NCJ Number
47635
Date Published
1976
Length
10 pages
Annotation
RESULTS OF A 1971 OPINION POLL ON THE COMPETENCE OF SITTING FEDERAL COURT JUDGES IN CHICAGO, CONDUCTED BY THE CHICAGO COUNCIL OF LAWYERS, ARE PRESENTED AND JUDGE SELECTION PROCEDURES ARE DISCUSSED.
Abstract
THE CHICAGO COUNCIL, ESTABLISHED IN 1969, IS AN ALTERNATIVE ORGANIZATION TO THE ESTABLISHED CHICAGO BAR. THE QUESTIONNAIRE (NOT INCLUDED) SOUGHT TO EVALUATE ATTITUDES CONCERNING THE 13 JUDGES THEN IN OFFICE. IT WAS MAILED TO ALL CHICAGO LAWYERS WHO HAD FILED APPEARANCE IN THE DISTRICT COURT DURING THE PREVIOUS 3 YEARS. OF A SAMPLE OF APPROXIMATELY 2,400 LAWYERS, 529 RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED. THREE SITTING JUDGES RECEIVED OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVE RESPONSES ON THE POLL. JUDGE JULIUS HOFFMAN, WHO CONDUCTED THE 'CHICAGO SEVEN TRIAL' WAS VIEWED BY A MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS AS BEING UNFREE OF POLITICAL, RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, AND OTHER BIAS. JUDGE JAMES B. PARSONS WAS VIEWED BY A MAJORITY OF THE LAWYERS AS LACKING THE ABILITY TO FULLY APPRECIATE AND RULE UPON LEGAL ISSUES IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CASES, PARTICULARLY THOSE DEALING WITH COMPLEX ISSUES. IN ADDITION IT WAS FELT BY A LARGE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS THAT HE WAS INSUFFICIENTLY PROMPT AND PUNCTUAL AND DEVOTED INSUFFICIENT TIME TO COURT PROCEEDINGS. JUDGE WILLIAM LYNCH WAS THOUGHT TO LACK ABILITY TO RULE IN TECHNICAL CASES, WAS FELT NOT TO BE FREE OF BIASES, AND WAS THOUGHT TO BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DIRECT OR INDIRECT INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE LACK OF A MECHANISM OTHER THAN IMPEACHMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISTRICT COURT JUDGES AND A LONG-STANDING TRADITION OF THE BAR TO DEFEND THE JUDICIARY FROM PUBLIC ATTACK, ARE MAJOR REASONS WHY JUDGES SUCH AS THESE THREE ARE PERMITTED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE. IN ADDITION, LAWYERS ARE FEARFUL OF THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES TO THEMSELVES OF CRITICIZING A BAD JUDGE, AND BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBERS MAY THEMSELVES BE SUBJECT TO POLITICAL AND OTHER INFLUENCES. IT IS FURTHER SUGGESTED THAT THE POLITICAL MANNER OF APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES INFLUENCES THE QUALITY OF THE BENCH. THE SENIOR STATE SENATOR WHO SELECTS THE JUDGES MAY BASE SELECTION ON CRITERIA OTHER THAN THE CANDIDATE'S COMPETENCE AND INTEGRITY. A MAJOR PROBLEM IS THE LACK OF A FORMAL SCREENING MECHANISM, INDEPENDENT OF POLITICAL INFLUENCES, COMPOUNDED BY THE LACK OF VIGOROUS EFFORTS TO ASSURE THE SELECTION OF ONLY THE MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES BY LOCAL BARS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT WHILE FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL AND UNBIASED SCREENING MECHANISMS MIGHT BE ESTABLISHED, SUCH CHANGES WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE NECESSARY IF THE LOCAL BAR WERE WILLING TO COMMIT ITSELF TO JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE. NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (JAP)