BULLETINS FROM ALOHA

State court judges in Oregon are not accountable to the public (except at this blog site), but at least they are elected.  This means the public could throw them out of office (including the Supreme Court justices of Oregon) if there was any way for the public to determine (which there isn't) if they are doing a good job or not.   Federal judges are not even elected;  they are appointed by the likes of President Bush.  At great risk to life and limb, Oregon's federal court judges are evaluated here.

     Most litigation in Oregon is carried out in the Oregon state court system.  Last year over 600,000 cases were filed in the state court systems of Oregon located in twenty five (25) districts around the state.  Oregon's federal court has four subdivisions located in Portland, Medford, Pendleton and Eugene.  The Chief Judge is Ancer Haggerty.  The Portland federal court is housed in the sixteen stories of dubious architecture known as the Mark O. Hatfield courthouse built at great expense to the taxpayers in 1996 and located downtown. 

     A highly respected Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College, Ron Lansing, told eager law students a story about Oregon federal court judge Gus Solomon.  Appearing before him years ago as a private lawyer, Professor Lansing began his oral argument by stating that as to the particular legal point he was arguing, "...it was axiomatic that...."  Judge Solomon exploded.  He told lawyer Lansing that in his court nothing was axiomatic.  That harshness was replaced by kindly Judge Malcomb Marsh who, in a swearing-in ceremony in 1987, told us that Oregon federal court was now a kinder and gentler place to practice law from Judge Solomon's days.  Is that really so?

     First Impressions  --  In theory, litigation in federal court is conducted on a higher intellectual plane than in state court.  In filing my first civil rights case in Oregon federal district court I freely confess I did not know what I was doing.  Nervously appearing before Senior Judge Owen Panner on a preliminary motion, I was dismayed to observe that the gallery was peopled by a contingent of Northwestern School of Law students.  Judge Panner's clerk recited to the audience what the case and motions were about.  This clerk knew the case and the issues better than I did and it was my client's case.  Judge Panner then ascended the bench and told the gallery that the case had been "...well briefed by the lawyers..." and he would now hear oral argument.  First, the case had not been well briefed by me.  Second, I knew little of what I was talking about in oral argument before the good judge.  Following our cursory oral arguments, Judge Panner thanked each lawyer for doing such a good job and stated he would take the case under advisement.  The theater was over.  It was clear to me that the only person that knew what he was talking about in court that day was Judge Panner's law clerk. 

     Second Impressions  --  My second appearance on motions on another civil rights case was before Judge Ancer Haggerty.  Sadly, I was no more knowledgeable than on my previous escape.  The issue in this motion was whether federal court had jurisdiction.  I had no clue on the finer points of the question before the house.  Happily, my opposition attorney was from a large firm, but had sent a stand-in to argue the motion and he also had no clue about the issues nor the case.  Even more serendipitous, Judge Haggerty called on my opposition first, assuming he would know more about these abstruse issues that a yokel from the hinterlands.  The brief oral argument ended with no erudite admissions by anybody.  Again, the court took the case under advisement with no meaningful result.

     Following these desultory beginnings, I have had an opportunity to appear before a representative sampling of our best and brightest on the federal bench of Oregon with these thoughts:

1.  Malcomb F. Marsh  --  My first full, formal settlement conference was with Judge Marsh.  He was superb.  He was knowledgeable about the case, he was fair, even to a non-local, and the case settled largely due to his effort and skills.  Later, he proved equally adept at all aspects of the few cases I had before him.

2.  Owen M. Panner  --  He used to throw great parties in Bend before being elevated to the federal court bench.  I believe his legal skills are impressive, but my one appearance before him was not.

3.  James A. Redden  --  My unfortunate initiation into the true prevailing currents in Portland's federal district court began here.  I learned how the playing field for Portland's legal oligarchy is horribly slanted in favor of the rich and powerful.  More horrifying, I learned that legal precedent is not only ignored by those in power in federal court, but also that certain judges blatantly favor their cronies.  In my case before Judge Redden, the court's written opinion is plagerized directly and verbatim from my opposition's brief.  The only problem is that brief cites a case in support of a proposition that is nowhere stated in that case.  This mistake on a key point was repeated in the court's written opinion.  When I brought this grievous error to the court's attention I was unceremoniously blown off.  Most disappointing was that at the conclusion of my opponent's oral argument, Judge Redden stated he was prepared to rule.  The hitch was that I hadn't offered my oral argument yet...............

4.  Anna Brown  --  Here is a paradox.  In my initial research and encounter with Judge Brown, the word was that she would always be the most knowlegeable person in the courtroom about the facts and the law.  This I found to be true.  But, here is the rest of the story.  As with Judge Haggerty, I learned that one doesn't always get a fair shake from a federal judge who is the same gender or color as one's client.  That may be as it should be since we don't want bias in any courthouse.  What was odd was when Judge Brown went out of her way to be mean to my blue collar female client. 

Subsequently, I appeared before Judge Brown to save my historic office property from a taking by Washington County for a road widening project.  On these issues I was thorougly prepared.  Judge Brown began, as often happens, by wanting to hear from the opposition, County Counsel in this instance,  who she assumed would be fully prepared and conversant with the cases proffered by me.  He wasn't.  Judge Brown struggled as to how she could get around my winning arguments yet still rule for the government.  My office building on the National Register of Historic Places now stands deeply scarred by the road widening project as a result of her biased opinions.  How much of her full membership in the oligarchy colored her decisions is a question without an adequate answer nor a way of getting one unless she wants to 'fess up.  Oh yeah, Judge Brown's ruling saved the bland Plaid Pantry building across the street from any deep scars. 

     5.  Garr M. King  --  Since I am currently in litigation with him, I am loath to extrapolate.  Suffice it to say that on my first appearance before him on another matter, once again a federal court judge stated he was prepared to rule without hearing from the lonely non-Portland lawyer.  When I asked him "If I may be heard.....?", he replied, "no".  I documented this sorry episode in a letter of protest to him, to which he did not reply.  It was my short straw to get him again. 

     6.  Dennis Hubel  --  Even though I had an unfortunate experience with Judge Hubel resulting in him recusing himself, I believe that Judge Hubel is one of those rare persons in our business that has complete humility notwithstanding his high position.  One day while waiting for my case to be heard by him, I observed him address a series of criminal matters in progress before I arrived.  One had several prosecutors and several court-appointed attorneys battling it out on the issue of whether the prisoner would be released now or not soon.  There were multiple complex arguments on both sides and at one point Judge Hubel asked the parties to wait while he went and studied a particular matter.  Emerging after the short hiatus, Judge Hubel explained his rationale for releasing the prisoner now.  I was quite surprised because the center of gravity seemed to be weighing the other way.  Once the defendant's attorney had finished, he sat down beside me to await a following matter.  We were casually discussing the pros and cons of the issues he had just argued before Judge Hubel and I expressed my mild surprise at the result.  This attorney generously observed that regardless of whether one represents the defense or the prosecution, one could always count on getting a fair result from Judge Huble. 

7.  John Jelderks  --  One of the nicest judges in this or any other courthouse.  A specialty of his is settling civil cases.  My cases have been the beneficiary of his process many times because he is the most effective settlement judge in Oregon Federal District Court.  Judges that excel in this underused track do not get the recognition they deserve.  Judge Jelderks is a stellar federal court judge and a credit to our system.

8.  Janice Stewart  --  Judge Stewart demonstrates that she cares about the litigants and their attorneys more than any other judge in her building in my experience.  She combines this quality with fair legal scholarship.  Like Judge Jelderks she is willing to put in that extra effort to help achieve settlement without the necessity of an expensive trial.  Judge Stewart is an impressive federal district court judge. 

9.  Michael R. Hogan  --  Another paradox.  Once again I experienced a judge who made up his mind before hearing from me and it was as palpable as it was in any case I have had before the federal court judicial line-up.  We lawyers are not dumb.  We can tell when a judge has already made up his or her mind before hearing from us.  Judge Hogan ill-conceals his biases.  Then he did a remarkable thing.  After his preconceived ruling, he immediately discerned the coming litigation train wreck that was going to arise thereby.  He appropriately discussed with the parties about a course that could be followed from here and nurtured a good result notwithstanding his prejudice.  His  benign handling of the case produced ultimate justice on all sides and one can't ask more than that. 

     Portland's federal court garish architecture is symbolic of our legal system.  It is bloated and egoistic.  Singularly offensive is the full floor balcony afforded to the chief judge which faces a beautiful view of Mt. Hood and the Willamette River to the east since it is on the top floor of this sixteen (16) floor building.  Stuffed on the south side on the eighth (8) floor is a tiny balcony for the public without a view.  Our federal courts serve the high and mighty, not the general, unwashed people of Oregon.  The distinguishing positive characteristic of the successful federal court judges seems to be a strong element of caring.  The distinguishing negative characteristic seems to be naked ego.