to court first, before conciliation or mediation, might lead to greater human tragedy
resulting from the more contentious litigation.65 Judge Wolchik noted, “Never do so
many vent so much anger over so little as
do participants in small claims courts.”66
Judge David Suntag, having sat in all
fourteen counties for trials, commented
that the practice of law differs, often significantly, from county to county, reflecting
differing legal cultures and the quality and
quantity of the caseload, and worried that
the quality of justice in one court may suffer from obstacles that have been removed
in other courts.67
The system of discrete judges for district,
family, and superior (civil) courts changed
with the new century, as Vermont moved
closer to a unified superior court. Judges who had spent their careers to date in
one court found the transition to the other courts challenging. Judge Carroll, in her
first term in civil court, “felt, at times, that
I was back in law school, doing extensive
research on topics I learned in school, but
had not revisited since.” Judge DiMauro
found the civil docket had a more manageable pace.68 Judge Nancy Corsones wrote
of her impatience with the inefficiency of
lawyers in civil court, and found she needed to “reorient my judicial demeanor to
deal with trained lawyers as opposed to
pro se litigants.”69 Judge Manley preferred
the multi-jurisdictional court assignments,
“as it allows one to stretch one’s mind.”
Every day, she wrote, “presents new challenges and the ability to switch gears mentally is a must.”70
Changes in the law
What I Bring to the Court
The statements reflect the changes in
the judiciary over the last three or four decades of court history. When Judge Van
Benthuysen returned from his tour in Iraq,
for instance, he was surprised at the increase in the number of relief from abuse
cases.61 Judge Katz noted the changes
over his fifteen years of service in his 2000
statement, including the increase in the
number of pro se litigants, more sex crimes
and DUIs, fewer property crimes, more employment cases, and a greater use of summary procedures to determine legal issues.62 Judge Suntag worried that courts
are “being asked to resolve more complex
and a larger number of societal issues than
before.”63 Judge Eaton shared that sentiment. “Even with my finite experience, I
can see that some pro se litigants use the
family court system as a dumping ground
for many of their personal problems, even
if they are not issues which are proper for
court.”64 Judge Zimmerman questioned “if
the model of a user friendly Family Court
can, or should, assume the role of a social
service agency.” She worried that coming
Every applicant for every job knows the
difficulty of setting the right tone between
humility and self-promotion. Overdo it and
you’re boasting; understate it and nobody
knows what you can do. Senior judges have
history and experience. Justice Thomas
Hayes stated he had sat as a trial judge in
every county of the State of Vermont and
was the only judge on the Supreme Court
with service on the district court for any
considerable period of time.71 Judge David
A. Jenkins explained,
www.vtbar.org
Ruminations: The Desire to Continue in Office
With appointment, “judges feel little pressure to do what is expedient and popular
at the expense of the rights of a litigant; on
the other hand, they may appear insensitive to public needs.”55
Judge Joseph Wolchik concluded, “No
matter how much you do you do not seem
to reduce man’s inhumanity to man.”56
Writing his third retention statement,
Judge Dean Pineles noticed “my colleagues age considerably during a Family Court assignment and I am sure that
the same has happened to me.” He also
described the isolation of a judge. “One
must be careful in pursuing friendships so
as to avoid the appearance of a conflict
of interest. This means that it is very difficult to maintain close friendships with attorneys.”57
Supporting statements do not end with
negative comments. The essays change
as they reach the last paragraphs, and the
judge finishes with more positive thoughts.
“I would not be a candidate for retention
if this scenario were ultimately objectionable,” wrote Judge Pearson. “For me, the
personal trade-offs, and intellectual, psychic—and even financial—benefits and rewards of the position more than make up