Community growth pushes courts to reorganize

Bill Gang

Monday, March 25, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

As Las Vegas has exploded from a town to a city to a metropolis, there is a growing feeling among some district judges that the court system that used to be "good enough" just isn't anymore.

The district courts -- long operated by the judges as autonomous entities of power and prestige -- have outgrown their independent origins and the judges know it.

They voted during a meeting last week in favor of a major change in the system that would allow, or perhaps force, judges to specialize in criminal or civil law.

The plan could open the door to more specialization, such as settlement judges, arraignment judges and others.

Chief judge system

There even was talk that a "strong chief judge" system may be needed -- a concept that was blasphemous not too long ago. In such a system, one of the judges actually would supervise the others and have the power to enforce decisions about caseloads.

The bottom line is that the district courts could improve efficiency by more than 25 percent if specialization were instituted.

Today, each judge handles roughly an equal percentage of the civil and criminal cases filed in the courts -- one day arraigning criminal defendants and sentencing criminals and the next deciding contract disputes or malpractice cases. They set their own trials and control their own calendars.

That diverse system, however, has become antiquated as law, like many other professions, becomes more specialized.

While some judges at the meeting said they preferred the diversity of handling criminal and civil cases, the majority agreed that the future of the court system lies in specialization -- a conclusion many other states have already reached.

"It's like we're operating typewriters in a computer age," said newly appointed District Judge Michael Douglas.

The vote was 9-6 in favor of specialization, with one judge absent and not voting.

The vote, however, is not binding on anybody since the consensus of the judges is that a constitutional change would be necessary to authorize anything but voluntary specialization.

Still, the vote likely will influence the way the court system deals with its workload in the future.

Affects justice center

It also may affect plans for the proposed Clark County Justice Center that is on the Sept. 3 primary election ballot as part of a $120 million bond question.

The judges have noted that a civil courtroom doesn't need as much seating as a criminal courtroom because it frequently is just the attorneys and not the litigants who attend court hearings.

A wing of civil courtrooms, thus, would require fewer elevators to service it -- with the accompanying savings in construction costs.

District Judge Stephen Huffaker said that considering the current workloads, about 60 percent of the judges would have to specialize in criminal cases. That would translate into nine of the current 16 judges. Six would handle civil cases under Huffaker's formula and the last judge would be the chief.

District Court Administrator Chuck Short told the judges that in states where judges handle just criminal or civil cases, studies have shown those courts to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient.

"There's no question in my mind that it would be more efficient," said District Judge Bill Maupin, who is running for the Nevada Supreme Court. "More cases could be tried or settled and it would happen in a shorter period of time."

Jack of all trades

District Judge Lee Gates said he believes "it's impossible to be a jack of all trades. To be efficient we need expertise."

At the end of the judges' meeting, a five-member committee was established to explore the specialization concept and try to resolve some of the conflicts.

One of the things the panel will be looking at is whether some judges can continue to handle criminal and civil cases rather than being forced to choose one or the other.

The committee also will look at how a constitutional amendment would affect the rest of the state, which is composed of judicial districts that have only one judge, often covering several counties.

A constitutional change would require legislative action plus two affirmative votes by the public.

"I'm pretty jealous of my jurisdiction," said District Judge Myron Leavitt, who wants to continue handling both kinds of cases.

"I'd be bored as hell if I had to hear just civil or criminal cases all month," agreed District Judge Joseph Pavlikowski.

Nevada already has headed toward specialization with the implementation three years ago of the Family Court system to handle domestic and juvenile matters.

While the judges emphasized that specialization is a procedural -- and not political -- issue, the reality of politics and elections still surfaced at the meeting.

Chief District Judge Donald Mosley, whose title carries administrative duties but no power to direct other judges, noted that criminal cases give better media exposure toward re-election.

On the other hand, he said, civil cases give judges better contact with the attorneys who actually donate most of the money to judicial campaigns.