Commission on Structural Alternatives
for the Federal Courts of Appeals
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544

Re: Comments on the White Commission Draft Report

Dear Justice White and Members of the Commission:

For the past nine years I have served as a United States Bankruptcy Judge in the Northern District of California, with Chambers in San Jose and Salinas. It has been a great privilege for me to serve in the Ninth Circuit. I am proud of the Circuit's tremendous accomplishments.

Like most judges in the Ninth Circuit, I oppose any split of the Circuit. The Circuit should remain intact because it functions extremely well.

The Commission's Draft Report would impair the Circuit's effective administration. It appears to be an imposed "compromise" between those who seek to divide the Circuit (largely for political reasons) and those who do not. If some restructuring is absolutely essential, then its terms should not impair the Circuit's ability to function efficiently. Dividing the Circuit into three largely autonomous groups of courts (or divisions) is, in my view, a far less efficient and workable structure than is the present one. The Commission's proposed structure is akin to having three heads of state of a feudal nation or three presidents of a corporation. Uniform circuit law through the binding impact of all circuit decisions is critical to the operation of this, and any other, circuit. No additional step in the appellate process (the proposed "Circuit Division") should be established. The Circuit will function best only if there is a Circuit-wide en banc procedure to review all important decisions.

For these reasons, I strongly support all of the points made by Chief Judge Procter Hug in his letter to the Commission, dated October 28, 1998 (copy attached).

In addition, my view, based upon my own experience and the views expressed by my colleagues on the bankruptcy courts throughout the country, and from the Bar in the Ninth Circuit and in other circuits, is that the administration of bankruptcy cases in the Ninth Circuit, with appeals directed to a single Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, is a model of judicial efficiency for the Nation. It makes no sense from any standpoint to require that there be separate BAPs for each of three divisions, nor would it be possible to staff each division adequately. I feel confident that the vast majority of bankruptcy judges in this Circuit (both those on the BAP and those who are not) share my views and, if asked, would oppose splitting the BAP into three divisions.

Thank you for your consideration of these views.

Sincerely yours,

ARTHUR S. WEISSBRODT

ASW/bk