Attorneys don’t hold back on criticism

What one respondent called the "uninhibited voice of attorneys appearing before these judges" comes out in the general comments section of the 2008 Judicial Performance Survey.

Courtroom mechanics, decorum and public perceptions are among the targets covered by 111 lawyers who submitted optional written remarks that were not specific to any single judge.

"The controversies we have had in the last year regarding the conduct of several judges is depressing," a respondent wrote.

"A very, very sad state of affairs for the Judiciary," wrote another.

Cronyism by judges -- favoring friends and donors in court, or the appearance thereof -- was the most oft-repeated complaint, although respondents vociferously disagreed on whether switching from election to appointment of Nevada judges would lessen cronyism.

In the way of practical suggestions, one attorney tackled a well-known elevator shortage in the Regional Justice Center, which has attorneys and the public either scrambling up stairs or dawdling in a long elevator waiting line.

"Reschedule calendars" with staggered start times for various levels of court, to better accommodate the scarce elevator space, the attorney urged.

Another attorney tackled the split location of family court judges; two have been situated at the Regional Justice Center instead of with the rest at the Family Courts and Services Center, 601 N. Pecos Road.

"Move something other than family court" to the downtown center, the writer urged, and consolidate the actual courtrooms at the Pecos site.

The filing system in Justice Court is "broken and needs to be remedied," an irate person wrote. "As attorneys we must answer to our clients, and saying Justice Court lost our pleading again and again is not always a believable excuse, despite it being true."

The current sharing of civil and criminal caseloads by all District Court judges should end, according to one adamant writer, since not every judge is versatile enough to do both well.

"Candidates will then know they are running for a criminal track or a civil track, and will file (for office) according to their own skill sets."

Several attorneys offer solutions for case backlog in District Court.

Creating more judgeships would reduce docket volume, which would improve the quality of justice, one wrote.

Or at least create one judgeship strictly for probate and guardianships, another wrote.

Or, add another discovery commissioner, wrote a third.

One survey respondent insisted, "Judges should sanction attorneys more often for filing frivolous lawsuits and/or motions, and for violating the rules of professional conduct. ... Too many times have I seen counsel blatantly lie in open court, only to have their behavior condoned by it not being sanctioned."

Attorneys were asked to review judges, in part, for evidence of bias. But being human themselves, the attorneys also exhibited what might be construed as gender, religious or genealogy bias.

"We see a trend toward the spawn of judges going on to be judges themselves, at far too young an age to have acquired real life experience and professional experience," griped one lawyer.

"The female judges (in Family Court) are too emotional and biased, and they try too hard to make everyone happy -- an impossible task," griped another.

Some judges "tend to rule ... on the basis of LDS affiliation (or nonaffiliation)," wrote an attorney who seems not to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Adversarial by definition during a trial, attorneys not surprisingly also faced off on the value of the newspaper's judicial performance survey, which is done every other year.

"I could write a better survey. Take Survey Research 101," one critic cracked.

On other hand, some colleagues craved an expansion of the R-J survey, so they can review individuals whose judicial positions currently are not covered, including federal judges in Nevada, Nye County district judges, and justices of the peace or municipal judges in Boulder City, Bunkerville, Moapa and Mesquite.

(The Review-Journal, which started the survey in 1992, formerly included small-town and rural judges and JPs, but quit, because so few lawyers rated them that results were not statistically useful.)

While you're at it, let us rate hearing masters and commissioners, too, another voice chimed in.

Contact reporter Joan Whitely at jwhitely@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0268.