South Carolina courts face stenographer shortage

For the second time in two days, a story on the severe shortage of court reporters in a state court system — this time in South Carolina. In influx of retirements, brought on by changes to the state retirement program, has led to a significant shortage of stenographers in courts across the state. The court system has launched an audio reporting program to compensate for the shortage, but as I discussed yesterday, audio recording is inferior in many ways to a live stenographer.

Texas courts face shortage of stenographers

The Texas state courts face delayed hearings and trials resulting from a dwindling supply of court reporters.  The Texas Office of Court Administration reports a decline of 20 percent in the number of available stenographers since 2005.

While some courts across the country have moved to audiotape as a less expensive option, live court reporters typically produce transcripts that are far more accurate. The story quotes stenographer Chavela Crain, who noted

“We deal with dialects, accents, coughing, sneezing, sirens going by, somebody says they were offered 15,000 for something, and I can say ‘Wait, was that 15,000 or 50,000?'” Crain explained. “On an audio (recording) you’re not going to be able to tell that, and if somebody’s not in the room there is nobody to clarify that.”

A look inside the merit selection process for United States Magistrate Judges

United States Magistrate Judges play a critical role in the administration of justice at the district court level. They frequently handle arraignments and other preliminary criminal issues and discovery disputes in civil cases, and on occasion try cases by consent of the parties that otherwise would be tried to a district judge. But the selection and tenure of magistrate judges is far different than for their district court colleagues. Magistrate judges are Article I judges, serving at the pleasure of Congress. Instead of life tenure, they have eight-year renewable terms. And instead of presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, they obtain their jobs through a local merit selection process.

Two forthcoming openings for Magistrate Judge positions in the Southern District of Illinois give a glimpse into the nature of the selection process. Interested candidates send their applications to a specially chosen merit selection panel, comprised of seven lawyers and two non-lawyers, who vet the applications and submit a list of 6-10 names to the district judges for final selection.

Although Magistrate Judges lack the Constitutional power of Article III judges, many have gone on to fill district court openings later in their careers.  Good luck to all interested candidates.

Investigation will continue against Canadian judge who removed woman from courtroom for wearing hijab

Quebec’s Judicial Council will proceed with an investigation of Judge Eliana Marengo, who is charged with refusing to hear a case after a litigant in her courtroom refused to remove her hijab. According to news reports:

In 2015, Marengo refused to hear a case involving Rania El-Alloul because the latter refused to remove her Islamic head scarf while in the courtroom.

El-Alloul was violating a Quebec law stipulating people must be “suitably dressed” in the courtroom, Marengo said at the time.

“In my opinion, you are not suitably dressed,” Marengo told El-Alloul, according to court documents. “Decorum is important. Hats and sunglasses, for example, are not allowed. And I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either.

“I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head, just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses on his or her head, or any other garment not suitable for a court proceeding.”

Incredibly, Judge Marengo’s defense for this behavior is judicial independence.

Dear Judge Marengo: Judicial independence is essential to assure that judges follow the law and provide an impartial forum for the resolution of disputes. It is not designed to justify or protect boorish behavior from the bench. To tie judicial independence to the mistreatment of litigants in your courtroom is to tarnish everything that concept stands for.

Good grief.

 

Connecticut legislature splits 20-20 on state chief justice nomination

Voting yesterday on whether to promote current state Supreme Court Justice Andrew McDonald to the position of Chief Justice, the Connecticut Judiciary Committee split 20 for, and 20 against. The vote will be treated as an unfavorable report that now goes to the entire legislature.

Proponents of the nomination, which was advanced by Governor Daniel Malloy, argue that Justice McDonald is well-qualified and should not be the victim of election-year politics. Opponents argue that McDonald lacks sufficient experience to be Chief Justice.

I don’t know enough about Justice McDonald to have any opinion on the ultimate outcome, other than to agree strongly with the sentiment that election year politics (or any politics, for that matter) should play no role in selecting or promoting judges.

Two new justices appointed to Israel Supreme Court

Two nominees for Israel’s Supreme Court were confirmed this week.  Alex Stein, a Brooklyn Law professor who was born in the Soviet Union, will join current Tel Aviv District Court judge Ofer Grosskopf on the country’s highest court. They will replace Yoram Dinziger and Uri Shoham, whose terms end later this year.

The nominations were not without controversy. Stein has lived in the United States for the past 14 years (he previously lived in Israel), but has a reputation as a conservative and was strongly supported by current Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. The confirmations also came just a week after another Tel Aviv District Court judge, Khaled Kabub, withdrew his candidacy for the Supreme Court. Kabub, an Israeli Arab and a Muslim, faced stiff confirmation headwinds after another Israeli Arab, George Kara, was appointed to the court last year.

 

West Virginia’s appellate court crisis

Odd things are happening on the West Virginia Supreme Court.

On February 16, Chief Justice Allen Loughry was demoted and replaced as chief by Justice Margaret Workman. The unusual move, which followed a vote by the court’s other members, was apparently precipitated by a spending scandal. The court system spent more than $360,000 on Loughry’s office space since he joined the court in 2013, including a $32,000 couch. Loughry and the state court administrator pointed fingers at each other. The administrator has since been fired. In light of the crisis, the state senate voted to assume immediate legislative oversight of the judicial branch’s budget.

Shortly before these events transpired, Loughry also undertook a massive administrative reorganization of the West Virginia court system, consolidating 27 court divisions into only six. Several court administrators lost senior positions, and at least two supreme court justices strongly opposed the move. Justice Robin Davis told a reporter:

“I voted against the Court’s most recent Administrative Office reorganization for two critical and distinct reasons…. First, there is an appalling lack of clarity in the newly structured Court Services Division because there is no longer a distinct chain of command for each of the different types of courts comprising the judiciary.

“Collapsing magistrate courts, drug courts, family courts, and circuit courts under the same umbrella of supervision will severely hamper and drastically delay response time in answering critical questions and responding to the needs of these courts.

The “purported efficiency” of streamlining the division will in fact, actually restrict citizens’ access to justice and judicial resources, she stated.

As this crisis unfolds, legislators are separately debating whether to add an intermediate court of appeals to the state judiciary. West Virginia is one of only nine states without an intermediate appellate court, meaning that all appeals must be heard by the state supreme court, or not at all. Republicans in the legislature are pushing the change, with support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

There are many advantages to adding an intermediate appellate court. For one, it would streamline the supreme court’s workload. It also carries the potential to lower the stakes of electing supreme court justices: if the supreme court were not the only appellate body in West Virginia, major donors would have less incentive to finance supreme court candidates. (And the historical corruption on the West Virginia Supreme Court as a direct result of election financing is well documented.) Of course, the same problem might just be manifested in the intermediate appellate court as well, but there is at least a chance for reform. Against these advantages is the cost: the tag for a new appellate court would be many millions of dollars.

It will be fascinating to see how these developments play out.  Can/will structural reform to the West Virginia courts bring an air of ethical reform as well?

Federal Judiciary Working Group on Workplace Conduct solicits employee input

The Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group, formed earlier this year in response to the #MeToo movement and specific allegations against Judge Alex Kozinski, has begun collecting data and reviewing existing policies. The Working Group is also soliciting input from federal court clerks and employees. Comments will be received until March 21, 2018.

More information here.