On December 14, 2009, the Northern VA local delegation interviewed 13 candidates vying to fill three Fairfax County Circuit Court vacancies. The delegation selected Brett Kassabian, Hon. Lorraine Nordlund and Michael Devine after closing the meeting to the public & casting secret ballots.
We'd like to provide you with the highlights of the judicial interviews:
Kassabian, of Oakton, made a point to mention that his uncle was a J&DR judge in Fairfax County. Kassabian's father and brother are also attorneys. Kassabian spent 8.5 years in
the Commonwealth Attorney's office under Horan. Kassabian is in private practice in Annandale, VA. He reported to have been on the bench 300-500 days as a substitute judge. Del. Chap Petersen told the delegation his courthouse mole reported that, "Kassabian is as respectful to a hysterical Pro Se litigant as he is to a partner in a prestigious law firm."
Devine was very articulate. He's practiced primarily in the area of criminal law for over 18 years, during which time he's tried over 100 jury trials. He's served as a substitute judge since 2006 (reporting to have served in that capacity approx. 3X/month). This was Devine's second appearance before the local delegation (he had put his name under consideration in a previous year). Devine mentioned he has taken CLE in Domestic Relations and stressed that his criminal law experience is an asset since litigants can't "snow him."
Judge Lorraine Nordlund has been on the Fairfax bench since 1996 and made the case that she was the most qualified candidate to fill one of the vacancies on the circuit court bench in virtue of her strong judicial experience and domestic relations background. The Fairfax Bar Association (FBA) screening committee did not recommend Nordlund, however. Nordlund's FBA rating was "qualified." A local lawyer who was on the FBA screening committee used his position on the screening committee to play hardball with Judge Nordlund -- he asked Nordlund to reverse a decision she had made in a case he had tried. When Nordlund refused to engage in any quid quo pro, the FBA committee refused to recommend her and only gave her a lame "qualified" rating. Unfortunately there are not any rules to redress problems like this at the local level. The FBA told Nordlund she could either accept the "qualified" ranking or withdraw her name as a candidate. Nordlund took her chances, gave a great presentation to the local delegation and was selected after highlighting her experience teaching other judges, her initiatives to make changes to improve the ASAP program for Hispanics and her work to implement uniform standards when it comes to creditor cases, work for which she has been nationally recognized. Nordlund's experience with the Fairfax Bar Screening Committee highlights how flawed our process for selecting judges is. Nordlund's candidacy could have easily been torpedoed by a self-interested, unethical lawyer from the FBA.
We're glad Brian Hirsch did not make the cut -- his nasal 10 minute presentation to the delegation was, quite frankly, obnoxious and arrogant. Even though Hirsch has extensive domestic relations experience and his friends wrote letters on his behalf supporting his candidacy, one delegation member remarked that there were concerns about his "temperment" and wondered why. Hirsch's response did more to hurt him than help. Mr. Hirsch continues to serve as a substitute judge.
John Tran gave a thoughtful presentation to the delegation - he spoke of his insight & ability to see three sides of every coin. Tran practices mainly in the Federal Court system. He's admitted to practice in both VA and MD and travels extensively to represent clients. Tran's goals, if he were selected, would have been to sustain and improve the Court's reputation, ensure there is a recording of all cases & availability of electronic filing. Tran, who turns 50 years old soon, spoke of the three phases of life: learning, earning and returning to the community. His interest in the judiciary stemmed from his desire to give back to the community. Tran acknowledged the FBA and other local bars were not enamored with him because he's not primarily practicing in Fairfax County. Tran came close to making the cut this year & we hope he will interview again. His breadth of experience and thoughtfulness make him a great candidate.
We also found Alicia Summers' interview interesting. Summers, who is defense counsel for State Farm, was not recommended by the local bar associations because she was "not compassionate."
Summers spoke candidly to the delegation about how the local screening committee grilled her about a case in which her settlement offer was apparently $5,000 less than the settlement value of the injury. Opposing counsel in that case tried to torpedo her candidacy on the basis of that case, which in his mind called into question her "compassion". A member of the local delegation remarked that if that is the standard, all of the candidates would not be "compassionate." Let's face it, Summers' experience in the insurance defense industry gives her a really good grasp of what an injury is really worth -- she would be every ambulance chaser's worst nightware if she were on the bench. Summers aptly stated there are "defects in the process" of selecting judges in VA. We concur.
David Bernhard's candidacy was sunk when it came to light that he forgot to show up for a jury trial and Judge Kendricks detained him for five hours. Even though there was not an order entered, Bernhard, to his credit, disclosed this incident on his application.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Local Delegation to interview Fairfax County judges Dec 14 in Fairfax
The Northern Virginia delegation will interview Fairfax County judges who are up for re-appointment on Monday, December 14. The interviews will take place at:
5 - 9 pm, December 14, 2009
at the NVRC (Northern VA Regional Commission)
3060 Williams Drive (5th floor conference room)
Fairfax, VA
Plan to be there early. Rumor has it litigants unhappy with Judge Grodner and Judge White will
show up to testify...
5 - 9 pm, December 14, 2009
at the NVRC (Northern VA Regional Commission)
3060 Williams Drive (5th floor conference room)
Fairfax, VA
Plan to be there early. Rumor has it litigants unhappy with Judge Grodner and Judge White will
show up to testify...
Fairfax Bar Association Lowers the Bar for Judicial Candidates
This just in... The Fairfax Bar Association has lowered the bar for aspiring Fairfax County judges. http://www.fairfaxbar.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=343
For those of you out there interested in becoming a judge, all you need to do for your screening interview is complete an application and submit a resume of no more than 100 words (yes, that's right, the most they want to know about your career is 100 words, so you don't need much in terms of qualifications to be considered). You might even consider Tweeting your bio if you can get it under 100 words. Keep it short and Tweet.
For those of you out there interested in becoming a judge, all you need to do for your screening interview is complete an application and submit a resume of no more than 100 words (yes, that's right, the most they want to know about your career is 100 words, so you don't need much in terms of qualifications to be considered). You might even consider Tweeting your bio if you can get it under 100 words. Keep it short and Tweet.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Open Government Conference: October 15-16, 2009
The VA Coalition for Open Government is hosting "Access 2009" its 10th annual conference
October 15-16,2009 in Staunton, VA this year. For details or to register, visit VACOG's website:
http://www.opengovva.org/get-involved/access-2009
October 15-16,2009 in Staunton, VA this year. For details or to register, visit VACOG's website:
http://www.opengovva.org/get-involved/access-2009
VA Coalition for Open Government Focuses on Transparency & Judicial Reform
The Pitchfork Rebellion weighs in on the need for transparency in judicial selection.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/FOIA07_20090906-220204/291185/
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/FOIA07_20090906-220204/291185/
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Separation of Powers and the Rise of the Judiciary
Elizabeth Haring contributed an interesting piece on the rise of the judiciary in this week's Bacon's Rebellion published by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.
http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/07/28/separation-of-powers-and-the-rise-of-the-judiciary/
Bacon's Rebellion
July 28, 2009
The first hundred years of colonial American government gave rise to a dominant legislative branch. Legislatures evolved to the point where they routinely interfered in judicial matters. For example, colonial legislatures would issue edicts requiring the courts to re-hear cases that had been adjudicated, overturn creditor’s judgments, stay executions and reverse settled decisions. Historian Gordon Wood described the assemblies of the 18th century as, “a kind of medieval court making private judgments as well as public law.”
Legislative dominance troubled the founding fathers, particularly James Madison who described the legislature in The Federalist 48 as a department which is, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” Virginia’s Constitution demarcated the separation of powers, but in reality the legislature often usurped judicial power. Thomas Jefferson complained that the Virginia legislature had, “in many instances, decided rights which should have been left to judiciary controversy…”
The founding fathers’ concerns translated into many of the Constitution’s enumerations and limitations on power. The doctrine of separation of powers is summed up in the Federalist 47, “the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”
Not long after the Constitution was ratified, Congress encroached on the judiciary’s power. In 1791, Congress passed a law providing that disabled Revolutionary War veterans apply to Federal Circuit Courts for pension determinations. However, this law granted the Secretary of War the power to deny pensions that had been approved by the courts. The US Supreme Court unanimously declined to review the pension applications, reasoning that for the courts to render judgments subject to review by Congress violated the separation of powers. This marked the first time the high court struck down an act of Congress. The Hayburn decision, the underlying case, is considered by the modern Supreme Court to reflect a proper understanding of the role of the Judiciary under the Constitution.
Over time, the judiciary has evolved to become very powerful. One indication of the immense power of the modern judiciary is the tenure of judges. Only one Federal judge has been impeached in the last twenty years.
Although Virginia’s Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission receives over 1,400 complaints about judges annually, The Virginia Supreme Court has only removed two judges since 1971. While the Virginia Constitution grants the legislature the power to impeach a judge, it has never been done. During the 2009 legislative session, Del. Carrico introduced a bill providing that if a sitting district court judge is convicted of a felony or class 1 misdemeanor during his term of office and all rights of appeal have been exhausted, his term will expire 30 days after the commencement of the next General Assembly regular session. Del. Carrico’s bill was defeated.
Last year, Virginia Supreme Court chief justice Leroy Hassell, Sr. issued two court orders to the Chairman of the Courts of Justice Committees commanding them to restrict access to the Judicial Performance Evaluations. Members of the legislature questioned whether the chief justice had any authority over them. A power struggle ensued between the two branches of government, causing some judicial candidacies to remain in abeyance for weeks. Representatives of the Virginia Supreme Court and the General Assembly got together and ultimately agreed to the chief justice’ demand to keep judicial performance evaluations confidential.
Del. Janis and Sen. Cuccinelli introduced companion bills limiting the Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court to two consecutive terms. Their attempt to check the power of Virginia’s chief jurist also failed. Another noteworthy piece of legislation this session was Del. Loupassi’s bill HB1804 requiring the General Assembly to approve retired judges for temporary recall by the Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court. HB1804 was also defeated.
Two bills were introduced that would transfer authority over the judicial performance evaluation program to the legislature and require the Survey, Evaluation and Research Lab to provide the evaluations directly to the legislature. Both failed. Unable to gain control over the Judicial Performance Evaluation program through legislative means, the Virginia General Assembly essentially killed the program by cutting its funding. Resolution of the dispute between the judicial and legislative branches over authority of the Judicial Performance Evaluation program has important public policy considerations and the conflict surrounding it underscores the need for separation of powers. Not only is involving two branches of government in the Judicial Performance Evaluation program impractical, the great political philosopher Montesquieu warned that when the judicial and legislative powers are joined, the life and liberty of citizens is exposed to arbitrary control because judges become the legislators.
The recent struggles between Virginia’s judicial and legislative branches, the many failed legislative attempts to check the judiciary’s power, and the seeming impossibility of removing judges is indicative of how powerful Virginia’s judiciary has become over the past two hundred years. It’s a far cry from the days of old when Virginia’s legislature interfered in judicial matters and was the dominant branch of government. The Virginia General Assembly’s recent moves indicate the legislature now recognizes how power has shifted toward the judicial branch and how critical it is to the proper functioning of government to have a balance of powers not only in theory but in practice.
Gordon S. Wood, Creaton of the American Republic 154-55 (1969)
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1784)
http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/07/28/separation-of-powers-and-the-rise-of-the-judiciary/
Bacon's Rebellion
July 28, 2009
The first hundred years of colonial American government gave rise to a dominant legislative branch. Legislatures evolved to the point where they routinely interfered in judicial matters. For example, colonial legislatures would issue edicts requiring the courts to re-hear cases that had been adjudicated, overturn creditor’s judgments, stay executions and reverse settled decisions. Historian Gordon Wood described the assemblies of the 18th century as, “a kind of medieval court making private judgments as well as public law.”
Legislative dominance troubled the founding fathers, particularly James Madison who described the legislature in The Federalist 48 as a department which is, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” Virginia’s Constitution demarcated the separation of powers, but in reality the legislature often usurped judicial power. Thomas Jefferson complained that the Virginia legislature had, “in many instances, decided rights which should have been left to judiciary controversy…”
The founding fathers’ concerns translated into many of the Constitution’s enumerations and limitations on power. The doctrine of separation of powers is summed up in the Federalist 47, “the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”
Not long after the Constitution was ratified, Congress encroached on the judiciary’s power. In 1791, Congress passed a law providing that disabled Revolutionary War veterans apply to Federal Circuit Courts for pension determinations. However, this law granted the Secretary of War the power to deny pensions that had been approved by the courts. The US Supreme Court unanimously declined to review the pension applications, reasoning that for the courts to render judgments subject to review by Congress violated the separation of powers. This marked the first time the high court struck down an act of Congress. The Hayburn decision, the underlying case, is considered by the modern Supreme Court to reflect a proper understanding of the role of the Judiciary under the Constitution.
Over time, the judiciary has evolved to become very powerful. One indication of the immense power of the modern judiciary is the tenure of judges. Only one Federal judge has been impeached in the last twenty years.
Although Virginia’s Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission receives over 1,400 complaints about judges annually, The Virginia Supreme Court has only removed two judges since 1971. While the Virginia Constitution grants the legislature the power to impeach a judge, it has never been done. During the 2009 legislative session, Del. Carrico introduced a bill providing that if a sitting district court judge is convicted of a felony or class 1 misdemeanor during his term of office and all rights of appeal have been exhausted, his term will expire 30 days after the commencement of the next General Assembly regular session. Del. Carrico’s bill was defeated.
Last year, Virginia Supreme Court chief justice Leroy Hassell, Sr. issued two court orders to the Chairman of the Courts of Justice Committees commanding them to restrict access to the Judicial Performance Evaluations. Members of the legislature questioned whether the chief justice had any authority over them. A power struggle ensued between the two branches of government, causing some judicial candidacies to remain in abeyance for weeks. Representatives of the Virginia Supreme Court and the General Assembly got together and ultimately agreed to the chief justice’ demand to keep judicial performance evaluations confidential.
Del. Janis and Sen. Cuccinelli introduced companion bills limiting the Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court to two consecutive terms. Their attempt to check the power of Virginia’s chief jurist also failed. Another noteworthy piece of legislation this session was Del. Loupassi’s bill HB1804 requiring the General Assembly to approve retired judges for temporary recall by the Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court. HB1804 was also defeated.
Two bills were introduced that would transfer authority over the judicial performance evaluation program to the legislature and require the Survey, Evaluation and Research Lab to provide the evaluations directly to the legislature. Both failed. Unable to gain control over the Judicial Performance Evaluation program through legislative means, the Virginia General Assembly essentially killed the program by cutting its funding. Resolution of the dispute between the judicial and legislative branches over authority of the Judicial Performance Evaluation program has important public policy considerations and the conflict surrounding it underscores the need for separation of powers. Not only is involving two branches of government in the Judicial Performance Evaluation program impractical, the great political philosopher Montesquieu warned that when the judicial and legislative powers are joined, the life and liberty of citizens is exposed to arbitrary control because judges become the legislators.
The recent struggles between Virginia’s judicial and legislative branches, the many failed legislative attempts to check the judiciary’s power, and the seeming impossibility of removing judges is indicative of how powerful Virginia’s judiciary has become over the past two hundred years. It’s a far cry from the days of old when Virginia’s legislature interfered in judicial matters and was the dominant branch of government. The Virginia General Assembly’s recent moves indicate the legislature now recognizes how power has shifted toward the judicial branch and how critical it is to the proper functioning of government to have a balance of powers not only in theory but in practice.
Gordon S. Wood, Creaton of the American Republic 154-55 (1969)
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1784)
VA Gubenatorial Candidates Agree: Judicial Evaluations and Reform Needed
Virginia Lawyers Weekly
Gov. candidates would reinstate judicial evaluations
July 25th, 2009 ·
Both Republican Bob McDonnell and Democrat Creigh Deeds apparently would restore the moribund program that gave lawyers, jurors, and citizens a voice in Virginia’s judicial selection process.
At the initial debate between the two candidates for governor, both endorsed a merit-based system of judge selection.
“We should reform the whole process,” Deeds told the audience at the Virginia Bar Association in Hot Springs. “We’ve got good judges. We lucked out, but we need reform.”
McDonnell boasted of his role in launching the judicial performance evaluation program that ground to a halt this year. “I’ll make sure we get that back on track,” he said.
By Peter Vieth
Gov. candidates would reinstate judicial evaluations
July 25th, 2009 ·
Both Republican Bob McDonnell and Democrat Creigh Deeds apparently would restore the moribund program that gave lawyers, jurors, and citizens a voice in Virginia’s judicial selection process.
At the initial debate between the two candidates for governor, both endorsed a merit-based system of judge selection.
“We should reform the whole process,” Deeds told the audience at the Virginia Bar Association in Hot Springs. “We’ve got good judges. We lucked out, but we need reform.”
McDonnell boasted of his role in launching the judicial performance evaluation program that ground to a halt this year. “I’ll make sure we get that back on track,” he said.
By Peter Vieth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
