James F. King
Mr. King served as a Mendocino County judge before returning to private practice in 1997. He was a justice (municipal) court judge from 1983-89, then was elevated to the superior court by Gov. Deukmejian. He attended the California Judicial College twice. Judicial assignments included civil law & motion, juvenile, criminal, family law, and appellate panel. He presided over numerous civil and criminal trials during his 14 years on the bench.
U.C. Berkeley Graduate
Mr. King is a 1967 graduate of the University of California, Berkeley. He received his law (J.D.) degree from the School of Law (Boalt Hall) at U.C. Berkeley.
Mr. King was admitted to the California bar in 1967. He is a member of the bars of the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Claims Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and various federal district courts.
Law Practice and Experience
Mr. King’s practice encompasses both transactional work and litigation, with emphasis on estate planning and administration, real estate, timber-related issues, business transactions, and defense of environmental cases.
Mr. King is a trained mediator. He has served on the Court of Appeal mediation panel and is also available to mediate civil disputes within the areas of his expertise.
Before becoming a judge, Mr. King practiced civil law in Mendocino County and also served as Willits City Attorney. From 1972-76, he practiced federal Indian law and handled cases involving reservation boundaries and status, fishing rights, and real property issues. Examples include Russ v. Wilkins (1976) 410 F. Supp. 579 (boundary case); Arnett v. 5 Gill Nets (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 454 (fishing rights); and Duncan v. Andrus (N. D. Cal., C-71-1572 WWS; termination of reservation by Interior Department voided).
Before moving to Mendocino County in 1972, Mr. King was a legal aid attorney in Detroit and Sacramento. He successfully argued a landmark case before the California Supreme Court: Randone v. Appellate Dept. (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 536, cert. den. 407 U.S. 924 (California’s pre-judgment attachment law held unconstitutional).