Judicial survey a great public service
To the editor:
The Review-Journal did itself proud with its "Judging the Judges" report. I have always felt these biennial reviews are helpful in making informed decisions regarding the merits and qualifications of state and local judicial candidates.
Most of us have had little experience interacting with lawyers or judges unless one has been involved in a legal dispute or has been part of a jury. Seeing electioneering signs posted on county roadsides is of little help in examining the qualifications of judges. And from what I can gather, I see little evidence that those who are seeking to join or stay on the bench are eager to reveal anything meaningful about their abilities or the history of their legal work.
So it is helpful that this poll of area lawyers who have appeared in the courtrooms of the judges up for re-election provides some insight regarding the overall competence and abilities of these sitting judges. In fact, what quickly stands out is the number of respondents who took the time to complete these questions -- which in itself suggests the attorneys realize the importance of the evaluations they rendered. They deserve some thanks from the voting public.
It also appears to me that the report analyzed the data quite well. In breaking down the questions in sections on competence, judicial behavior and overall courtroom operations, you provided a convenient way to examine these judges from a variety of perspectives.
Obviously the respondents will provide various degrees of subjective reactions. But I trust there is also an element of truth to the anonymous comments. After all, these polls have been done for a number of years now, and no doubt the standard questions have been greatly refined with each subsequent poll. The judges under review may disagree with the process, but if they look carefully at the evaluations they should find grounds upon which they could improve.
Regarding the judgments rendered, there will also be an element of bias, if not downright payback. Courtrooms can be contentious scenes of high drama where the stakes are high and the lawyers appearing there may not like the way judges react to their presentations. There are bound to be elements of bitterness and hostility which could come through when the lawyers get their chance to evaluate a judge who they feel wronged them. But pure hostility was probably a small part of the reactions.
University professors face similar evaluations from their students. At the end of any given semester evaluations are given to the instructor's students and the questions often cover a range of items including the instructor's mastery of their subject matter, his ability to communicate ideas well and his overall demeanor. I have found these assessments to be quite helpful in spite of the inevitable nastiness that can come through.
Being a competent judge is much more difficult than teaching a group of students, but there are similarities. Both professions require their people to develop certain skills and that is why I believe most of the lawyers who participated in this assessment were more than willing to give new judges a certain benefit of the doubt. But improvements have to be noted -- if not, those judges who fail to improve in their courtroom behavior and repeatedly come across as poor in the eyes of their peers ... well, they should be dismissed.
Therefore Family Court Judge Ken Pollock's comment that his evaluation simply "translates into 51 attorneys who don't like me" misses the point. This Review-Journal poll is not designed to determine likes and dislikes. Instead it is done to improve the quality of our legal system and to inform as many citizens as possible.
Once again, I must give credit to the Review-Journal for this notable public service.
T.W. Lindenberg
North Las Vegas
