Chief Judge Candidates Hit the Trail

Though both judges hail from opposite ends of D.C.’s criminal justice system, their experience on the bench shares much in common.

Both judges were instrumental in helping reform the court’s Family Division into a quasi-independent Family Court in 2002. Satterfield, who began  running the Family Division in 2001, became the Family Court’s first presiding judge in 2002, with Josey-Herring serving as his deputy. For the past three years, Josey-Herring has been presiding judge of the court, which handles cases involving adoptions, domestic relations, juveniles, neglect and abuse, and mental health.

Their 200-page statements of interest for the job, which were filed with the selection committee last month, are quite different in style but are nearly identical in substance. Both judges frequently use words such as “continue” or “maintain” in their plans to improve technology, do more frequent performance evaluations, and foster communication among associate judges.

The most significant difference between the two is that Satterfield has been on the bench an additional five years and has held more leadership roles throughout the court.

Whoever wins will oversee the court’s $98 million budget, including $28.9 million for the Family Court. The chief judge also makes sure the more than 100,000 cases the court handles each year are moving ahead and decides where to assign the court’s 61 associate judges, 26 senior judges, and 25 magistrate judges. There’s also a ceremonial side: The chief serves as the court’s representative to the community, the D.C. government, and Congress, which approves the court’s budget.

“Judges are all the boss of their own world, so a huge part is stroking egos and getting everyone to play ball,” says Christopher Hoge, a name partner at Crowley Hoge & Fein and member of the Bar Association of D.C.’s endorsement committee.

Unlike the federal court system where the job is offered to the most senior of the active judges on the bench, the Superior Court chief is selected by the 7-member Judicial Nomination Commission. The commission is chaired by Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and includes retired Arnold & Porter partner Brooksley Born; William Lucy, secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees; Natalie Ludaway, a name partner at Leftwich & Ludaway; Venable managing partner Karl Racine; Wiley Rein partner Helgi Walker; and Rev. Morris Shearman Sr., the pastor of Israel Baptist Church.

The group, which must make a decision before King steps down on Sept. 30,  will consider comments from courthouse staff and D.C.’s legal community. It will also interview Satterfield and Josey-Herring.

Satterfield and Josey-Herring have already begun trying to line up support from D.C.’s voluntary bar associations. Satterfield met with the Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association on July 16, and Josey-Herring is scheduled to meet with the association’s members on July 23.

The judges will also appear at a public forum at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law on Aug. 4. Nine bar associations have teamed with the Council for Court Excellence, a nonprofit that works to improve and foster education about the D.C. courts, to host the event.

In interviews, lawyers across the District cited improving security, moving cases through the system more rapidly, and expanding the court’s technology as their primary concerns. Loretta Garza, president of the Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia, added that the court could be “more sympathetic to pro se defendants and to defendants who require an interpreter.”

As of last week, none of the city’s 20 bars had endorsed a candidate.

KING’S COURT

In 2000, the court faced a number of problems that arose under the leadership of then-Chief Judge Eugene Hamilton. Its relationship with Congress was frayed after the court overspent its budget. The crisis led to court-appointed lawyers not getting paid and courthouse staff not receiving promised raises. The scrutiny raised questions about the way the court was managed. The court’s executive officer and financial director resigned under pressure. Hamilton stepped down amid heavy criticism for failing to turn the court around.

The seven candidates at the time, who included Satterfield, participated in a two-hour forum at Georgetown University Law Center. The judges were clearly uncomfortable airing the court’s dirty laundry in public. Judge Michael Rankin, who ran for chief in 2000, says the forum was an indication that the court had “an across-the-board need for leadership that had a vision and foresight to do things differently.”

As chief judge, King dove into repairing the court’s image, putting in motion several initiatives to make court operations more efficient. He streamlined case management by implementing an electronic filing system in the Civil Division. After the Family Court was created in 2002, cases became more organized, and each family in the court was assigned to a single judge to avoid people getting lost in the system. Relations with Congress and the D.C. government were mended, allowing the court, for the most part, to operate without interference. As Rankin puts it, a “culture of collegiality” returned to the courthouse. When King was up for a second term in 2004, he was unopposed.

PERSONAL TOUCHES

Both Satterfield and Josey-Herring declined to be interviewed for this article, but their statements to the commission offer their plans for the court.

Satterfield proposes the development of an internal security program to complement the security provided by the U.S. Marshals Service and says video conferencing and off-site arraignments may improve security at the courthouse. Josey-Herring, who if selected would be the first female chief judge of Superior Court, says she wants to add another judge to the Domestic Relations Branch.

Both judges said they would meet with the court’s associate judges more regularly. Josey-Herring proposed brown-bag lunches with judges to hash out improvements to the court. Satterfield offered an open-door policy to foster dialogue among the court’s divisions and provide feedback about where improvements can be made. Both cite a need to expand the court’s electronic filing system. Josey-Herring and Satterfield also agree that regularly assessing the effectiveness of the court’s programs, such as the Probate and Tax Division’s guardianship assistance program, should determine whether the programs continue.

And both say their experience running the Family Court gave them the skills to manage a complex court.

“My most rewarding and significant contribution to the court was serving families and children as presiding judge of the Family Court for over four years,” Satterfield says in his statement. “This assignment proved the most challenging as well, given the Congressional and public scrutiny” leading up to the creation of the court.

Josey-Herring’s statement discusses at length the various programs she has implemented as presiding judge of the Family Court and says “the challenge for the next chief judge will be to maintain the financial stability and progress the court has made over the last several years.”

With the candidates so similar on paper, the commission’s decision could ultimately come down to personality.

Jessamy, president of the Washington Bar Association, says Satterfield carries a seriousness about him that allows him to speak about the court in an “open, upfront, and candid” manner.

“He can put people at ease, but he also just brings a wealth of knowledge about how the court operates,” says Jessamy, who has already committed to supporting Satterfield.

Josey-Herring, on the other hand, has a “breezy and effective” approach to dealing with those appearing in front of her, says Glenn Lewis, who heads The Lewis Law Firm, a national family law firm based in Washington.

“She’s got the common touch and the regal sense that carry respect in the courtroom,” Lewis says.