While everyone is looking the issue of the reconfirmation hearings, it seems like another important issue is who gets selected to be a judge in the first place? How is that decision made?

I must admit, I don’t know much about the process but some of my old political insider friends say that it is little better than patronage. They suggest that many Judges are those whose legal careers are going nowhere that contribute a lot to politicians or their organizations.

Whether or not that is true, the bigger question that seems to come up is, what makes a person a good judge? Demeanor? Knowledge? Impartiality? How do you measure whatever the appropriate criteria?

I look forward to further hearing further thoughts on this.

I do believe that some of the anonymous comments did detract from the overall impact of CCDLA’s submissions. The only ones I am privy to are those reprinted in the New Haven Advocate article linked to above, and from even just those, it is easy to see why they would be quickly dismissed by legislators:

This guy is out of control and is a nut job…

I’m hearing some pretty bad things about him through the grapevine….

very harsh; a royal pain in the _____;

I wonder if the CCDLA should itself serve as a gatekeeper of comments. Thank those that submit the ones like those above, but don’t forward them on.

In the end, if we want to be taken seriously, we have to put forth our criticism in a coherent and professional manner. Calling a judge a pain in the ass might work when referring to her amongst colleagues, but I don’t think legislators take too kindly to that.

I was going to touch on your second comment in my post, but it’s long enough as it is so I left it out. The “club” is a very valid point to consider here. The same applies to reporting opposing counsel or other defense counsel. Do we let questionable acts pass more easily because we work with them on a daily basis? I think there certainly is some truth to that.

The problem, I think, is that those who do not report or do not take a stand can hide behind the veil of non-enforcement. Why should somebody stick their neck out if nothing comes of it? It’s a valid fear, at first blush at least. I have struggled with this myself (both in my actual practice and in posts on the blog) and I’m not sure the current setup provides enough support to vitiate those concerns.

Then what’s the solution, you rightly ask? Perhaps the CCDLA or some other such organization should have an ongoing “bank” of complaints that can be collected as the events happen. This would eliminate the struggle of recollecting something that happened to you 3 years ago. If a judge does something that leaves you speechless, write up a memo, in as much detail as you can, order a transcript and forward both to the CCDLA, which holds it in abeyance until the confirmation hearing.

Perhaps a baseline standard should also be adopted. Maybe the board of the CCDLA, or some members with ethics knowledge should be charged with coming up circumstances that are not acceptable and that can be circulated to the members at large, who then have a guide by which to evaluate the performance of judges on a daily basis.

I don’t know if the CCDLA submitted the relevant rules of the Canon or of professional conduct along with the comments of members, but certainly an explanation of why what the judge did was wrong would go a long way toward legitimizing our input.

Sorry for the length.

You phrase the issue well. The anonymous comments, some forwarded by the CCDLA, included personal reactions to unfavorable decisions, name calling and hyperbole. Were these comments helpful or do they detract from more serious and considered critique?

Is it better to evaluate such comments and choose those which show poor knowledge of the law, misapplication of the facts and judicial bullying? How can we help each other make a concerted effort to keep track of these moments?

Is the defense bar consistent with our critique? There are Judges who use the bench as a bully pulpit, and violate the Judicial Canon not to disparage litigants or parties. Judges they “get away with it” because they give a good deals, or because they’re part of the club.

If we could vote on it, would you mind using your “leaves you speechless” as the standard for complaint, and the foundation for signing the complaint?