Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Last night the first four judges were interviewed by the judicial retention committee. The committee heard from Judges Cohen, Crucitti, Manley and Tomasi. The two hour hearing focused mostly on the anonymous comments contained in the legislature’s survey of lawyers, court staff and others. Some judges faced more questioning than others. The committee chair, Rep. Tom Koch, made it clear that the committee does see the anonymity of those comments as an issue. But all recognized that judges don’t get the feedback that could be helpful to them between the retention processes that only occur every six years. What the committee really looks for are criticisms that repeat from one six year term to another. For example, Judge Cohen faced a number of negative comments including that he is indecisive, unclear from the bench, disorganized, unprepared, and takes too long to issue written decisions. But for the time in issuing rulings none of those criticisms were present six years ago. Rep. Koch engaged him in conversation about the MERS cases and praised his work in researching and issuing those decisions and in his help in passing the foreclosure mediation bill.

Judge Crucitti’s hearing was the quickest one I can recall, ending when the chair remarked that his scores were the highest he’d seen. The judge spoke about substance abuse and his willingness to take some chances and develop new programming to help defendants overcome that issue.

Judge Manley was next to appear and spoke to her experience in the three northeast counties where she presides in multi jurisdictional courts. She remains excited about her work even if it means learning new skills in dealing with, for example, self represented litigants. There is a different stress level in those courts where a judge covers three courts at once. She does enjoy going into a larger county where there may be one or more judges to consult with. She agrees judicial rotation is good for a judge’s “emotional health”. Although the domestic docket may be the most stressful, she enjoys the interactive nature of that docket as well as the juvenile docket. When in criminal division she enjoys working with jurors. Like Judge Crucitti, she has grown in the job and feels more comfortable in doing it. She did acknowledge the accuracy of a comment that she could be short with staff and has begi=un the address that shortcoming.

The final judge was Judge Tomasi. His background, as many of you know, included time in a Boston law firm, service as an assistant AG and an assistant US Attorney.  So, as often happens with our system of judicial selection and assignment, he was assigned to a multi jurisdictional court and had to learn the domestic and criminal dockets pretty quickly. He offered that it is difficult for judges to get feedback and was somewhat taken aback by comments from court staff. Some of the criticisms of Judge Tomasi are that he needs to take better control of the courtroom and be more assertive. He acknowledged that the first few years were very stressful but he’s reached out to more experienced judges for guidance.

I just returned from yet another canceled hearing on S. 31, the Billings bill. The Senate Judiciary committee is reviewing amendments to S. 77, the patient control at end of life bill that is up for Senate action this afternoon. I’m not sure when the committee will return to S. 31.

Thanks for reading.