hile in private practice, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Paul Alvarado carved out a unique legal specialty.
He became a successful plaintiffs attorney in the field of dental malpractice.
"It's rewarding in that you have people who sustained injuries and you're helping them receive compensation and relief," Alvarado said.
Recently he presided over a dental malpractice case involving work performed at the UC-San Francisco dental clinic.
Jurors returned a plaintiff's verdict of $750,700.
Novato solo Sherre Sturm, who represented the plaintiff, described Alvarado as a "strict, no-nonsense judge" who dislikes sidebars. She said he was fair-minded.
"If you have things to bring up, you address them before the jury comes in or in the morning," Sturm said. "Because he's done civil law, he's up on it. A lot of judges aren't."
The opposing counsel in the case, UC defense counsel George Peterson, said he never comments on a judge.
"If you say anything negative, you'd better not show your head again in that courthouse," said Peterson, a partner in Los Angeles' Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O'Keefe & Nichols.
In his 16 years on the bench, Alvarado has presided over several high-profile civil cases, including tobacco cases and the collapse of an apartment deck. He may soon try another high-profile case, the state antitrust and unfair business practices case against Microsoft Corp. He succeeds Judge Richard Kramer, who was challenged by plaintiffs. The trial is set for August, but attorneys say that may be too optimistic.
Alvarado has also ruled on criminal matters. He's a former criminal defense attorney as well as an Alameda County prosecutor.
He helped write an appellate brief that won the reversal of murder convictions of Juan Corona, the serial killer of at least 25 farmworkers during the 1970s. Corona was retried and convicted.
"It was part of a sense I felt to help somebody who needed it," the judge said.
Not everybody likes Alvarado's style.
In 1993, the judge presided over a criminal case in which a defendant was accused of assault with a deadly weapon in a drive-by shooting.
Defense attorney Stephen Scherr persuaded the judge to give a jury instruction that his client intended only to frighten, not shoot anybody at a bus stop.
"As the trial proceeded, I did more and more reading and I came to the conclusion that that was not the correct statement of the law," the judge said.
But he decided not to change the instruction, unless the jury "had trouble with this issue." It did.
"I then crafted an instruction that I thought was consistent with [California Jury Instructions]," he said.
Scherr said the judge's revision of the jury instruction destroyed his whole argument.
"I said, 'You pulled the rug out from under me,' " the attorney said. "If you can't leave it as it is, let's have a mistrial."
Alvarado declined to give Scherr's initial instruction or to declare a mistrial. The defendant was convicted.
"He's a nice guy, and the court of appeal affirmed, but I wouldn't do another trial in his court," the defense counsel said.
As for the tobacco litigation, Deputy City Attorney Owen Clements, whose office prosecuted the cases that were eventually consolidated and transferred to San Diego, said Alvarado handled early motions and issues in a "fair-minded" way.
"He will take his time to work through matters," Clements said. "He understands the issues that come up in a larger context of the case."
Clements added that the judge disposed of several pretrial issues, making the case "much more manageable." He said cities and counties eventually recovered $10 million from the tobacco firms.
Niall McCarthy, lead attorney in the liability portion of the $12 million deck collapse case -- in which one person was killed and another injured -- said the judge drafted a questionnaire for prospective jurors that was thorough.
"He designed it so that anyone who knew about the case was out," said the name partner in Burlingame's Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy. "He personally voir dired the others before the lawyers got to … and limited the jury pool."
He said Alvarado expects lawyers to be straight with him. "He doesn't like people shading the facts," the attorney said.
Benjamin Winslow, a San Francisco solo, said Alvarado has a sympathetic ear for injured parties.
"He has a natural tendency to favor the underdog," Winslow said.
Michael Ropers has tried two cases before Alvarado and won one.
"In the one we won, he liked our case. He didn't have many law questions," said the name partner at Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley. "He was a fun guy to be with."
But Ropers soured on the judge when he lost another case and his clients were hit with an $8 million plaintiffs' verdict that was later reduced to $2 million.
"I think he's kind of average," Ropers said. "I think he's a fine trial judge, but if I were governor, I would never appoint him to the appellate bench."
