Whenever this topic comes up in a conversation even with lawyers who are not practicing in upstate New York towns and villages, the information that judges in such courts are not required to be lawyers comes as a shock.
After all, a judge in a local "justice court" in towns or villages in upstate New York has the power to evict people from their homes, to resolve breach of contract claims up for contracts up to $3,000.00, and to conduct jury trials in criminal proceedings and to put people behind bars for a year per count, or for several years if there are more than one count charged against them, to be served consecutively (one after the other) in the local jail.
Moreover, since felonies are charged a lot less than misdemeanors, and misdemeanors are handled by the local justice courts, it may be said that the majority of criminal proceedings in New York are handled by judges who are not required to be lawyers.
Additionally, while the caseloads of such judges are high and the stress levels are similarly high, their annual salaries are, let's say, nominal.
The Sidney Town Court justice reportedly received $2,250 in one recent year and $1,750 in another recent year, according to seethroughny.net. Sidney Town Court is a very busy court.
As a comparison, a County Court justice was earning $125,000 before the increase and will be earning $160,000 after the increase.
The average salary in New York State is $41,673.83 in 2010 and I doubt that it raised too much over 4 years.
If $125,000 for a county court judge is not enough, what motivates judges in local justice courts to work for under $2,000 to $4,000 a year? Do they come to decide disputes for friends? To settle their own grudges? To pursue their rush for power, which is what former police officers turned justice court judges often do - at least it appears that way?
Imagine - there is NO requirement for ANY level of education to be elected a judge to the local justice court in New York. Not the ability to read, or write, or count, or reason - not anything!
Since this situation has continued for decades in New York, it appears acceptable for the New York state government that the mostly poor and uneducated people in upstate New York are judged this way.
Abuses of power in local justice courts were reported in New York 8 (!) years ago through a series of articles in New York Times. The call for reform of those courts was not heard. and everything remains as it was.
What is the difference between the local justice courts, where judges are not required to be lawyers, and the higher courts where judges are required to be lawyers, to justify the distinction?
Is it complexity of cases?
Not really, misdemeanor cases can be as complex as felony cases. Eviction cases can involve complex evidentiary issues as well. The complexity of the breach of contract cases is not determined by the amount of money in controversy, and local justice court judges do resolve breach of contract cases for under $3,000 in controversy.
The types of cases handled?
Not really, for example, sex offender cases are equally handled by the local justice courts (misdemeanors) and by the County Courts (on indictments or superior court informations).
The time served by a convicted criminal defendant?
As I stated above, a local justice court judge may convict a person for several misdemeanors at the same time and commit him to jail for several years, served locally, but consecutively. That decision may be right or wrong, but the judge has the power to make it. And to do that, a judge does not have to have any education.
In upper court judges decide issues for juveniles that require them to have education in law - is that what allegedly distinguishes the requirement for, let's say, a Family Court judge to be a lawyer as opposed to a local justice court judge?
Not really. Local justice court judges routinely handle the so-called "youthful offender" cases which legally transform criminal proceedings into a sealed civil Family Court juvenile delinquency proceeding - without the benefit of a law-educated Family Court judge.
Is it the knowledge by the County, Family or Supreme Court judge as a lawyer that controls the distinction?
Not really. While there is a requirement for a County Court or Family Court judge to be a lawyer for 10 years before coming to the bench, there is no requirement for that judicial candidate to be a practicing attorney in criminal or family law, or in any other areas of the law he is supposed to handle as a judge, and by the time he or she steps on the bench, the judge who may never have practiced law may have forgotten everything he ever learnt about the law.
Thus, a judicial candidate can be a person with a heartbeat and a law license - but with no knowledge of the law he or she is supposed to apply in the courtroom.
It can be a rich man's wife who sat on her law license without using it for 10 years - and then, when her children are grown - suddenly felt the urge to re-enter the workforce, at a prestigious level of a judge no less, while she has forgotten by the time of running for a judge anything she was taught in law school. It can be a lawyer of either gender who had practiced in a completely different area of the law and having no clue as to what he or she has to do in the courtroom.
It can be a transactional attorney who has never set his or her foot into the courtroom.
It can be a lawyer with a failing practice. It is not a big secret in the legal profession that often people are running for judgeships not because their law practice is good, but, on the opposite, because it is bad and because they want to secure a stable salary, medical benefits and a pension where otherwise their outlook for a comfortable retirement is bleak.
So - what is the distinction justifying the lack of a requirement in local justice courts for a judge to be a lawyer and a requirement for all upper courts for the judges not only to be lawyers, but to be lawyers for over 10 years before coming to the bench?
That in upper courts more money is involved in civil cases, cases are decided for richer parties, and judges who preside over those cases are supposed to be "higher quality" judges than "judges for the poor" in the local justice courts, at least by their educational credentials?
And such "judges for the rich" who survived for 10 years without criticizing the judiciary and thus keeping their license intact are expected to be properly entrenched with the system and to rule they are supposed to rule - for the government and for the rich?
In New York, it appears that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment