 number doesn’t bother me overall because when you spread that over 94 judicial districts, it’s really not a large increase with respect to the overall number of judges that we have in the federal judiciary,” Zweiback said.

Although federal judges enjoy the prestige of being appointed by the U.S. President and confirmed by the Senate, the number who commit to a 20-to-40 year career on the bench has diminished as the gulf between salary and resources widens, according to Zweiback.

“When judges look at the fact that they could go out into the private sector and work as arbitrators or mediators and make two or three times what they earn in the public sector, it becomes a much more difficult decision to remain in government service,” said Zweiback, a former assistant U.S. Attorney who served in Santa Ana, Riverside, and Los Angeles federal courts.

June 11, 2021

“Fighting Insider Abuse After Van Buren,” Lawfare, June 11, 2021

“Fighting Insider Abuse After Van Buren,” Lawfare, June 11, 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Van Buren v. United States on June 3 was a significant victory for civil liberties groups, researchers, the defense bar and others troubled by the broad reading of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) urged by the government. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett correctly, in our view, struck down the “broad” view of the CFAA in a 6-3 vote. The majority rejected the government’s expansive interpretation of the statute that would have empowered private companies, simply by the way they drafted employee policies or terms of service, to criminalize “a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity.” The Van Buren decision established that, going forward, to violate the CFAA, a user must access data from part of a device or network to which the user is not permitted access. This is a far steeper bar than the government’s preferred reading of the CFAA, which would have criminalized “misuse” of data—to which the user had authorized access—under policies dictated by the data owner…