Judges argue benefits of specialization plan

Bill Gang

Tuesday, Nov. 10, 1998 | 11:25 a.m.

The future of the District Court system in Clark County is up for grabs today at a judges' meeting that was expected to be marked and marred by fireworks.

The issue is whether the 16 District Court judges who handle civil and criminal cases should continue a pilot program in which some judges hear nothing but criminal cases while the others preside over only civil cases. The system is designed to allow judges to specialize.

Lawyers surveyed by the Clark County Bar Association support the system that allows specialization by nearly 2 to 1, although they concede they haven't seen speedier resolutions or better decisions.

Some lawyers have indicated they seem to have better access to courts than when judges had to decide criminal cases one day and civil the next. In the old system, judges also rotated types of trials they heard every three weeks.

But some judges have voiced dissatisfaction with the specialization project begun in July 1997 and say that statistics showing improvements are more smoke and mirrors than substance.

Advocates of specialization argue that the system finally lets litigants in civil actions have a place to fight out their disputes without having to worry if their cases are going to be bumped by high-profile criminal trials.

Chief District Judge Myron Leavitt admits he was skeptical when specialization first was proposed, but he has been won over.

"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."

But 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 where the judges used to handle their caseloads however they saw fit.

Opponents complain that not all judges keep their caseloads current and when the time comes for judges to switch from civil to criminal caseloads, or vice versa, there are going to be unfair situations.

Judges are not above finger-pointing or accusatory demeanor.

But before the judges get to their debate on the issues and their ultimate vote, there were expected to be vocal disagreements on just who can vote.

There are three new judgeships in District Court, and whatever decision comes from the vote will affect them, but since they won't be sworn in until January, they legally are not judges in the civil-criminal court.

Some current judges have indicated they want the three to be able to vote, but other judges have concuded it isn't proper.

Another matter involves the Family Court judges, who are district judges but relegated to the Family Court arena. Whether they should vote is up for debate, and some family judges are expected to assert their right to join in the process.

Complicating that is proposed legislation to remove the restriction on Family Court judges to handle only domestic cases -- opening the door for them to hear civil and criminal cases.

If that passes in the 1999 Legislature, it would mean that whatever decision the 16 civil and criminal judges make now ultimately would affect the family judges.