Reactions mixed on specializing of judges

Bill Gang

Monday, Aug. 10, 1998 | 10:44 a.m.

Deloris Beckwith's wrongful-termination lawsuit against Dillard department stores in October 1996 could have been relegated to a judicial back burner while criminal cases were given trial preference.

At the time, 16 District Court judges were handling both civil and criminal cases and rotating the types of trials they heard every three weeks.

But in July 1997, a pilot program was launched with about half of the judges agreeing to handle nothing but criminal cases while the other half specialized in civil.

A month later, a slot opened up on District Judge Mark Gibbons' trial calendar, and a few weeks after that, Beckwith won a jury award of $2.4 million.

The significant issue isn't the amount of the award, but that the judgment came perhaps years ahead of the norm for civil cases. Gibbons conceded reluctantly -- because he isn't a fan of judicial specialization -- that the shift to the new system probably was the reason.

The quick resolution of Beckwith's case is something the judicial system would like to bestow on others. But the reality is that even under ideal circumstances, not everybody can have their day in court before a jury of their peers.

For years, Clark County has been feeling the squeeze of the community's metamorphosis into a million-plus metropolis with big-city crime and big-city legal problems.

Only a tiny number of cases -- less than 2 percent -- actually makes it to trial. Criminal cases commonly are plea-bargained and civil cases are resolved by arbitration or settled out of court.

The specialization pilot program was a concession to efficiency. Private lawyers like it. Prosecutors and public defenders like it. For the judges, however, the verdict's not in. They are split on the issue despite statistics that indicate it works better.

District Judge Sally Loehrer said that specialization "has brought disharmony and dissension" among the 16 judges in what used to be a live-and-let-live system of individual fiefdoms in which judges handled their case loads however they saw fit.

But specialization has its supporters.

"I believe specialization has facilitated our ability to get results," District Attorney Stewart Bell said. "Courtrooms are available to try cases or get negotiations."

Bell noted the statistics show that more criminal cases were closed during the past year although, ironically, fewer criminal trials were conducted.

During 1996-97, 163 criminal trials were held. In 1997-98, there were 139. Meanwhile, civil trials jumped from 89 to 129. As a result, the overall number of trials increased modestly from 252 to 268.

Civil attorneys, tired of having their cases bumped for more high-profile criminal cases, are grateful to have their own block of courts in which to litigate. Civil lawyers have long complained that it has been difficult to pick a fight but have no ring in which to duke it out.

Chief District Judge Myron Leavitt admits he was skeptical when specialization was proposed but told an audience of 80 at a recent Clark County Bar Association luncheon that his mind has been changed.

"Judges are working harder and disposing of more cases," he said. "At one point we had 12 jury trials going on at the same time."

The specialization pilot program was supposed to have ended in July but has been extended by a vote of the judges until at least November.

District Judge Jeff Sobel has suggested the statistics supporting specialization may be a "bookkeeping change" more than a true indicator of the concept's success.

District Court Administrator Chuck Short concedes there is room for argument about the statistics, but factual data confirms that, at some level, there has been improvement.

He said a $68,000 study to be completed in November by the National Center for State Courts, based in Williamsburg, Va., should be able to sift through the system's changes and accurately determine just how efficient specialization is.

It is the first study in the nation of the specialized court concept although numerous other states have been utilizing the system for decades, according to Assistant Disrict Court Administrator Rick Loop.

The outcome of the study, mixed with a dash of judicial politics and stirred by expected action in the Nevada Legislature, has the potential to change the face of the judiciary permanently.

The theory of specialization is that judges could be more efficient if they avoided the old system of flip-flopping cases. In bygone days, judges presided over civil cases one day and criminal the next. They scheduled civil trials for a three-week "stack" and criminal for the next three weeks.

If a trial was likely to run long and infringe on the next "stack," it usually was postponed. If a criminal trial -- particularly one involving a murder or sexual-assault charge with mandatory prison time -- was set and the defendant was in custody, civil cases took a back seat.

Loehrer, who is handling the time-intensive civil cases, said that two-thirds of the cases in the system result from civil lawsuits, yet only seven of the 16 judges are assigned to that speciality.

"Forty-five percent of the judges are doing two-thirds of the work," she fumed. "The case loads are very inequitably disseminated."

While civil judges and their staffs regularly put in long weeks -- Gibbons said 60-hour weeks are routine for him -- many criminal-case judges regularly leave work early unless they have trials.

Sobel, who presides over criminal cases, agrees that the current structure is uneven.

"Criminal cases are simpler and less time-consuming," he said. "Criminal judges have less demanding case loads. It's not fair ... and we have got to be fair to everybody."

He, like Loehrer and Gibbons, advocates returning to a system in which judges handle both types of cases.

But preliminary results from a survey of lawyers on the issue by the Clark County Bar Association shows attorneys favoring specialization 2-to-1, bar president Sylvia Teuton said.

The ultimate decision is going to be made -- or at least ratified -- by the Nevada Supreme Court, which has supervisory control over the state's judicial systems.

Justice Bob Rose, who was a Clark County district judge before being elected to the high court a decade ago, said, "The big question is, under which system will the public be most adequately served?

"This court will want to be convinced that any change will better serve the public, not just the individual judges," he said.