Judge apologizes, agrees to pay Tom Siebel $100,000
A California judge has issued a public apology and agreed to pay $100,000 to the founder of Siebel Systems for damaging his reputation in a lawsuit she filed as a lawyer in the mid-1990s.
San Mateo Superior Court Judge Carol Mittlesteadt issued a letter of apology to Tom Siebel on Thursday to express her "sincere regret for pursuing claims against you that were determined to be without merit." She also acknowledged that she "may have caused substantial expense and inconvenience, and damage to your reputation and good name."
Siebel founded business software maker Siebel Systems in the early 1990s. He was chairman of Siebel Systems until Oracle bought the company for $5.8 billion in 2006. Siebel is now chairman of First Virtual Group, a diversified holding company based in Palo Alto, Calif.
Mittlesteadt, who became a judge 10 years ago, issued the unusual apology to fulfill the requirements of a settlement that wraps up a legal saga that began 12 years ago when Siebel Systems fired its top sales representative. Mittlesteadt, who represented the employee, filed a wrongful-termination and sex discrimination suit against Siebel and his company. A court later ruled that the claims against him were unfounded.
Siebel told the Associated Press that he hopes that the public apology will teach attorneys not to fabricate claims in hopes of extracting a large settlement.
"This was a single person's effort at tort reform," he said. Siebel added that he is surprised Mittlesteadt is a judge. "I am not sure who is watching the hen house here," he said.
Siebel plans to donate the money to Stanford's law school for the study of legal ethics.
Natalie Weinstein is an associate editor who works out of Austin, Texas. She spent a decade as a reporter and editor in the newspaper industry before joining the CNET News staff in 2000. E-mail Natalie.
The sad aspect of this affair is that she has taken this attitude as a judge. I had the displeasure of observing her biased and activist attitudes on the bench. She routinely lets her personal opinions guide her judgments irrespective of the letter of the law. In this case, her obvious bias in favor of a few activist, historical preservationists cost a school district over $3.0 million. The ultimate insult was that, even though the lawsuit filed by these preservationists failed on all counts, she forced the school district to pay their attorney over $300,000 in legal fees. Her justification was that, even though the suit lost, it benefited the public. And the ultimate irony of that issue was that public benefit outlined by this judge was one which the preservationists publicly stated did not occur. Go figure.
The fact that she is even on the bench says volumes about the San Mateo County legal system. She should be fired.