Credit: shutterstock

Editor's Note: Katrina Homel, a member of YLAB, recuses herself from this commentary.

The New Jersey Judiciary has been facing a shortage of judges for years. The problems this has caused cannot be ignored. Cases are lingering on the dockets, and the judges on the bench who take their jobs seriously are overworked. The pressure this creates can lead to burnout and even rushed decision-making

To try and fill the bench in counties where the shortages are greatest, the state Judiciary has recalled dozens of jurists over the mandatory retirement age of 70 to the bench. These judges are eligible to serve two-year terms until they turn 80. The Supreme Court decides which retired judges to recall, and whether to grant a recalled judge a new two-year term. Currently, there are 68 recalled judges serving throughout the state. 

This system is justified by people who claim "70 doesn't mean the same thing it did in the 1940s," "some judges want to keep working, so forcing them to retire isn't fair," or "it's cheaper for the state to pay a recalled judge's salary than a new judge's salary and the old judge's pension." 

In response, we say: "Enough already." We shouldn't be relying on judicial recall when more serious action is necessary. 

Some legislators appear to agree that a change is needed. NJ SCR47 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would give our state Senate the power to appoint judges over the age of 70 to an unlimited number of two-year terms. In theory, this would relieve some of the pressure caused by mandatory retirement. 

Unfortunately, this "solution" may make the problem worse. The reason we are in our current predicament is the Senate's unwillingness to move certain judicial nominations forward. Rewarding this political dynamic by giving the very lawmakers that are causing the delay more power is problematic at best. 

Our state would be best served by the approval of new judges rather than an attempt at a quick fix, or the continuation of the status quo.

Despite there being a judicial shortage in our state, there is no shortage of capable and talented would-be judges. New Jersey has an ever growing number of qualified judicial appointees who are ready and willing to commit their lives to public service as a member of the judiciary. They aren't untested "newbies"—they are experienced practitioners who have learned from those currently in robes, and they are well-versed in new technologies and the realities of modern practice. These practitioners, if given the opportunity, would contribute to judicial diversity and render the bench even more capable of addressing the vast array of citizens who come before the courts. Indeed, the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on court operations has further emphasized the undeniable benefit of fresh, creative thinking around the courts' embrace of technological innovation.

As young-er lawyers, we are often the ones appearing before harried judges, burnt-out judges, and judges who may never have been recalled to the bench if the court system were not in such dire straits. We are seeing first-hand the impact it is having on our clients, on our profession, and most importantly—on justice. 

It is time to embrace change. Instead of relying on judicial recall, let's fill judicial vacancies with new, competent, forward-thinking judges.

The NJLJ Young Lawyers Advisory Board is a diverse group of young attorneys from around the state. Follow them on Twitter, @YoungLawyersNJL. (Katrina Homel, a member of YLAB, recuses herself from this commentary.)