|
By THOMAS B. SCHEFFEY
In its first survey of state judges' accountability, a consumer legal watchdog group ranks Connecticut second in the nation.
But that doesn't mean the state is perfect. The Washington, D.C.,-based HALT gave Connecticut an overall grade of a B-minus. It praised the state Judicial Review Council for its user-friendly web site and for including lay persons on the panel that hears complaints against judges.
But the state received failing marks - unfairly, according to some state officials - for rules deemed to be too lax in regulating judicial junkets.
Still, only Washington state fared better than Connecticut overall. In fact, HALT's Judicial Accountability Report Card was by and large scathing. The group's web site said that, in general, state court systems are marked by "toothless judicial ethics standards and closed-door systems charged with disciplining judges."
More than half the states received grades below a C. Mississippi and Maine flunked outright. Connecticut officials seemed pleased with the state's ranking.
"As Chief Justice Rogers has made clear, and this report shows, the Judicial Branch is committed to openness and accountability," said Chief Court Administrator Barbara Quinn.
"It's nice to know that someone thinks you're doing an OK job," said Peter Clark, director of the Judicial Review Council.
The council has come a long way since the early 1990s, when it had no fixed address or phone number and members met at restaurants over lunch. "We like to recognize improvement," said James Turner, executive director of HALT, which stands for Help Abolish Legal Tyranny. A lawyer himself, Turner said the pro-consumer group has worked since 1979 to de-mystify the court system for litigants, pro se and otherwise.
Clear And Detailed
The brand new web site of the Judicial Review Council was ranked the best in the nation. HALT's report praised its "straightforward navigation" and "clear and detailed explanation of the disciplinary process." The report also noted that it included answers to frequently asked questions, archived past rulings and made available the text of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The council's most important function is to review complaints against judges. The 12-member council is made up of three lawyers, three judges and six members of the public. The fact that half of those appointed are laypersons earned the praise of the watchdog group. Only Washington state, which has a majority of laypeople on its review board, earned higher marks in the category.
The lowest grade on Connecticut's Judicial Accountability Report Card is an F for not having a specific rule placing dollar limits on the reimbursement and compensation a judge can accept from corporate-sponsored junkets.
Turner said his group was particularly focused on reports of judges across the country being treated to luxury trips sponsored by the energy industry. "They're about the same as lobbying, and shouldn't be allowed," he said.
Deborah Fuller, legislative liaison for the state Judicial Branch, says Connecticut judges tend to avoid going on corporate-sponsored trips that could create a conflict interest. When they travel, she said, it's usually to meetings of judges associations.
A Judicial Branch spokeswoman cited the Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that judges can't accept gifts generally, but makes exceptions for family, hospitality, honoraria, books and invitations to bar-related educational functions.
Those loopholes, said Turner, are used by corporations to engage in thinly-veiled lobbying efforts on environmental issues, among others. He said the junket issue is a big one with federal judges, and that the U.S. Senate is considering new rules.
"Our understanding is that Connecticut judges can take unlimited trips to sponsored events. While there is financial disclosure, there is not a limitation on reimbursements or compensation," Turner said.
The judicial code language, he said, "doesn't change our assessment of the Connecticut system. Unfortunately, it is inadequate to protect against a pervasive practice of so-called educational seminars being used to systematically lobby the judicial branch by corporations and other vested interests that will have a stake in issues the judges will eventually hear."
Transparency
Many states place a gag on people who file a complaint against a judge. HALT says it considers this an improper restraint on speech. The fact that Connecticut does not attempt to do this was a plus in its overall grade, Turner said.
But the Judicial Review Council's practice of releasing complaints about judges only after probable cause has been established earned the state a middling C for transparency. To get an A, a state would have to make a complaint public at filing, which is rare.
States that make all sanctions against judges public get an A in that category. Those that allow private reprimands, such as Connecticut, which earned a C-minus in the category, are downgraded. Connecticut officials have said that in cases of minor infractions, a private sanction is the appropriate punishment.
Turner disagrees. Only discipline that is public can be monitored, he said. "It's also a consumer issue; what about the poor schlub who was harmed by the judge's actions? If the remedy is private, nobody knows it even happened."
© 2008, ALM Properties, Inc.
|
