Judge specialization wins approval

Bill Gang

Wednesday, Nov. 11, 1998 | 11:24 a.m.

The pilot program that for more than a year has let district judges specialize in either civil or criminal cases has been made a permanent system.

It is a system that was widely advocated by attorneys, and statistics indicated it was more efficient. The district attorney's office and the public defender's office both advocated specialization.

But the decision wasn't without some stiff debate, and there were outright foes among the 16 current judges and three newly elected judges who won't take the bench until January but were allowed to vote on the issue.

"Specialization won't work," barked District Judge Sally Loehrer, who has been handling civil cases and has complained that the workload for civil judges is far above that of criminal judges.

She said that unless there is some relief for the civil judges, specialization "is going to kill them, absolutely kill them."

But District Judge Stephen Huffaker, who also handles civil cases, countered that he hasn't found his civil caseload to be any more taxing than a criminal caseload.

District Judge Nancy Becker, also is a civil judge, concluded that "specialization is worth preserving."

The vote to retain specialization, on a motion by District Judge Lee Gates, grants concessions to the overworked civil side of the scale.

The current system equally splits the court into civil and criminal judges. The new specialization plan provides for 10 civil judges and recommends that each judge gets two law clerks to one for the less-research-intensive criminal courts.

That will leave 8 1/2 criminal judges, with District Judge Jack Lehman, who presides over Drug Court in half his time, providing the other half to criminal cases.

An early vote at Tuesday's meeting was one vote shy of returning the court to the original system in which judges handled both types of cases -- hearing criminal cases one day and civil cases the next.

Becker warned that an attempt to return to the former system would result in chaos, because trials already are set into the new millenium.

Huffaker noted that a survey by the National Center on State Courts showed that 79 percent of 600 attorneys responding found specialization to be a sound system while only 10 percent concluded it was not. Eleven percent had no opinion.

He said that only one specialized court system -- in Riverside County, Calif. -- has attempted to revert to a system where judges handle both civil and criminal cases, and there was such an outcry by attorneys that if again forced specialization.

The judges also rejected a compromise to continue the specialized system as a pilot program for another six months, then vote on a permanent system. That would have allowed time for the National Center on State Courts to complete a study on the system begun several months ago.

But District Attorney Stewart Bell said that he needed a final decision right away to help him organize his staffing and seek new positions from the County Commission if that were necessary.

The 11-6 vote for specialization served the planning needs for Bell and Public Defender Morgan Harris.

Judges' assignments to civil or criminal cases won't be permanent -- but they could be.

Judges generally will keep their assignments for at least two years, then change their specialities. But the system adopted is fluid and could allow judges to pursue their areas of interest. Some judges would prefer to always handle criminal cases. A couple want only to preside over civil cases.

Most indicated a desire to experience the diversity of both types of law.

But District Judge Donald Mosley said flatly, "mandatory rotation is abhorrent."