The Daily Report’s Dec. 27, 2010, story, “Appellate ruling urges judges to limit use of special masters,” completely misses the principle lessons of the Georgia Court of Appeals’ decision in Alston & Bird v. Mellon Ventures II. As the story indicates, I was the special master whose recommendations and reports were reviewed and accepted by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
Apparently, the journalistic instinct to ferret out defects and deficiencies in the status quo led the Daily Report to miss the inescapable, if somewhat subtle, conclusion to be drawn from the history of the Alston & Bird case: the use of special masters in complex commercial cases works-and works quite well. Nothing in the opinion suggested in any way, shape or form that the Court of Appeals was in any way skeptical of the appropriate and judicious use of special masters or that the manner in which the trial court’s power to appoint a special master in this case had in any way been misused-notwithstanding the headline attached to the story that suggested the court had overstepped its authority. In short, the focus of the story did not mirror the focus of court’s decision.
