Judges and Temperament
Certain judges in Clark County lecture attorneys at Continuing Legal Education seminars on how to behave in court and how to conduct their cases. Many attorneys require this instruction and I will not discourage it in this article. However, some judges need to take to heart the proper behavior expected of a jurist.
Too many judges treat litigants and attorneys disrespectfully. Some judges do not know the law or the facts well enough before they render an order. Some judges, or their staff, make mistakes by losing or ignoring paperwork leaving the lawyers to face their clients and clean up the mistakes.
Let's face it; some judges should simply not be judges. I cannot name names, but some judges should be disrobed--even if we may fear what lie beneath.
The judges who really want to be looked upon favorably by the voting public (and the deciding votes are probably the lawyers that appear before them) should consider and implement the following suggestions:
1. Sometimes the lawyers/litigants with money behind them are not nearly as powerful as the poor lawyers/litigants with the voting church congregations behind them.
2. "Endorsement by Metro" insinuates trampling on civil rights or always favoring a police officer witness or litigant over a civilian.
3. "Endorsement by businesses" suggest no justice for injured guests or patrons of business establishments in civil actions.
4. A "no nonsense" demeanor in court intimidates the truthful and candid more than it does the liars and cheats (who are used to being suave). This results in favorable rulings to sociopaths that can lie to your face over nervous people that are intimidated by the process, but truthful. Be nice to everyone but study the testimony critically. Judge Judy is fine for entertainment--not justice--be more like the dignified Judge Wapner.
5. If there is even the slightest chance you, the judge, do not fully comprehend the law on a matter, it is better to take the matter under advisement until you do, than to trample on a litigant's rights through ignorance. We understand that parties want swift justice and opinions, but not at the sacrifice of common sense and the spirit and letter of the law.
6. A judge should never rule wrongly against someone based on the judge's thought that the person cannot afford to appeal. Appeals are too expensive for most. Asking friends and relatives to vote you off the bench in a recall or election is cheaper than appealing, in many instances. It also paves the way for other lawyers to run against you. I have heard it more than once in casual conversation, “I’m running against that judge because anyone, even me, is better.”
7. Embarrassing a lawyer in open court in front of his or her clients is going to engender hatred. The proper thing to do is to call a quick sidebar and speak privately to a lawyer regarding the lawyer's conduct in court, not to order the lawyer in open court to sit down and be quiet. (This applies to hearing masters, commissioners, judges, and anyone in a judicial capacity). Sometimes a lawyer is posturing for the sake of the client, not for the sake of earning money. Sometimes the other side has to know that they are up against an advocate who will not allow abuse to continue. When a judge silences this advocacy, the judge could be seriously negatively affecting a just settlement. Not all lawyers who are forceful in court are so because they are getting paid to be, some actually believe in their cases, clients, and justice.
Certain judges in Clark County lecture attorneys at Continuing Legal Education seminars on how to behave in court and how to conduct their cases. Many attorneys require this instruction and I will not discourage it in this article. However, some judges need to take to heart the proper behavior expected of a jurist.
Too many judges treat litigants and attorneys disrespectfully. Some judges do not know the law or the facts well enough before they render an order. Some judges, or their staff, make mistakes by losing or ignoring paperwork leaving the lawyers to face their clients and clean up the mistakes.
Let's face it; some judges should simply not be judges. I cannot name names, but some judges should be disrobed--even if we may fear what lie beneath.
The judges who really want to be looked upon favorably by the voting public (and the deciding votes are probably the lawyers that appear before them) should consider and implement the following suggestions:
1. Sometimes the lawyers/litigants with money behind them are not nearly as powerful as the poor lawyers/litigants with the voting church congregations behind them.
2. "Endorsement by Metro" insinuates trampling on civil rights or always favoring a police officer witness or litigant over a civilian.
3. "Endorsement by businesses" suggest no justice for injured guests or patrons of business establishments in civil actions.
4. A "no nonsense" demeanor in court intimidates the truthful and candid more than it does the liars and cheats (who are used to being suave). This results in favorable rulings to sociopaths that can lie to your face over nervous people that are intimidated by the process, but truthful. Be nice to everyone but study the testimony critically. Judge Judy is fine for entertainment--not justice--be more like the dignified Judge Wapner.
5. If there is even the slightest chance you, the judge, do not fully comprehend the law on a matter, it is better to take the matter under advisement until you do, than to trample on a litigant's rights through ignorance. We understand that parties want swift justice and opinions, but not at the sacrifice of common sense and the spirit and letter of the law.
6. A judge should never rule wrongly against someone based on the judge's thought that the person cannot afford to appeal. Appeals are too expensive for most. Asking friends and relatives to vote you off the bench in a recall or election is cheaper than appealing, in many instances. It also paves the way for other lawyers to run against you. I have heard it more than once in casual conversation, “I’m running against that judge because anyone, even me, is better.”
7. Embarrassing a lawyer in open court in front of his or her clients is going to engender hatred. The proper thing to do is to call a quick sidebar and speak privately to a lawyer regarding the lawyer's conduct in court, not to order the lawyer in open court to sit down and be quiet. (This applies to hearing masters, commissioners, judges, and anyone in a judicial capacity). Sometimes a lawyer is posturing for the sake of the client, not for the sake of earning money. Sometimes the other side has to know that they are up against an advocate who will not allow abuse to continue. When a judge silences this advocacy, the judge could be seriously negatively affecting a just settlement. Not all lawyers who are forceful in court are so because they are getting paid to be, some actually believe in their cases, clients, and justice.
8. Judges who scowl and treat those before them as though they have no dignity deserve no dignified respect in return. Judges can be rude and then utilize contempt power if a lawyer stands up against it. Judges who act rudely besmirch the entire justice system and grow antipathy against it. Such bad apples should voluntarily step down or undergo an attitude adjustment.
9. Judges engaged in sexual relationships with the lawyers that appear before them create a perception of bias and the community should not tolerate it.
10. Judges should have no financial interests in the consequences of their rulings. This goes beyond merely ruling based on potential election results and includes ruling when the judge, or the judge’s friends and family, own interests in businesses that can be affected by a decision.
If you are a lawyer and believe that this list is missing some suggestions, please leave them in the comments below:
It’s hard to find knowledgeable people on this topic, but you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks for sharing this with others.
ReplyDelete