Monday, April 09, 2018

Looking more at the limitations of judicial evaluations

Second in a series. For the first article in this series, scroll down or click here.

In a March 27 story on Injustice Watch ("Cook County judicial voters reject old habits, disfavor poorly rated candidates"), Mari Cohen and Olivia Stovicek reviewed the results of last month's judicial primary. Among the theses of the article was that, in this election, good bar ratings were important to primary voters.

But the authors also spoke with former DePaul Law School Dean (and former Circuit Court and Appellate Court Judge) Warren Wolfson, who poured a little rain on their parade: "Though most candidates consistently found unqualified lost, 'that doesn’t mean the others are qualified,' [Wolfson] said. 'Unless someone’s been sitting as a judge, you don’t really know how they’re going to behave.'"

In other words, Wolfson said that good bar ratings do not automatically equal good judicial performance; good performance in office is the best predictor of continued good performance.

If a mere blogger expresses such an opinion, it is just another blast of hot air in the Ether. But, when a person of Judge Wolfson's experience and credibility offers it, it becomes worthy of examination.

Don't get me wrong: I support the considerable efforts of the Chicago Bar Association and the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening in investigating and formulating evaluations of Cook County judicial candidates. I believe the bar ratings are important for persons looking to make informed choices when they vote for judge. I'm a fan.

Of course, I was a bigger fan of bar ratings during the many years that I was rated recommended or qualified by each and every bar group. In 2015, when my credentials were reexamined in conjunction with my application for associate judge, although I retained positive ratings from the CBA and most of the Alliance bar groups, a few of the Alliance groups decided I was no longer qualified. I therefore withdrew from the 2015 AJ applicant pool and did not reapply in 2017 (negative Alliance ratings remain in force for three years). I was perhaps less of a fan of bar ratings from that point forward. This merely proves I'm human.

Because of my newfound perspective, I can better understand the negative evaluation my friend Bonnie McGrath gives bar ratings. McGrath wrote a March 5 post on Chicago Now, a Tribune blogging platform, entitled, "I lost my faith in the bar association ratings of Cook County judicial candidates a long time ago and you should, too."

My faith in the bar evaluation process has been merely shaken, not lost. So there are many things in McGrath's post with which I disagree. But there is no human endeavor that cannot be improved. So, even though I support bar evaluations generally, I can agree with McGrath when she is critical of some terms that crop up often in bar evaluations, like "complex litigation," or "depth and breadth" [of practice].

Like Bonnie, I would sure like to know what litigation is "complex" and what is not.

The cynic in me suspects that it may sometimes be the case that 'complex' is what we do and 'not complex' is what they do. Or, perhaps, that 'complex' involves large amounts of money, while 'not complex' involves small amounts.

Either way, what a load of road apples.

In the biggest dollar case in which I was ever involved, I helped to successfully defend an eight figure jury verdict in the Appellate Court. The 'complex' part of that case was establishing the joint venture among the shipper, carrier, and logistics company/truck broker and in establishing that the truck driver was the agent of the carrier and shipper both -- and these were strategies formulated and implemented by trial counsel, not by me. On the other hand, factually, although the speeds were greater and the injuries catastrophic, it was a just a rear-end collision like so many cases in 1501. So... was that truly 'complex' litigation? (Sadly, whether it was or it wasn't 'complex' litigation, my co-counsel and I did not receive appellate counsel's traditional portion of the contingent fee in that case....)

Actually, if you read all the published evaluations over the years, as I have (of the 12 evaluating bar groups, only two, the Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers, consistently release written findings; the Illinois State Bar Association released written findings for the 2016 and 2018 primaries) you will see that the findings are frequently inconsistent -- Candidate A is deemed 'not qualified' because she has 'limited' trial experience or no 'recent' trial experience, but Candidate B is found qualified even though she has no trial experience because she has substantial motion practice or has managed a large group of people.

McGrath finds it distressing that the bar groups do not always agree -- how can one group say a person is qualified while another, looking at the same application, hearing the candidate at the same interview (the Alliance pools its resources in this manner), reaches the opposite conclusion?

I say it merely shows that reasonable people can differ.

But, clearly, some bar groups -- and some panels within bar groups -- are demonstrably more demanding, less likely to approve a candidate's credentials.

I would challenge those that are inclined to a more demanding view to look at themselves and at their more tolerant peers: Why do you differ? Are you falling prey to elitism? It would be interesting to compare 'qualified' ratings between solo practitioner candidates and candidates from large firms. I am pretty certain that, were one to do a systematic study, one would find that, at least for civil practitioners, solos are far more likely to be found less qualified than their brothers or sisters from large firms. Why?

Of course, I am a solo, so this hits close to home -- so let me use my own practice as an example: Thirteen years ago I was just finishing up a massive consolidated case -- it lasted nearly nine years, and I'd been involved in the case from the beginning. There'd been 10 consolidated cases at one time, a related federal case, an interlocutory trip to the Appellate Court, all capped off by a lengthy trial. Complex enough for you? And (at the risk of bragging here) I achieved a very good result in that case -- something that did me no good at all, from a business standpoint, because the insurer who was funding that defense went into liquidation and runoff as my case was winding down. But the bar associations loved me then.

Over the next several years, I had a run of coverage cases, all for a different carrier. Not as much litigation -- in many respects the best coverage evaluations avoid litigation, not cause it -- but there was some. Unfortunately for both me and the carrier, I was not always successful in the litigations that did result. There are no points awarded for eloquence or effort in the world of business. All that matters are results, and the last result matters most. So, after a couple of unhappy results, the carrier moved on. But the bar associations still loved me.

I was fortunate to stumble into a replacement for the departing carrier before the phones were shut off. But the new carrier was a 'substandard' one -- defined as one that writes statutory minimum policies only -- and I found myself in 1501 on a regular basis for the first time in decades. And some of the bar associations didn't love me anymore.

Was I suddenly dumber? Well, in 1993, when I first submitted my credentials for screening, I was pretty sure I knew everything I needed to know. Now, a quarter century later, I'm still learning new stuff in every election cycle, and I still don't know enough... but I don't think that was really the problem in my case.

All during these years there were appeals of one sort or another, including the one I mentioned above. Some years there were more than others. Also, throughout this period there were other litigation matters, some more 'complex' than others -- including those that prompted me to realize the need for Zero Based Discovery.

But there were never enough contingent fee matters or appeals or private litigations to generate a consistent and predictable cash flow. Instead, it was these insurance clients who provided the most reliable income. Not the highest-paying business, but the most regular. So I've been very grateful for insurance industry work, of whatever kind, over the years.

However, my taking business from a 'substandard' may have been too downmarket for some bar evaluators. No 'recent complex litigation.'

You know what? I don't apologize for doing honest work, to the best of my ability, in an effort to support my family. And I have news for the snobs: Though the dollars involved may be small, the legal issues in some of these 'little' cases can be just as thorny as in multi-million dollar cases. Not always -- but sometimes.

The point is, unlike their brothers and sisters in larger firms, a solo must take such business as is available, when it becomes available, for as long as it remains available. And if that's too déclassé to remain 'qualified' for judicial service in the opinion of some, well, I have a short, pithy response that I will not render in print.

And it's all becoming moot anyway. Just as a new GM will favor his draft picks over those left behind from the previous regime, new management teams at an insurance company will often steer business to lawyers with whom they are more familiar. That carrier I had has gone through a couple of management changes recently and my new assignments have dwindled away. I'm anxiously looking for the next rent-paying client....

Bar evaluators perform a valuable, and too often thankless, service to the bar and to the public. The investigators really do talk to colleagues and opponents and judges before whom the would-be judge has appeared. If someone's word cannot be trusted, they will find out. If someone is lazy or mean or indecisive or pigheaded, they will find out. (Probably. I remember reading a positive rating letter to my wife one day when it arrived in the mail. She stopped me when I got to the part about good temperament: "Well, no one asked me," she said. I think she was kidding. I hope she was kidding....)

The evaluators' focus should be on finding out what sort of persons are looking for elevation to the bench. Now, if someone has only done the most mind-numbing document review for the entirety of his or her career, perhaps it is reasonable to consider how that person would be able to handle the challenges of judicial service. But bar evaluators should think twice before allowing their critique of a judicial aspirant's current practice to negatively impact their rating of the candidate -- especially where the the candidate has demonstrated the ability to handle more 'complex' work in the past.

And one other idea I will steal, er, borrow from McGrath's article: The idea of a "Not Qualified" rating -- which some bar groups use instead of "Not Recommended" -- should be scrapped in favor of a uniform "Not Recommended" rating whenever a bar group reaches a negative evaluation. Under Illinois law, every lawyer in good standing is legally "qualified" to be a judge. It is presumptuous of a bar group to suggest otherwise. Under this same reasoning, the 'Qualified' rating should be scrapped in favor of "Recommended" (or "Highly Recommended").

Sometimes candidates forget this, but bar evaluations are not endorsements. Many's the time that a bar group will rate every candidate in a race as 'recommended' (or, sadly, sometimes, 'not recommended'). Use of Recommended/Not Recommended might make it more clear that bar groups are not endorsing anyone. And, selfishly, it would make it easier for me, in putting together the Organizing the Data posts on this blog: I wouldn't have to double-check to see whether this group or that one uses "Qualified" or "Recommended" ratings (one Alliance group uses one rating for sitting judges, the other for all other candidates, and it really gets confusing if a candidate is appointed to the bench after this bar group's rating has been issued).

The time for looking at how the bar groups evaluate candidates is now, now that the primary is over, now in the brief period before the JECs must gear up again to look at retention candidates. I'm sure the various bar groups do this on a regular basis, even without prompting from bloggers. I hope that posts like this may, however, contribute to those internal conversations.

Also, for all the rest of you on the outside looking in, I can suggest one way in which you can improve the quality of bar evaluations in this county: Raise your hand. Volunteer. The more evaluators we have, from varying backgrounds, the better, and fairer, the process will be.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jack, when I ran for judge years ago I was found qualified by all Bar Associations except three in the Alliance. At the same time, someone I shared office space with was found qualified by all. My officemate never tried a case alone, had a history of ARDC complaints, was hot tempered, and was known to hit the bottle a little too hard and a little too often. He told me his interview was warm and fuzzy. Mine, by contrast, was adversarial and insulting. Like I was wasting their time. I recall I was berated by an old surly retired judge who questioned the small size of the firm I worked for. I was really upset and dismayed. I tried lots of cases, had years of experience, a clean ARDC record, and lots of meaningful pro bono. Something was not right.

I called every attorney, non-attorney, and judicial reference I listed on the Alliance application. Guess what? Most (over 75%) of non-attorney and attorney references were not even contacted and not a single judicial reference was contacted. I appealed my negative ratings based upon their faulty investigation of me. Now, for all of my legal career, I have found that the gentle and soft approach yields the best results. In my written appeal, however, I did not hold back. I blasted the Alliance and alleged that they had a duty to me and all applicants to, at the very least, conduct evaluations properly and fairly, which they breached. I also alleged that in conducting careless and negligent evaluations they engaged in activities that misled the public and violated the public trust. I know all of that is a stretch, but hey, isn't that what zealous lawyers do? I further argued that not only should I not have received any negative ratings based upon my credentials, but I should have not received any positive ratings either because I really was not investigated.

I guess, to the credit of the Alliance, they agreed to re-investigate and interview me a second time. It took them over a year to complete the process which forced my to wait until the next election cycle because I did not want to run with anything other than all perfect ratings which I knew I could get. When the smoke cleared and the dust settled I overturned all my negative ratings. Yep, positive across the board. But I did not celebrate because by this time I lost all faith. My officemate, who I knew better than anyone, also received all positive ratings, and I knew he would be a terrible judge. Heck, he even joked in the office that he would be a terror on the bench, but no one at the CBA or Alliance figured it out.

In hindsight, how stupid I was. I put so much faith in the Bar Associations and their processes. I also put so much importance into the ratings. I am not sure most voters know who the judicial candidates are let alone how they are rated. I believe the Bar Associations undertake evaluating judicial candidates as another way to justify their own perceived importance and relevance to the public; when after all, they are basically elitist social clubs. I put no stock into the Bar Association ratings.

Did I ever become a judge? Thank you for asking. I did. Duly elected by the good people of the State of Illinois. But you know what? I never got into the habit of going to Bar Association events because I was never into the false platitudes served to judges along with the chicken dinners. Or maybe it is from the bad taste left in my mouth from my judicial evaluation from the Alliance. In any event, I prefer KFC.

Anonymous said...

I had a similar experence to Anon 4-9-18 4:42:00 PM. I was rated several years ago in connection with my Associate Judge application. I was found recommended or qualified by the CBA and all Alliance members but the CCL. The CCL notified me they denied my appeal within several days of their receipt of it. I could not let it rest. As I had a good working relationship with many Circuit, Appellate, and one Supreme Court Judge, I asked them to review my Alliance application and the written negative narrative I received from the CCL and asked them for their opinions and thoughts and asked if they would not mind me using them for references. These Judges were in addition to the five I listed on the Alliance application. I sent the CCL a letter and very simply told them they were entitled to their opinion but were wrong. All the other Bar Associations and a sizable number of respected judges (listed their names) came to different conclusion than that of the CCL. Within a few days the CCL sent me a revised positive rating with an entirely new narrative. When the original and revised narratives are read side by side you would think they were of two different judicial candidates. They are completely different.

When I was interviewed by the Associate Judge Selection Committee I brought this matter up trying to impress the Committee with my skills as an attorney in persuading the CCL to revise my rating. Not that I was ever in the running to make the short-list, but one of the Judges on the Selection Committee told me that the Committee understands that if 250 candidates receive more or less 10 ratings each that means the Bar Associations have issued 2500 different ratings. If the Bar Associations are right 95% of the time, that 5% that they are wrong still equates to 125 inaccurate ratings. That is just the way it is. I am sure the folks behind the Benchmark Judicial Voting Guide (See Post 3-14-18) understand this; so it is beyond me why their stated criteria for recommendation are positive ratings from all Bar Associations. Short-sighted on their part given the realities of the evaluation process. But do they really care abut getting good judges elected or are they just justifying their own importance and reason for being. I wonder, especially when their criteria will exclude so many excellent judicial candidates.

My Judge friend further explained to me that my trying to impress the Selection Committee (even though I was successful persuading the CCL to change my rating) did not go over very well. The Chief and Presiding Judges are theoretically hiring the Associates Judges who will be reporting to them, and do not want individuals who challenge authority or questions the status quo. When I learned that, the job lost all of its appeal to me.

Anonymous said...

The various JECs are understaffed and as Anon suggests evaluators often lack sufficient experience, professionally & personally, to have a grasp on what makes a good judge. We've all known brilliant people we wouldn't trust to judge a pet parade.
It's hardly a secret that some members of the Alliance have an agenda. They should be honest & forthcoming enough to state their agenda in their evaluations.
Last point: "Recommended" rating sounds like an endorsement to lay people; "Highly Recommended" or "Well Qualified" are worse still

Anonymous said...

Mr. Leyhane - Thank you for, as always, an incredibly thoughtful, appropriately insightful column on Evaluations by the Bar Associations. Your professional history is recognized and well-related to by those of us in the trenches, plying our legal craft through various mine-fields over the years, trying to support our family and build a future in an incredibly tough, competitive business. As one who has gone through the evaluation process multiple times, and served as a Bar group investigator, the overriding problem is those who vote on candidates have too narrow a view, really a closed mind, when judging and voting on candidates. We all know from dealing with people who is the type of person that would be a good judge, and who would not. People who work hard, study and apply the law, have patience and courtesy, plus inherent fairness. Unfortunately, in the quest for other goals, these fundamental traits are discounted or ignored by many bar evaluators who instead pursue a different agenda. I admire you and Ms. Mc Grath for raising the issues you present, and hopefully cause serious soul searching by those entrusted to fairly rate candidates regardless of their immutable characteristics.

Anonymous said...

I understand the commentary above and there are valid points raised, but outside of this process what is the alternative? I have yet to see an alternative listed in the negative assessment of the current process which in my view shifts the commentary from constructive criticism to useless complaining. Further, I have yet to see anyone who says they had a bad experience say they subsequently went back to their respective bar association to join the committee to become an evaluator and/or investigator. If you don’t like the process step up, get involved and assist with changing it. Otherwise, you are just creating noise pollution which doesn’t help prospective judicial candidates and/or the general public try to have a basis from which to determine who should be on the bench.

Jack Leyhane said...

In the course of the past 25 years, I have been screened many times by the Alliance and the CBA. As far as I can tell, contrary to the unhappy experiences related by Anon. 4/9 @4:42 p.m., the investigators in my case were pretty thorough on each of those occasions -- I base this conclusion on the fact that I heard from many people who were contacted.

Sometimes this was very reassuring.

Not always.

The first time through, I ran into a former opponent on a crowded elevator in the Daley Center. He couldn't wait to tell me, and everyone present, how he'd praised me to the skies when he was called by the investigator. "I told him," he said, "that you were the living reincarnation of Learned Hand and Benjamin Cardozo."

Well, this was unexpected. I stood a little straighter, puffed up like a balloon. Who wouldn't? I started to mumble some thanks -- but the guy interrupted me.

"Oh, yeah," he said, "I laid it on thick. I'm really hoping you'll make it." He paused for a moment; I puffed up even more. He resumed.

"Because I figure, if you do get on, you'll be stuck in Traffic Court for so long that I'll be able to retire before I ever have to deal with you again. Anything," he concluded, "rather than ever have another case with you."

He roared with laughter. All the air went out of my balloon. And I'm pretty sure that everyone on that elevator had to stifle at least a giggle.

Jack Leyhane said...

Anon 4/10 at 8:51 a.m. wrote, "I understand the commentary above and there are valid points raised, but outside of this process what is the alternative?"

No alternative comes readily to my mind either, which is why I'm all for reforming and tweaking, rather than reinventing. And, I'm sure you saw, I did put in a plug for more people to step up and assist in the process -- that will help make the process more equitable in and of itself.

I'm not too sure, though, Anon, that mere complaining is "useless." From the experiences people share, we can perhaps see ways to improve the process, or perhaps identify and remedy some prejudices or preconceived notions that some evaluators may be bringing to the process.

Unknown said...

I mention several possible alternatives throughout my piece on this subject that Jack has linked to in his piece. I know that none would be perfect--and any alternative would probably present new problems that none of us can predict. But since so many of us agree that the ratings process really can't predict who will be a good judge, or a bad one, why not let the newspapers and websites like "injustice watch" or the bar associations themselves bring out a candidate's disciplinary history with the ARDC (or with the justice system, if any)--and leave it at that? Treat the candidates simply as candidates for office, which is what they are.

Anonymous said...

@April 10, 2018 8:51:00 AM - I appreciate anyone who takes a few moments out of their day to comment about their experiences whether good or bad, or share their thoughts or opinions. It is not "noise pollution" or complaining. Sorry you feel that way. Those interested in elevating to the bench do not, as you suggest, have the option to get involved with bar association JEC's as such involvement returns negative ratings. Bar associations automatically negatively rate judicial candidate who have served on JEC's within a certain time frame. You or I or anyone else may not be happy with what goes on in Chicago or Springfield but the answer is not all of us running for Mayor or Governor is it?

Nothing is more disheartening than opening an email from one of the big three bar associations in which they are soliciting for JEC members and require a minimum of two years of experence. Really? If there is a shortage of qualified warm bodies to fill JEC seats than the answer is to stop conducting judicial evaluations. What is the alternative? Continuing with a flawed process that yields inconstant results that is unfair to candidates and misleads the public?

Unfortunately, bar association ratings can be a deadly serious matter to candidates and the bar associations know this. That is why they will never get out of the business of evaluating judicial candidates; it gives the associations power. I discussed possible appointments with two different Supreme Court Justices. One Justice, who was friendly with my political sponsors, told me my one negative rating was not going to be a roadblock to an appointment and as soon as an anticipated vacancy became available it was mine. In the interim, another vacancy became available but unfortunately for me was controlled by a different Supreme Court Justice who was not that friendly to my political sponsors. This Supreme Court Justice used my one negative rating as justification for not appointing me. I would have had more respect for the Justice if she just said I can't stand your home committeeman, I'm not appointing you. The original anticipated vacancy never appeared.

You have to take your hat off to all of the guys and gals that are able to successfully navigate to the bench. No money, lots of money, Irish name, political connections, sneak attack, dirty political consultants..... I don't care how they do it. Judicial candidates must just resolve themselves to the reality that bar associations are like every other entity involved with judge-making; nice and clean and shiny on the outside but just the opposite on the inside.

Anonymous said...

Once again, Jack, I credit your link and reference to Ms. McGrath's blog about the arbitrary, subjective and uninformed or biased recommendations of so many bar associations. She is absolutely correct. This system is so flawed and not suitably related to any predictable assessment of future judicial performance. I know this because I am blessed or lucky enough to sit on the bench and have witnessed these so called investigations or evaluations from both sides. Before I became a judge, raising any criticism or complaints re fairness or thorough investigations would always invite typical criticism of sour grapes, whining about losing, or not accepting your shortcomings like the criticism I have read above regarding Ms. McGrath's piece. That actually spurred me to continue seeking my place on the bench so that my critical observations could no longer be dismissed as sour grapes.

Now that I 've served on the bench for so long and been routinely interviewed by these bar committee investigators, I can support Ms. McGrath's conclusions of how lame, biased and closed minded these evaluations have become. There is little consistency and each bar association apparently exists to merely support their own. If you share their national origin, ethnicity or sexual preference, you are usually highly recommended. If you have any background adverse professionally to any group, Good luck. This often leads to biased reviews. Moreover, Ms. McGrath is correct that some bars stack their evaluations with favorites too. There are many times when my name is listed a a reference or judge that the candidate has appeared before, and I honestly try to recall and answer the bar investigator's pattern 4 questions How is the candidates demeanor? their integrity? their punctuality? and their legal knowledge.. Wow, was that intensive investigation ?

When I confirm that the nice young attorney, has little or no litigation experience beyond traffic matters , etc, I learn that certain bar associations reward these favorite sons or daughters with highly recommended status, because I also know they have heavy benefactors, or spouses, or family, etc,, ( Its Cook Co., you can fill in the blanks .) So honest appraisals don't count. an
So that brings us back to square 1, if pure politics doesn't work and if diversity bar associations don't objectively work, (except for their own) what does? From my observation post, the closest we get to merit selection is similar to the associate judge process where all of the judges vet the candidates and diversity is respected and welcomed and hopefully the cream rises to the top. The only problem is who decides the short list to really evaluate over 300 candidates to boil this down to the number needed.. Perhaps looking to other judicial circuits throughout the State would be helpful. At least the sitting judges still have an interest in filling their vacancies with the best available to enrich the reputation of all the judiciary and they are far more critical of novice judicial hopefuls than the public and bar associations. That is why we are starting to see 'write in " candidates that are successful and this time, may be more involved. Perhaps it is surprising, but my experiences confirm that sitting judges want equally competent, fair and patient new judges because one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.
.

Anonymous said...

Jack, this may have been raised on your blog before, and if so, please forgive me. I do not believe that it is proper for any of the bar associations to use the rating "qualified" or "not qualified". It is my understanding that if one meets the qualifications required to run for judge set forth in the Illinois Constitution; they are in fact "qualified" for the office. The bar associations have no authority to say otherwise. I believe that bar associations should only "recommend" or "not recommend".

One other aspect of ratings concerns me, and that is the negative rating given to those candidates who, for whatever reason, bypass the bar association evaluations. Unquestionably, the most correctly descriptive rating would be "not evaluated". Every candidate has the right not to participate. It is a right not a duty. Some candidates I see have received a "not evaluated" rating when Alliance bar members do not attend candidate interviews. Should those candidates not receive a positive rating by default? How come it does not work both ways? At best these bar association practices are hypocritical, at worst they are an exercise of coercive power. Maybe they are both and that is just what the bar associations intend for reasons having to do more with legitimizing and inserting themselves as important players in the election of judges, and less so in ensuring a quality judiciary.

Albert said...

Just an FYI regarding lack of familiarity with alternatives: In several states the process of evaluating sitting judges who a face retention election is formalized under state law and performed by a state organization that evaluates judicial performance. Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Alaska all have commissions that receive public funding and perform systematic evaluations of sitting judges prior to their retention votes.

Not saying that this is any better or worse than what we have; simply mentioning that there is an alternative, at least for sitting judges.

Anonymous said...

These last two blog pieces have been very interesting
to read, especially the comments which have a different view of the Alliance ratings than do you , Jack. But even you recognize the inequities of these ratings because you once received favorable ratings than for no discernible reason , the ratings went south.

The problem as I perceive it is that in the AJ selection, Judge Evans
has given too much power to these small groups without verifying that they are meeting the standards under which the Alliance was formed. Many felt the CBA and CCBA or CCL had too much say in the process so the Alliance was created to give other groups a voice. But, as I have been told each Bar was required to have at least 150 active members and a 15 member JEC executive committee. Is this true and is this still the case ? How about an affidavit from the Bar President about those requirements? I heard from a lot of unsuccessful primary candidates that they got evaluated by some Alliance Bars but were
never investigated by them.
It seems many of the comments on your last two blogs ask what can be done about this. It also seems many commentators are sitting Judges.
In Sept 2019 there will be another Chief Judge Election and I suggest that anyone who takes on these groups would be successful. Then what- well simply tell the Alliance any Bar group that fails to provide the Chief Judge with evidence that they are qualified to take part in the program will not have their ratings considered in selecting AJs.
As many of said already on this blog, something must be done and now is the time.

Jack Leyhane said...

Anon 4/16 at 11:12 -- I never heard about a numerical requirement for any Alliance member, either as to overall size or to the membership of its JEC. I imagine that such a rule, if it ever existed, would be extremely difficult to enforce. If someone knows something definitive on this, step up.

But I must challenge your remarks on Alliance investigations. The whole point of the Alliance is that the groups individually cannot investigate all judicial candidates. So, as I understand it, the Alliance assigns an investigative panel for each candidate that crosses membership lines: For example, the lead investigator may be from LAGBAC, but might be assisted by a member each from the Council, the Hellenic Bar Association, or the Decalogue Society. But that doesn't mean that those groups do investigate the candidate and the Alliance other groups don't. The investigation is performed by members from some of the Alliance members for the benefit of all.

All the Alliance members are supposed to have representation in the candidate interview and evaluation session. This is not always the case, as may be shown by the several NE's issued in this primary season. I have heard of instances where a single individual was the sole 'representative' of two or more Alliance members at an interview session because that person was a member of multiple Alliance JECs. That's problematic, in my opinion.

I've read with interest the anecdotes of those who have complained that investigations, in their particular cases, were inadequate or half-hearted. I don't think that's been true in my case, based on feedback I've received -- not all of it along the lines of the elevator anecdote I shared elsewhere, thank you. I suppose, as in all human things, some investigators are better than others,

But I think there should be more concern about how individual Alliance members are handling the information generated by the investigators and at the candidate interviews. It's my observation, based on putting up the interim grids over the last several election cycles, that the NE's are often the last ratings released, when you would think they'd be the first. Also, in theory, all the Alliance members get their 'crack' at a candidate at the same time. Why do some Alliance members complete their evaluations of Candidate X in time for the first release of the grids, while others are delayed and delayed? The answer is that each Alliance member has its own rules regarding what it does with the investigation. That's an easy answer... but what does it mean in practice?

I'll ask. And I'll let you know what, if anything, I find out.