Judges

The first time that as a young lawyer I saw a judge make a bad ruling, I stood with my mouth open. Now, not so much. But I do like to see a gifted judge do his job well.

I recently observed a small-claims case in Los Angeles. The case dealt with contracting licenses and bonds. It was complicated. But this judge seemed familiar with the law and competent at getting the facts. Under his perceptive questioning, the case unfolded until his final ruling, which was just.

Good judges can be good in different ways, just like bad judges can be bad in different ways. To focus on the good, some judges are gracious. Some judges know the law, or they are brilliant at finding the law. Some judges are good at bringing parties together. Some judges are lively. Some judges are fair.

I remember a judge in Alhambra. He ruled on a difficult legal motion. He could have framed his ruling as a finding of fact. Findings of fact rarely are disturbed on appeal; appellate judges decide cases based on a cold written record, so they just don’t second-guess the judge who heard live witnesses in open court. Judges who worry about getting reversed on appeal emphasize factual findings for that reason.

But this judge, though he could have framed his ruling as a finding of fact, framed it as a decision of law. That way, if he was wrong, the losing party could get relief in a higher court. This judge was more concerned with justice than with his vanity about getting reversed by a higher court. Stating clearly the legal basis for his ruling was for him a matter of judicial integrity. This case happened many years ago, but I remember it because I admired the judge’s statement on the record inviting judicial reversal if he was wrong on the law.

I remember a judge in Ventura. He had an uncanny ability to know when a witness was lying, and when a witness was telling the truth. Some judges stare off into space when they listen to witnesses. But this judge with great concentration studied the witness as he or she testified.

Judges are (suspenseful pause) human. I once mentioned to a judge that some judges seem better suited to their occupation than others. He readily agreed. And he would know. Lawyers need to know this, because they will then be grateful to try their case before a good judge.

And they won’t necessarily take a bad ruling to heart. Sometimes, being in a courtroom with a weak judge is like driving a car with a loose steering wheel. You can do everything possible to direct it down the center of the lane, but it still might veer into the center divider.

Not all judges are well suited to their occupation, but a lawyer should assume that at the end of the day, far and away most judges want to do justice. True, their idea of justice might differ from yours. In extreme case, their confidence in one side or the other might dictate that all of their rulings go in one direction. That doesn’t mean that they don’t care about justice; only that their view of justice is quirky.

A judiciary that wants to do justice doesn’t exist everywhere. For example, Russia’s judges are notoriously deferential to the state. God save us from judges like Russia’s that see themselves as frictionless conduits for the government’s position. We should not take our judges for granted.