Monday, December 14, 2009
"ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT?" ASKS THE POST AND COURIER
The Editorial "One strike and you're out?" appeared in the Sunday, December 13, 2009 edition of The Post and Courier. We take no position on accuracy of some of the facts presented. However, because we beleive this Editorial make some points worthy of discussion and consideration, we have posted it in its entirity:
The unfortunate decision to disqualify Family Court Judge Charlie Segars-Andrews from re-appointment bodes ill for the state's judicial screening system. The Judicial Merit Selection Commission, in this matter, failed the tests of openness, clarity and fairness.
The commission based its assessment of the judge on one 2006 divorce case that drew a complaint from one of the litigants. A single case isn't sufficient unless the judge's behavior or judgment was egregious, and in this case it seems the judge's behavior and her rulings were appropriate. That's what both the Court of Appeals and the state's Judicial Conduct Commission found and what the commission was advised of.
The crux of the issue is that Judge Segars-Andrews did not recuse herself after she learned late in court proceedings that a lawyer in the case she was hearing had shared in a $300,000 award with a law partner of Judge Segars-Andrews' husband.
Ms. Segars-Andrews was advised by a legal ethics expert that she was obligated to continue on the case, and she did.
Yet the Judicial Merit Selection Commission disqualified her solely on the basis of that same case. Unfortunately, they deliberated behind closed doors, so the full extent of their reasoning is unclear. But it appears that one strike, and a judge with 16 years of service -- a judge who went well beyond her duties and established a successful juvenile "drug court" -- is out.
To further confound the public, the commission has refused to divulge e-mails and other communications related to Judge Segars-Andrews.
The state's judges should be held to highest ethical and behavioral standards. A judge who abuses his or her power should be removed from the bench as should a judge whose rulings are regularly flawed. Litigants deserve assurance that their cases will be handled wisely and fairly.The intent of the state's judicial selection system is commendable: to put the best people on the bench by screening them based on their merit instead of appointing them based solely on political connections.Appropriately, the process uses objective tools (like SLED checks, financial reports, newspaper articles and a general review of a judge's performance on the bench) and subjective evidence from litigants with reasonable complaints.
But the process should in no way allow a litigant, or the commission, to drum out a judge because of a distasteful ruling. Judicial rulings almost always leave someone dissatisfied. The Judicial Merit Selection Commission should not allow itself to be a place for unhappy people to vent their displeasure with a judge because of a ruling.
The S.C. chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers is among those who have expressed serious concern about the commission's decision regarding Ms. Segars-Andrews and its lack of transparency in reaching that decision. Indeed, when public officials do the public's business in secret, the public becomes justifiably distrustful of the process.
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission, and all other officials who are part of the judicial selection process, should strive to be open, fair, wise and impartial, and they should provide South Carolina with judges who are the same.
The commission's decision to disqualify Judge Segars-Andrews doesn't measure up to those standards.
Labels: Family Court Reform
