Lawyer's Commentary on Judicial Appointment Process is Off Base
This somewhat jaded view of the appointment process requires a brief answer from this board, which has several former members of the judiciary and practitioners intimately aware of the appointment process. Our system is working here.
May 26, 2019 at 12:00 PM
4 minute read
In a recent (May 6, 2019) NJLJ op-ed article, a lawyer noted that he “heard that demographic characteristics influence judicial nominations.” He further explained that “most judicial nominations derive from political connections” and that they are “reinforced by political contributions.” He cites a 2017 article by state Sen. Kevin O'Toole as his source. He complains that the process permits substandard attorneys to ascend to the bench, and he suggests a qualifying test to assess the applicant's knowledge of the law, intellect and preparedness. This somewhat jaded view of the appointment process requires a brief answer from this board, which has several former members of the judiciary and practitioners intimately aware of the appointment process.
Yes, the process is political, in that the governor must nominate a prospective judge, and the Senate must confirm the nominee. And we know that the nominee's home county's senators have a virtual veto power in a practice known as senatorial courtesy, usually holding a nominee until another candidate a senator wants on the bench is advanced. By practice, no more than a bare majority of the county's judges can be members of the same political party. The senators, county political chairs, bar associations and civic groups all suggest names for consideration. Bar committees, as representative of the attorneys who will have to appear before the applicant, if appointed, hold hearings and present their views of the very factors that the proposed testing would explore.
There is no sub silento effort to permit unqualified judges to be appointed. In some instances, to have the bench reflect the ethnic composition of the local bar and population, demographics may be a factor in seeking out candidates for the bench. A perception of justice does require representation of all components of the population by members of the bench. But, gender, ethnicity, race and other non-professional attributes are factors unrelated to judicial competence, and should not influence appointment. The prevalence of African-American, Asian, Hispanic, LGBTQ and religious minority judges throughout the state shows that the system is working. Political contributions may cause a senator or county political official to notice a lawyer, but the days of buying a judgeship are, we believe, well behind us. Aspirants working in the political sphere is a healthy process, bringing their legal training and intellectual abilities to a largely thankless area of our society. Moreover, judges have been appointed from government and practice based on the work they have done, and the governor has a five-person group of outstanding attorneys and retired judges to screen and comment on prospective judges.
We have and need active review of our bench to weed out the few about whom the article complains to see they are not appointed or, if they have slipped through, not reappointed. The Supreme Court conducts a regular survey of all non-tenured trial judges, based upon bar questionnaires, twice before each judge's tenure reappointment. The feedback to the judges has a noticeable impact on their future behavior.
There are other systems. Elected judiciaries are prevalent in this country, and the results can be ruinous, as judges constantly must please the majority of the electorate in an initial election and upon reelection. In some other countries, judges are specially trained and/or culled from law school classes, with top graduates offered judicial positions, the next group of graduates offered prosecutorial jobs, and the rest moving on to law practices. While they may fit the places and times where they exist, our system is working here.
Editorial Board member Virginia Long recused from this editorial.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMeet the Judges: Senate Confirms 7 Superior Court Nominees in Final 2024 Session
3 minute readAG Had No Authority to Take Control of Paterson PD, Appellate Division Says
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250