As justice center rumbles, the case for appointing judges grows by the day

The local attorney is a respected veteran with many cases and courtroom victories.

The fact he wanted to comment on the mess at the Regional Justice Center involving District Judge Elizabeth Halverson was understandable. Everyone is talking about it.

What was initially surprising, however, was the fact he wished to remain anonymous. This lawyer isn’t shy about making his opinions known or publicly celebrating a courthouse win.

After taking a moment to consider his position, and those held by hundreds of other attorneys who regularly work civil and criminal cases inside the system, I appreciated his need to remain in the background. In a highly political atmosphere, stating an unpopular opinion opens an attorney up for criticism and can harm his ability to effectively represent a client. Given the Halverson mess, even filing a peremptory challenge has the potential to backfire. Attorneys are afraid to wind up in the middle of the Halverson chaos.

The local attorney’s view is valuable because it illustrates the fallout the Halverson case already is causing. To date, the embattled rookie judge has shown no interest in resigning, despite being slammed by Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle and her colleagues, who recently decided not only to take away her criminal cases, but at one point forced her to leave the courthouse altogether. That decision, especially extreme and flabbergasting considering Halverson was elected by Clark County voters, has been stayed pending a full review by the state Supreme Court.

While the justice center rumbles, the case for appointing judges grows by the day, and my attorney friend offers his own pointed perspective based on approximately three decades of experience.

“The revelations about District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson seem to be shocking residents of Las Vegas almost daily,” he writes. “Meanwhile, local attorneys are shaking their collective heads and almost chuckling, if it weren’t so tragic, with the thought, ‘We told you so.’ You see, it was not a secret to the attorneys in this community — or to the other judges — that Elizabeth Halverson had absolutely zero experience as a trial attorney. Furthermore, there were other aspects of her personality that were not conducive to acting as a fair and competent jurist.

“But because judges are elected by the populace, there was no way we could get the word out. If one of us sounds the alarm about a candidate and he or she is elected, all of our clients who later appear in front of that judge could be adversely affected. We told our close friends who asked for our advice, but that represents a tiny fraction of the voting public. Everyone else’s vote was a shot in the dark. And now everyone who has insisted that the people must retain the power to elect judges is shocked! SHOCKED!”

There are plenty of problems with electing judges, not the least of which is the unseemliness of compelling supposedly impartial jurists to go hat-in-hand every few years to raise campaign cash from many of the same people who will later appear before them in court.

Although he spoke like a true trial attorney, my local lawyer observes, “The most sensible solution is to allow trial attorneys to select the judges. Litigators appear in front of the judges regularly, and they observe the performance of other attorneys who may want to run for judge. We know who is knowledgeable and who has the temperament to be thoughtful and fair. But it is doubtful that all of you would trust all of us with that decision. It’s too bad. The truth is that we don’t want partisan friends on the bench. We want fair and competent judges. Nevertheless, that’s probably too much to hope for.”

If that’s going too far, and I think it is, then his next suggestion seemed to make more sense.

“If an impartial panel picked nominees based on their experience and competency, then the people could possibly decide among those nominees,” he says. “But our present system that allows anyone who managed to pass the bar exam to run for judge, and thereafter preside over life and death decisions, is reckless. We are simply asking for trouble. So, until a change is made, we should try and restrain our shock.”

Is it time to change the system?

John L. Smith’s column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0295.