Episode 28: Senator Tom Umberg on California's Legislative Challenges and Bipartisanship Opportunities.

What makes California's legislative environment a breeding ground for cooperation, even amidst political supermajorities? Join us as we promise a deeper understanding of the unique dynamics within the California Senate, courtesy of our conversation with State Senator Tom Umberg. With his extensive background as a federal criminal prosecutor and former deputy drug czar, Senator Umberg shares his insightful perspective on the camaraderie and collaboration that define California's government—an intriguing contrast to the often divisive U.S. House of Representatives. Together, we unpack the strategies behind bipartisan efforts to tackle issues like the Los Angeles fires, shedding light on how working across party lines can lead to effective crisis management.

In addition to legislative cooperation, our discussion takes a hard look at the state's proactive stance on critical issues like climate change and criminal justice reform. We examine the implications of Proposition 36 with its introduction of Alexandra's Law, aiming to reshape accountability in fentanyl distribution and retail theft, while providing pathways for rehabilitation and second chances. California's determination to maintain autonomy in setting standards for climate and reproductive rights becomes a focal point, as we explore whether these measures are well-calculated defenses or perhaps overzealous reactions. In addition, we'll have a little fun and get to know Senator Umberg on a more personal level as we do our rapid fire favorites with our guests. This episode promises a comprehensive exploration of how California navigates its legislative challenges, offering thought-provoking insights into the balance between preparation and overreaction in policy-making.

If you enjoy hearing what we have to say, albeit somewhat irreverent and rarely do we agree, please subscribe or follow and us and leave a comment. We would love to hear from you.
To learn more about John Kabateck's firm visit Kabateck Strategies
To learn more about Brian's firm visit KBK Law

Transcript

Senator Tom Umberg: [00:00:00] What I'm interested in is protecting Californians. And so, to the extent that the federal government wants to change our ability to set our own emissions standards to the extent the federal government says that they're going to change our ability to protect reproductive rights to the extent that the federal government says that they're going to withhold education funding because of certain subjects that are taught or not taught in class.

I do think that we want to protect Californians in that respect. Hey,

Brian Kabateck: Kabatalks. This is Brian Kabateck, the shorter, much funnier Kabateck brother, and the one that is slightly to the left of center. 

John Kabateck: And this is John Kabateck. I am the slightly right center. I am a little taller. I have a little more altitude. Brian's got more [00:01:00] attitude. But I'm the California State Director of the National Federation of Independent Business, Small Business Group, and President of Kabateck Strategies.

Brian Kabateck: So, John, why don't you introduce our very special guest today? 

John Kabateck: Yeah, this is a great day. Really excited. Brian and I are very excited to welcome our very good mutual friend, State Senator Tom Umberg. Boy, his, his pedigree is amazing. Retired U. S. Army colonel, a former federal criminal prosecutor, actually where he has tried over a hundred cases to verdict or judgment.

He is actually, was the deputy drug czar for President Bill Clinton, where he fought to combat the drug war, both here and, and, and drugs coming in from other countries. And really impressive, a four-term legislator, representing a significant portion of Orange County, uh, where he has always worked, and Brian and I know this, worked across party lines, has authored 76 laws to help businesses, consumers, veterans, communities, uh, always been there.

to fight for Californians. And very recently, congratulations Senator, [00:02:00] he received the Los Angeles County Bar Association's 2025 Shattuck Price Outstanding Lawyer Award for his commitment to justice. So that's awesome. I know Brian was the chair of that at one time. President. President, excuse me.

President. President 

Brian Kabateck: of the Los Angeles County Bar. I was. 

John Kabateck: President of the United States. 

Brian Kabateck: I was also president of my senior class in high school, which I'm very proud of. 

John Kabateck: How about President of the United States, Brian? Not yet. See what else he's got. Not yet. And he has served as, recently, for many years, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Brian and I have both testified, actually on opposite sides of the tables.

Shocking. At one time. Shocking. Shocking. And most important, he is married to a brigadier general, his wife, Robin, and they have three children, seven grandchildren. Welcome, Senator and Colonel Tom Lumber. Great to have you. 

Brian Kabateck: Well, hey, Senator, before we get started, I just a quick question for you, though, is did you?

You did run for insurance commissioner a long time ago, didn't you? 

Senator Tom Umberg: Gosh, thank you very much for bringing that up, Brian. Yes, that's one of the races [00:03:00] I lost. 

Brian Kabateck: Well, yeah, but I know I supported you and I remember that very well. That was a long time ago and you know, all I can say, you don't have to comment on this, is that that position is going to be open again soon, and I wholeheartedly support and endorse you if you decided to run in that direction.

Senator Tom Umberg: That's, that's very kind of you, and it's very kind of you. The Kabateck brothers to have me on your podcast because both of you have contributed to the quality of life here in California in different worlds and different spaces. But I'm grateful for your passion for Californians and improving again.

We're sort of in the same business, proving the quality of life, whether it's economically or access to justice. You guys have been wonderful, so thank you. I'm pleased to be here. Yeah, 

Brian Kabateck: and life would be so much better in California if my brother would just get out of politics. Right? 

John Kabateck: You know what, Brian?

We're gonna have to talk. Right now. 

Brian Kabateck: It's time you reconsider that kind job offer [00:04:00] that McDonald's made you, John. 

John Kabateck: Amway. Amway. Okay. 

Brian Kabateck: Let's get started. Yeah. Well, thank you guys. Yes. Let's jump in. Let's jump in and talk about some, you know, hot and interesting topics. 

John Kabateck: John, 

Brian Kabateck: what's up? 

John Kabateck: Absolutely. Well, I think one of the things we want to kick it off is actually what I'd like to begin with is, you know, a little bit of your thoughts, you know, as you've been in the legislature for quite a while now and doing some great things.

Uh, giving a quick glance, you know, at this new legislature. You know, Republicans are still going to be in the super minority for a long time. We can all fit in a phone booth. I get that, Brian. Thank you. If there are still phone booths. But tell us, Senator, you know, is there a chance for both sides to get some stuff done this year?

And if so, kind of where do you see in at least a couple areas of commonality? 

Senator Tom Umberg: So, John, I, I've been in and out of the legislature since 1990, so I've seen a lot of change, some for the good and some for the not so good. I actually was in the legislature when the Republicans took control of the assembly.[00:05:00] 

And you're right, both houses now have a supermajority of Democrats. And when I mentioned to my colleagues that I have lived experience with Republicans taking control of one of the houses of the legislature, it is. It's akin to me talking about when Martians invaded the earth. It has the same sort of reaction.

I just had this conversation yesterday and, and I'm in the Senate and there's 40 of us in the Senate. There are 10 Republicans and 30 Democrats actually it's, it's down cause it was 32 Democrats and eight Republicans just a year ago, but nevertheless, it's still a super majority by, by the Democrats. One of the differences in the Senate, State Senate from the House of Representatives in Washington is that we spend a lot of time together and we know one another quite well.

We sit next to one another for long periods of time and We do not engage in personal sort of, uh, personal attacks. It just [00:06:00] doesn't happen. And, you know, part of it is because of the close physical proximity, and maybe part of it is because the Democrats have an overwhelming majority, so there's no real reason to sort of engage in, in sort of personal acrimony.

But, but as a consequence of that, we do get things done together. And, and a good example is going, is and is going to be with respect to the fires in Los Angeles, a catastrophe that I think is unprecedented here, at least since 1906 in terms of its impact on California. And I think that, that we are going to work together.

We have a challenge. We have a huge challenge that challenges how we're going to provide. Support, sustenance and rebuilding for all those folks out to the end of the Pacific Palisades and around and in light of the change in administration in Washington, what does that mean? What that means maybe is that we're going to [00:07:00] have to really fight harder in Washington just to sort of maintain California's position as deserving of the same kind of treatment as, as other states, because the president is not fond of California.

And so the Republicans in the legislature and the Republicans in the house of representatives. Are going to be critical in making sure that California basically gets treated just like other states when there's a huge natural disaster. So, to your question, can we work together? Yes. Are we working together?

Yes. Is it critical that we work together irrespective of the fact that we have a super majority, Democrats do. Absolutely. 

Brian Kabateck: Hey, you know, I want to, I want to jump in on the fire issue because this is something I've talked about with my brother, and I don't think John actually disagrees with me on this. I think it is, it is fundamentally irresponsible of Trump to do things like blame Newsom for the fires, talk about, you know, the, the, this invented water pact.

And it's not just that it's [00:08:00] politically irresponsible, it's actually Harmful to the victims when you do something like that. It just, it just makes these poor people who've lost everything. And you know, I live five miles from the Altadena fire. I have a lot of people I know who lost homes. One of my partners almost lost her home.

They can't live there now because of the conditions. And when you come out and say things like, you know, it's because they didn't send the water, there's some funky water packed or it's the smelt fish. It's just disrespectful to them. Yeah. You know, that's, that's, that's my own personal, 

Senator Tom Umberg: so. I, I did not vote for Donald Trump.

I campaigned very hard to keep him from becoming president. And having said that, a couple things. One is the nearly 40 percent of Californians did vote for him. So, I need to understand exactly what, what, what the issue was for all those Californians who did support him, number one. And number two is [00:09:00] that in terms of your question about misinformation and it being harmful, I Couldn't agree more.

You know, the misinformation is extremely disheartening, but also creates for bad policy, both. It creates for bad policy in Washington and creates crates for bad policy in California by misleading Californians to believe that somehow, because there was some valve not turned on somewhere, that that exacerbated the fires.

That is just completely false. And the fact that we didn't rake the forest enough somehow contributed to the devastation is. It's not just false, but it's, it's farcical and that, that really creates misimpression among, among Californians and linking disaster relief. These poor folks, they deserve to be treated just like folks in other states who have been [00:10:00] victimized by natural disasters and, and suggesting that somehow, you know, requiring IDs for voter registration has something to do with the fires is.

Is absolutely ridiculous. And that's why back to my earlier question or suggestion is that's why we need Republicans. We need Republicans here in California and in Washington, D C to stand up and say, we deserve to be treated just like every other state. And so I'm, when I, when I see and hear the president say things that are patently false, it makes me very, very sad.

John Kabateck: Senator, and I, I, Brian and I talked about this on a recent podcast. I don't disagree with that issue. I think water policy is very complicated. People need to understand it to really talk about it. I think there's plenty of blame or responsibility to be passed around in terms of how to do this better, how things did go wrong and as it relates to water.

But I don't point it there. But I also told Brian on this last one and I wanted to get your thoughts. You know, I know that there's also people are [00:11:00] introducing things and kind of ready fire aim fashion on the other side. You know, I think Senator Wiener and you don't have to state your position on this yet because I know it's still kind of moving through, but Senator Wiener introduced a bill that basically is holding big oil accountable for failing to mitigate the climate change issue and thereby kind of rendering a lot of blame and responsibility and lawsuits to follow if this passes.

for them for the wildfires. So I think again, I think that's irresponsible. And I've heard from people on the left that think that this kind of legislation is similar to Donald Trump. Not really understanding this but also doing a ready fire in approach. 

Senator Tom Umberg: So yes, John, I have read about that legislation. I haven't actually seen it.

It will come to the committee that I chaired Judiciary 

John Kabateck: Committee. 

Senator Tom Umberg: And I suppose putting my committee. both public policy as well as lawyer hat on is that what I look for in legislation is a causal connection and how connected two things [00:12:00] are. I believe that Climate change is a, humans have contributed significantly to climate change.

I believe that the internal combustion engines contribute to climate change. And whether the oil companies, there's a, they are the proximate cause, and that's a term that Brian will understand, whether the oil companies are the proximate cause of the devastation in L. A. County, I think that's a, that may, that may be reach.

So I need to study this and figure it out, but. Yes, it will be controversial, and I will look to see the, whether or not they are the proximate cause of the devastation. 

Brian Kabateck: Well, and as I, as I've said before, John, I think that, you know, you don't necessarily need legislation if there is a causal link between a wrongdoer and an effect.

But where my brother and I have a very strong disagreement on is the fact that California. [00:13:00] In my opinion should be prepared and did prepare before January 20th for things that the Trump administration is doing currently. And, you know, this, this podcast is being recorded, I think, the day after I learned that, that Attorney General Bonta plans to run for reelection, not for governor, I think it's very important that California be prepared for this.

I think it's the Trump administration, although I don't think anything they've done in Washington Should come as a surprise with the possible exception of the January 6th pardons, which is still shocking to me on a very personal level. I think that we have to be prepared for the craziness that is going to continue to come out of that administration.

And I think it's extremely important that, you know, not just the legislature, but the Attorney General and the courts be there to protect us from the kind of insanity we're seeing. 

Senator Tom Umberg: Well, I, I couldn't agree more. The question is going to be, you know, [00:14:00] California, let's just take an example of this whole issue concerning birthright citizenship.

That has not been a question for the last hundred and seven Probably 50 years that as to whether someone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States I think it was in the 1860s that that was resolved in the Constitution and so to the extent that the administration wants to Revoke the citizenship of those who are born here in the United States.

That's and, and we will, and we are going to going to fight that in the courts. The question is whether the courts are going to basically cave to the administration, and I pray they're not. And just as by way of example, in 2000. In 20, it was the Republican judges, it was Republican legislators and other states that stood up to Donald Trump to say you did [00:15:00] not.

I mean, that basically ratified the truth that that he did not win the election. So the essential question here is, are the courts going to rule? Basically, stand up as they did before, and it's largely Republican judges that need to stand up. And then secondly, whether or not the rule of law is going to prevail.

So if the courts say, hey listen, you cannot deport folks who were born here in the United States, because they are citizens of the United States. And if the Trump administration says, you know what, we're not going to, we're not going to basically follow the orders and rulings of the court, that's going to create a constitutional crisis that we've not seen since the early 1800s.

Brian Kabateck: Well, and I think this is one of the theories that's out there right now, which is that some of the things that Trump administration are doing are specifically designed to climb up to the United States Supreme Court to see what their reaction is going to be. And you know, what a six three majority is going to do.

Senator Tom Umberg: Yeah, I, I [00:16:00] maybe have. A misplaced sense of confidence that the Supreme Court will actually follow both the constitution and the precedents that's been set for over a hundred years on birthright citizenship. And the same thing goes for some other issues, whether it's reproductive rights or. Or climate change and how we in California have set our own standards for climate.

We have our own standards for reproductive rights, and we should. I mean, I realize that, you know, those of us who are Children of the sixties suggesting that states should have independent rights that that's an anathema to many folks. But I think that that That's actually true here in California that we should be able to set our own climate standards.

We should be able to set our own reproductive standards. We should be able to basically decide who in terms of, you know, for example, issues like same sex marriage that we, we should, we should be able to decide on our own here. Well, actually back to same sex marriage. I actually think that's the, [00:17:00] that, that is a.

Constitutional right to marry whomever you love. So, 

John Kabateck: well, I appreciate that. I, my argument with Brian was on this issue was that I think, and I think we almost wanted to turn it into a drinking game, Senator, because I was saying the phrase, the, the, the Trump proofing special session and the absurdity of it so many times on previous podcast that we've done.

But I do feel it's a lot of theater. I think there's a lot of overreaction on this in many ways. I think that these are tax dollars that especially as we have a very fragile budget right now with the wildfires, our tax dollars going to things that have not yet happened yet. In my opinion, and I think the opinion of a lot of small business owners, and I talked to you is, is those are our dollars without knowing what's happening yet.

And then the other part of it is, I think, you know, this was just a lot of circus, a lot of theater, even the super right rag known as the San Francisco Chronicle this morning, I read themselves deemed it in an opinion article as a circus. So this, this, this, this kind of Trump [00:18:00] proofing thing, I think it's kind of petered out there.

Are there areas where we petered out? Absolutely. 

Brian Kabateck: Oh, 

John Kabateck: no, John. It's just 

Brian Kabateck: getting started. No, 

John Kabateck: absolutely. In fact, it's cooled off to a degree, but I think, Frank, but I also will say on the flip side of that, we, I've learned that there's 50 million going towards a kind of this so-called Trump proofing. But anyway, I will tell you, Chronicle calls it a bullshit.

Senator Tom Umberg: We should, I think we perhaps did get off on the wrong foot. I've tried not to use that terminology of, of Trump proofing. What? What I'm interested in is protecting Californians and so to the extent that the federal government wants to Change our ability to set our own emission standards to the extent the federal government says that that they are going to Change our ability to protect reproductive rights to the extent that the federal government says that they're going to for example withhold education funding because of [00:19:00] certain Subjects that are taught or not taught in class.

I do think that, that we want to protect Californians in that respect. And so I'm, I am supportive of protecting Californians. I don't think we should make it about, you know, one person or make it about sort of creating, demonstrating that, that we are anti Trump. As I said earlier, there are a lot of Californians that voted for Donald Trump.

I was not among them, but there are a lot of Californians that voted for Donald Trump. 

John Kabateck: And in fairness to Governor Newsom, I guess I, I also read this morning, he's, he's making his way to Washington for some meetings with the president. So that we hope that good comes from that. May I switch a little bit closer to home on something else, Senator, that you have been and thank you, a fiercely positive advocate for throughout this last session of this last election cycle, rather, and that's Prop 36, the, the, uh, overwhelmingly supported retail theft measure, but also did a number of things, as you know, with your drug.

It was our background to help fix the fentanyl crisis, or at least go in [00:20:00] that direction. Love your thoughts, but I also want to say a big thank you. I think Brian, myself, folks on the left, the right, you, your leadership and your support in that area. And now seeing that it's hopefully to be implemented have been stellar.

And we thank you for that. But love your thoughts on it, kind of where you see things going and will the locals enforce it. 

Senator Tom Umberg: John, that's a, that's a great question. And it's a question that, that I'm wrestling with. Today. I mean, so for your listeners, Prop 36 was on the ballot passed by overwhelming majority.

68. 5 percent of Californians voted for Proposition 36 and it did three things. One, it as part of it called Alexandra's law said that if you distribute fentanyl, whether you knew it was fentanyl or not, let's say it was Percocet laced with fentanyl. You didn't know it had fentanyl and you distribute it and you're convicted.

The judge says, Hey, okay. Buddy, you distributed fentanyl. Now you know, whether you knew it or not at the time, you now know that what you [00:21:00] distributed is fentanyl. If you do it again and someone dies, you can be charged with a homicide. Simply a warning, just like we do with DUIs. So that's part of it. Next part of it says, in terms of retail theft, that if you steal, the current law basically says, not the current law, the law prior to Prop 36, just a month or so ago, you basically could steal it to 950 every day for a month.

for your entire life. And really, it's only a misdemeanor really never get prosecuted. This simply says, look at if you if you steal from if you shoplift or steal, those values could be basically They can be cumulative, and you can get charged with a felony. And then lastly, that certain drug possession, if you're charged and convicted of drug possession repeatedly, that you have an opportunity.

And actually, I think a right to go to drug treatment. And those are all three related parts because they all relate to issues concerning crime, homelessness, [00:22:00] and substance abuse. And yes, you're right. I, I was a big supporter of it. I. I think the legislature; we should have learned a lesson because I had a bill that basically mirrored Prop 36 because there's still issues that need to be worked out in Prop 36.

There are some ambiguities. There's no funding source identified that we need to do. And now we're in a tight bind here fiscally, but the voters. sent a clear message that we need to fund in this, this part of the proposition, drug treatment. And, and I am a huge believer in what we call collaborative courts or drug treatment courts that for long term public safety, if someone has a substance abuse problem, you have to address the underlying problem, or you're going to continue to deal with crime and homelessness and all sorts of other societal ills.

So. I, I am working right now with various stakeholders, including the courts, to, to figure out a way where, where [00:23:00] every Californian who would be eligible for drug treatment can get drug treatment, decent drug treatment, to help to mitigate, we're never going to, never going to completely eliminate substance abuse, we're never going to eliminate crime, but to, to mitigate and to reduce the incidence.

Sorry for the long-winded response, but this is a huge issue. 

Brian Kabateck: Well, I think my brother and I, we agree on this, but I think what a brother and I have some disagreement is I consistently say every time we bring up crime issues and, and, you know, as a former federal prosecutor, you probably agree with this is that a lot of crime is result of, of immaturity.

It's, it's a young person's game. You know, there's, there's a lot of white-collar stuff out there, which isn't, there's a lot of bad stuff out there, which isn't, but in my opinion, we just need to do more. And we need to do more making sure that they've got, you know, preschool, that they've got education, that they've got people that they can look [00:24:00] up to that teach them the right way to act in society.

You know, I, I, I don't want to put words in John's mouth, but I think a lot of it with John is, you know, punish and deter and, and go after these people and when they, when they do bad things, slap them down and that's all fine. But I just think we need to do more when it comes to, 

John Kabateck: you know, young people, children, Brian.

Well, first of all, Senator, just a quick. interlude here on this is that I, we, I do agree with you on that, Brian. I do agree in that. And I do actually think Prop 36 addresses maybe not the children's side of things, but I think the, certainly the diversion programs and the opportunity for some rehabilitation pathways.

But I think I, I very much do agree with you that there, we need to back this up. Challenge we had is, you know, we helped create, be, we were a part of a coalition several years ago called Californians Against Retail and Residential. theft cart. And we met with a number of members, including Assembly Public Safety Chair Reggie Zones [00:25:00] Sawyer back down at his office near USC.

And his answer to us when we said these shoplifting and these problems in communities are a problem, he said, well, I think really, we leave it up to the aunt, the sister, the parent to kind of wrap their child on the knuckles when they steal that candy bar. And that will, that should deter. I don't want to completely put words in his mouth.

But we were all kind of shocked because it's got to be more than that. There does have to be accountability in addition to a pathway to give these kids better parents, better mentors and better education. 

Senator Tom Umberg: So this is a very complex issue and intervention early on and having a good education and having, you know, folks who care about you is probably the best thing we can do to prevent crime.

That's You know, far and away the best thing. Now, when we have someone, let's just take shoplifting as an example. Is that, when you have someone who shoplifts 500, that's more than a candy bar. I [00:26:00] do believe they should be given a second chance, and that's sort of the system that we had with collaborative courts.

So, courts, if you shoplifted 500 and the DA charged you with a felony, many places in California, the court would say, you can go to collaborative court, you can go to a court that is going to kick your ass. It's going to require drug testing; it's going to require you to demonstrate that you are basically on a different path.

That you're, you've got a job, you're going to complete your education, or whatever it is. And that's the choice, you can take the felony, or you can go to a collaborative court. But with the change in the law, if you're confronted with a question or a decision where the court says you can get your, obviously this is not in law, but I'll use this term, you can get your ass kicked for the next year and have to demonstrate that you are.

I'm refraining [00:27:00] from uses of illegal drugs. You are getting a job, you are completing your education, or you could do nothing and the result is the same. The people simply say, fine, I'm not going to do this. So, I will just have my conviction, my, my, I will have everything dismissed in a year and I don't want to do this stuff.

What Prop 36 does is it gives. Individuals, an incentive basically to go back to collaborative courts. It gives folks an incentive to get on the straight and narrow. And so there's, it's a, it's a combination of carrots and sticks. And, and to your point about, you know, the chair of assembly public safety. I do think that by taking away the stick, we've removed the motivation.

So prop 36 In theory, and I hope it works out that way, provides that stick again, so it motivates folks to go to a collaborative court and get their act together. 

John Kabateck: Senator, I do have one question for you about the enforcement and the implementation because what we hear from our, our coalition [00:28:00] partners that led up to this and through 36 is they still want, they still want to be very involved in keeping a close eye and holding these local DAs and counties.

Employees, a lot of the time it's just the worker, worker bees at the DA's offices and elsewhere. Do you, do you feel that knowing the DA system very well and the legal system locally, do you have concerns, you have thoughts, you have confidence that, that a lot of this will get carried out? 

Senator Tom Umberg: Well, of course I have concerns.

You know, we pass laws and it's up to others to enforce those laws and, and how well or how poorly they enforce those laws is, is a constant concern. Prop 36 gives DA's a tool, gives the courts a tool to, to address this issue, but whether they use that tool or not. Is still an open question, John. So I will be to the extent that I have a bully pulpit.

I will be sort of watching and calling out folks who aren't using it [00:29:00] effectively. And if somebody abuses it, same thing, you know, we don't want folks to abuse it. either. 

Brian Kabateck: Look, Tom, let me, let me pivot from criminal courts to civil courts. And I think this is something that you and I both have a passionate feeling about as a, you know, me as a civil trial lawyer.

I just think that our civil justice system is too complex. I think there's some responsibility with the courts. There's just some responsibility with the legislature. And you know, as I've said before, no one should pay 100, 000 to litigate a 200, 000 dispute. And you've been a champion of this. You've been, you've been on top of this and I think you and I probably from the same sources have gotten similar pushback.

What's, what's on the horizon for this? 

Senator Tom Umberg: So this is very wonky, but I have been for the last several years focused on making sure that that individuals that have a dispute can get that dispute resolved on the merits. [00:30:00] And it's not resources that become determinative. And I actually was for most of my career as a lawyer.

I've been on the defense side and What's evolved in our system is litigation has become so expensive that, you know, if you've got a, you've got a 50, 000 dispute, you can't get it resolved. And that's unfair. That's unfair to small business, unfair to individuals. And. So I, I've endeavored to reduce the cost of litigation by doing a whole number of things, remote access, allowing folks to be able to testify remotely, allowing people to take depositions remotely, allowing for courts to hold hearings remotely, allowing for, and this is way wonky, and is, is There's a whole process before you get to trial called discovery, which can be unbelievably expensive and has been abused to be able to basically, and I, my view is to quash the party with the, with, with limited [00:31:00] resources.

And I've, I've tried to change that now by, by providing, you know, this is extremely wonky, but taking a federal rule, federal 26 and trying to apply it to our state practice too. Provide for early exchange of information, so you don't have to go through motion practice and all those things that are very, very expensive.

And, and now it's up to the courts and the lawyers to actually use that. But there are some, some folks who don't want to use it. Some folks who actually think they benefit from the expense of litigation. And that's, that's really unfortunate. And I, I am hopeful that judges sanction lawyers who abuse the system.

I really would like to see judges really enforcing sanctions for lawyers who are abusive. 

Brian Kabateck: There just has to be a way that these smaller cases can get tried faster and for less money if they're going to go to trial at all. And, you know, one of the things I tried to work [00:32:00] on when I was on the Judicial Council Civil Committee was an idea that, that if you opted into a particular program, you would get an expedited trial.

And I got resistance from both the defense and the plaintiff's bar. I mean, I think that Part of the problem, frankly, and this is super wonky, and I apologize to our eight, our eight listeners right now. Nine. We used to have nine, by the way, until our mom passed away, but now we have eight. And we, we just feel that, that I think this system is so institutionalized, the civil justice system.

So, like judges have a certain mindset, lawyers have a certain mindset. It's very hard to break out of that. Anyway, that's less of a question and more of a statement. 

Senator Tom Umberg: I, I, I agree. It's up to the judges now to break out of that mindset, to say, look it, we're going to enforce vigorously and rigorously and enforce the law in terms of the abuse of discovery.

So. [00:33:00] 

John Kabateck: Good discussion. Sorry, John. I would have contributed more, but my LSAT score resulted in me going to volunteer for Pete Wilson for governor. The road not taken, but it was fascinating to hear. 

Senator Tom Umberg: Well, you're, you're contributing in other, I, and I'm serious, you have contributed other spaces, you know, your advocacy, small businesses, what drives, what really drives our economy here and your contribution in that space is, is extremely important.

Brian Kabateck: Yeah, well, all three of us own small businesses, so, you know, we know what 

John Kabateck: it's like. That's very true. All right, 

Brian Kabateck: John, let's wrap up. Yeah, awesome. Well, we want to do our usual, Brian, a little bit. We haven't done it in a while, but we can do it because Senator Umbrich is sort of new to this and hasn't been with us before.

We're going to ask you some very quick little questions. We're not going to get too personal, I promise, but I'll go first. No, I'm nervous. No, no, they're, they're very, they're just, they're designed to get people to know you a little bit better on a different level. What would you say is your favorite meal?

Pasta. [00:34:00] First concert? Chicago. Favorite movie? Kill a Mockingbird. You know what I like about Senator Umberg is he answers these questions really fast. We have some people who sit there and think that they're like on Jeopardy. Like, they sit there and they ponder the question. Thank you, that's really good.

Kill a Mockingbird's great. 

John Kabateck: Your movie star crush when you were younger? Cybill Shepard. 

Senator Tom Umberg: Favorite song? Oh, that, see, now, now you're making me think. There are places I remember by the Beatles. 

John Kabateck: Place in the world you've never been? 

Senator Tom Umberg: Israel. Last book you read? Do you read books anymore? Uh, the, Team of, Team of Rivals.

By Doris Goodwin Kearns. Audiobooks or hardcopy? That was a hardcopy, but I actually listened to Adam Schiff's book, It's Midnight in Washington, on audio. Did he read it? [00:35:00] Did he read it? I mean, was 

Brian Kabateck: he the, it was audio. 

Senator Tom Umberg: Yes, yes, he was. Yeah, I know that was a stupid narration. Right, yes, he did. Yeah. 

Brian Kabateck: First car? 

Senator Tom Umberg: A Ford, uh, Fairlane.

Brian Kabateck: Oh, Ford Fairlane 500XL? 

Senator Tom Umberg: I don't know if it was that. I had that car. That was like my third car. It had three on the tree. You know what three on the tree is? Oh, sure. Yeah. Three on the tree. Yeah. Yeah. No, it wasn't an XL. Yeah. 

Brian Kabateck: All right. Hey, you've been a great guest. Yeah. 

Senator Tom Umberg: Thank you so much. Thank you, John.

Thank you, Brian. Again. Love you guys. Thanks for what you do for California. Love you more. And thank you 

Brian Kabateck: for what you do. And if you do decide to run for a constitutional office, you have my complete and total support. 

Senator Tom Umberg: Let me run that by my spouse. So, all right. You've 

John Kabateck: been a great, you've been a great friend to us and certainly.

Dear California Senator, thank you and we'd love to have you back. 

Senator Tom Umberg: All right. Well, I'd love to come back. All right. See you guys. [00:36:00] 

John Kabateck: Thanks for listening to Kabatalks. If you liked what you heard, give us a positive review, a thumbs up, a high five, whatever. Leave a comment, share, and subscribe. We're two brothers, two opinions, one California.

Kabatalks.