Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, July 3, 1994 TAG: 9407030115
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
As new judges, they will change peoples' lives every day. They will decide who goes to prison or jail, and for how long. They will decide which parent in a failed marriage gets custody of the children. They will rule on lawsuits with thousands of dollars at stake for the winners and losers.
How were the judges selected for such awesome responsibilities?
They were appointed by legislators in a process that can turn more on a candidate's political connections and personal friendships than on his or her qualifications, according to a survey of Roanoke Valley lawyers.
Of 265 lawyers who responded to the survey, only 13 percent said all four of the judgeships up for appointment this year were filled by the most qualified candidates.
Eighty percent said "some" of the most deserving candidates got the job, and 7 percent answered "none." Of those lawyers, 94 percent said some lesser-qualified candidates became judges based on political ties, personal friendships or both.
"The most recent judicial elections demonstrate cronyism in the purest sense of the word," one lawyer wrote in the anonymous survey.
"The `old boy' network is alive and well in the Roanoke Valley," another said.
Despite criticism of the selection process, none of the four new judges was considered by a majority of the survey respondents to be unqualified. In some cases, however, candidates considered to be the best-qualified by their peers did not get the job.
The survey, conducted by the Center for Community Research at Roanoke College for the Roanoke Times & World-News, was mailed to 450 lawyers in Roanoke, Roanoke County and Salem. The survey has a margin of error of about 3 percent, according to Harry Wilson, director of the center.
The response rate was 59 percent, about the same as the percentage of lawyers who voted to endorse candidates earlier this year at two bar association meetings.
In some cases, lawyers gave conflicting responses. For example, 60 percent of the lawyers rated the most recent judicial selection process good or excellent.
Yet only 13 percent said it put the most qualified candidate on the bench in every case. And 68 percent prefered a selection method other than the one Virginia uses.
Wilson said the higher ratings were in response to general questions about the process, and that lawyers' opinions could have changed when they were asked about specifics.
\ Listening to the lawyers
The courtroom is supposed to be a haven from public sentiment and political influence - a place where an individual's rights come first.
That argument is often used to defend Virginia's method of having judges appointed by the General Assembly.
Although the party in power controls the selection process, supporters of the system say it is far better than having judges run for election, as they do in 21 other states.
"It is unseemly for judges to solicit campaign funds from the lawyers and firms who will be appearing before the bench," one lawyer wrote in the survey.
But others argue the current system is just as bad.
"The biggest problem with the process is that it discourages some, including some who are highly qualified, from seeking a judgeship," another lawyer wrote.
Under the system, the first hurdle in becoming a judge in the Roanoke Valley is getting the endorsement of the Roanoke Bar Association or the Roanoke County-Salem Bar Association.
The process becomes more complicated when it moves to Richmond, where the controlling parties in the House and Senate - Democrats in both cases - act on the local bar endorsements.
Members of the Democratic caucuses usually yield to the judgment of legislators in the jurisdiction where the judgeship is located. If the local legislators are unified behind one person, approval by the Democratic caucuses and subsequently the General Assembly usually is a formality.
Most of the time, the Roanoke Valley delegation follows the recommendation of local lawyers, who are generally considered the best judges of future judges.
"I've always given great weight to the lawyers' opinions," Del. Clifton "Chip" Woodrum, D-Roanoke, said.
But when the two Roanoke Valley bar associations are in disagreement over their judicial picks, area Democratic legislators are left to decide for themselves.
And that, lawyers indicated in the survey, is when the system becomes purely political.
Old friendships can be just as powerful as political unions; some lawyers say privately that where a candidate went to college or which church he or she attends can carry as much or more weight than trial experience or legal expertise.
Not one of the 265 lawyers who responded to the survey thought that qualifications, trial experience or legal knowledge were the only issues considered by legislators. Fifty-seven percent said those issues were considered "somewhat," and 13 percent said "not at all."
"Why should lawyers participate in a meeting lasting several hours to try to nominate a qualified candidate for a judgeship, when they know their choice may well be overlooked in favor of the local politicians' friends?" one lawyer wrote.
\ `No great debate'
At its last session, the General Assembly appointed Joseph Bounds to Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, William Broadhurst and Vincent Lilley to General District Court, and Richard Pattisall to Circuit Court.
Broadhurst and Bounds were by far the most well-regarded judicial candidates to be appointed, according to the survey of lawyers. Ninety-three percent of the lawyers said Broadhurst was highly qualified or qualified, and 91 percent said the same of Bounds.
Lilley's approval rating was 67 percent, but was still above the remaining candidates.
Pattisall was the only judge appointed by the legislature who ranked below his competitors in the survey.
Fifty-nine percent of the lawyers said Pattisall, a General District judge since 1989, was qualified or highly qualified to move up to Circuit Court. Twenty-five percent ranked him as somewhat unqualified, and 16 percent said he was unqualified.
By comparison, Julian Raney, another General District judge who sought the Circuit Court position, was considered highly qualified or qualified by 96 percent of the lawyers surveyed - making him the most popular candidate of all.
George Wooten, a private attorney who was a third hopeful for Circuit Court, was considered highly qualified or qualified by 90 percent of the respondents.
After conducting interviews with the Roanoke Valley candidates, the Virginia Women Attorneys Association found Raney and Wooten to be "highly qualified and recommended." Pattisall was described by the group as "qualified."
So how did Pattisall, with the least amount of overall support among the lawyers, wind up on Circuit Court?
He did it by running an intense campaign for the endorsement of the Roanoke County-Salem Bar Association, which has a membership of about 60 lawyers.
The Roanoke Bar Association, with about 420 active members, endorsed Raney. Despite the differences in membership, the two bar endorsements put Raney and Pattisall on equal footing before the Roanoke Valley's three Democratic legislators - Woodrum, Del. Richard Cranwell, D-Roanoke County, and Del. Victor Thomas, D-Roanoke.
Many lawyers believe that Pattisall's political background - as former chairman of the Roanoke County Democratic Committee and once an unsuccessful candidate for the state Senate - gave him the edge over Raney for the wrong reasons.
Pattisall was supported by Cranwell and Thomas. Woodrum backed Raney.
Unlike in years past, when legislators have sometimes deadlocked and settled on a compromise choice, Pattisall emerged the easy winner.
"It was not something I was going to get in a knock-down, drag-out about," Woodrum said. "We had no great debate, we had no penetrating analysis."
"I have no question that Dick Pattisall is going to be an outstanding Circuit Court judge," he said. "I'm disappointed for Judge Raney, but there's always another chance for him."
Cranwell, whose constituency is based in Roanoke County, said he felt obligated to honor the county bar's endorsement.
"A lot of the lawyers felt like the county's views were not being considered" in the judicial selection process, Cranwell said.
While acknowledging that the state's process of selecting judges is an "inexact science," Cranwell said he knows of no better alternative.
"To say who is the most qualified is the most difficult thing in the world, because it's so subjective," he said.
Most lawyers agree that a good judge must possess some intangible traits. But the most recent selection process shows that candidates who look good on paper and also rate high among lawyers are by no means guaranteed a spot on the bench.
Ellen Weinman, for example, sought a position in juvenile court after spending years specializing in that area of law. She served as a substitute judge in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and last year gained statewide recognition for her work in representing victims of domestic abuse, receiving the pro bono award named for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell.
In the survey, 38 percent of the lawyers said Weinman was highly qualified for the juvenile court bench, compared with 36 percent for Bounds. However, Bounds received a higher overall rating by receiving more votes as "qualified."
Still, some lawyers believe Weinman is a victim of a selection process dominated by men.
"To tell me that Ellen Weinman is not the most qualified J&D judge in light of her vast experience in the law is a travesty," one lawyer wrote.
"I am male, but Ellen's biggest drawback is that she has the guts to stand up to the `good-old boys' network of attorneys who consider themselves more important than the system."
\ `A damn circus'
Several days days before the Roanoke and Roanoke County-Salem bar associations met to endorse judicial candidates, one lawyer had a prediction.
"It's going to be a damn circus," he said.
For the preceding few weeks, lawyers had been bombarded with letters and telephone calls from more than a dozen candidates interested in judgeships.
For the most part, the campaign followed an unwritten rule that candidates for judges should not be too pushy.
"There is no hard-sell approach to it," said Al Wilson, a Roanoke lawyer and chairman of the city Democratic Party. "I don't see them doing a great deal of arm twisting and calling in favors. It's more like you call your friends, say I would appreciate your support, and that's it."
With the process taking a low-key tone, there is little in-depth scrutiny of a candidate's credentials.
The candidates are not interviewed by the bar groups, with most of the meetings consisting of nominating speeches and secret ballot voting.
The only effort to discuss issues and qualifications with the candidates in an organized format this year was by the Virginia Women Attorneys Association.
Betty Jo Anthony, a Roanoke prosecutor who is president of the group, said candidates are asked to fill out questionnaires about their experience, the areas of law they specialize in and their positions on some issues.
The candidates are then interviewed by a committee and ranked as highly qualified, qualified or unqualified.
Members of the VWAA would like to see more emphasis on qualifications throughout the selection process.
"I think there's very little of that scrutiny of the candidates now, so what you have is that it turns into a popularity contest," Anthony said.
The VWAA sent its recommendations to Roanoke Valley legislators several days before the local bar groups met.
Meeting on the same day and at the same time, the Roanoke and Roanoke County-Salem bar groups came up with split endorsements.
The county group nominated Broadhurst for Juvenile Court, Lilley for General District Court and Pattisall for Circuit Court.
The city nominated Bounds for Juvenile Court, Broadhurst for General District Court and Raney for Circuit Court.
"As the most recent selections revealed, an unqualified candidate who could not begin to get the endorsement of the Roanoke city bar will approach the lawyers in the Roanoke County-Salem bar who will endorse him," one lawyer wrote in the survey.
"This person then becomes `their' judge, with all the predictable negative consequences to the administration of justice in the valley."
Sixty-six percent of the lawyers surveyed favored consolidating the two bar groups to ensure that one nomination goes to the legislators with the unified support of the bar.
Charles Williams, president of the city bar, said there has been no real push for a merger of the two groups in recent years.
The survey showed that while 70 percent of the city bar members supported the idea of consolidation, opposition in the county was almost as strong at 63 percent.
"I think as a practical matter, there are some lawyers who vote with the Roanoke County-Salem Bar Association who feel the only way their voice can be heard is if there is a separate organization," Williams said.
John Gregory, whose law office is in Salem, said the Roanoke County-Salem bar is composed almost entirely of lawyers from small or solo firms who appear in court every day. Those attorneys have a different perspective from the city bar's, which includes larger firms that have lawyers who seldom if ever show up in court, he said.
Others question whether jurisdictional lines are that important in the 23rd Judicial Circuit, which includes three courthouses in Roanoke, Roanoke County and Salem.
"Just because someone's office is in Roanoke city doesn't mean they're not in court more often in Roanoke County, or vice versa," Williams said.
"It's a distinction without a difference."
by CNB