 |
|
||
| |
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
Let’s Keep Our Court System Intact Just when our new Civil Courthouse has opened its doors and the civil dockets are being handled more efficiently than ever before, the Commissioner’s Court is considering a plan to transfer the nine family courts to the new Civil Courthouse on a permanent basis. The plan appears to be in direct response to a proposal to build a new Family Law Center, but this facility-driven plan raises serious concerns for the administration of justice in Harris County. Regardless of whether a new courthouse is built, creating courts of general jurisdiction where family law matters would be handled along with civil matters is problematic on a number of levels. Most major metropolitan areas have moved away from courts of general jurisdiction to specialty courts that handle matters within their expertise and do so well. Mixing legal disciplines is like mixing apples and oranges, and results in a slow down of both systems. For example, the federal courts have for years been asked to handle criminal dockets together with civil dockets. The inevitable result has been to postpone the disposition of civil cases in order to handle the more immediate needs of those involved in our criminal system. Our own state court system has eschewed the idea of combining our criminal courts with our civil courts, and for good reason. Combining our family law courts with our civil courts is a turn in the wrong direction for reasons that have nothing to do with the prompt and efficient administration of justice, and have everything to do with avoidance of spending more money on a courthouse. The trend away from general jurisdiction courts is also mirrored by the trend away from the general practice of law. The complexities of our legal system today demand specialization in particular areas of the law. Indeed, our state bar has instituted a practice of recognizing specialists in the law by instituting a board certification for such specialists. In like manner, law firms segregate their practitioners into sections involving particular areas of the law to ensure that clients receive real expertise in the areas involved in their case. Asking our judiciary to go against this trend toward specialization in the law is counter-intuitive. Some would argue that trying to force judges to be jacks of all trade only ensures they will be masters of none. Indeed, our state court judges do not even receive the benefit of law clerks, unlike the federal court system, so they have no one who can even advise them on these different areas of the law. Beyond the legal aspects of handling a particular case lie the practical aspects. On the family law side, cases tend to last for the life of the minor children. Some of the family law judges have been with a case for years and the delicate balance required in these cases is reflected in their rulings. These judges have also developed the temperament to deal with the intense emotions that often accompany family law cases. On the civil side, the business acumen and experience needed to deal with these types of disputes are not acquired overnight. Before ascending to the bench, civil trial judges acquired a great deal of experience over long periods of time trying precisely the types of cases they are now asked to judge. It would be a shame to waste this experience or misdirect it to cases wherein it simply does not apply. Some have suggested that we break up the alleged cabal of judges and practitioners down at a particular courthouse. Experienced lawyers know, however, that simply knowing the judge does not mean as much as people think. I have never seen one of our civil judges rule in favor of someone’s argument simply because that someone was known to the judge. I also strongly suspect that cronyism does not exist at the family law court either, and to suggest otherwise is inaccurate. When lawyers on both sides know the judge and vice versa, there can be no inherent advantage perceived or otherwise. In addition, any lawyer who suggests that he or she can influence a judicial decision through a relationship is either naïve, or unprofessional, or both. Suggesting that you know the judge or have some special influence is a sure fire way to expose yourself to embarrassment and ridicule when your side does not prevail. Even if one considers the facility issues, which should never interfere with the administration of justice in any event, strong arguments exist not to burden the new Civil Courthouse with the family law courts. That courthouse was designed with 40 years of growth and expansion in mind. All of that planning could be wiped out in one moment of unstudied decision-making that results in simply transferring the family courts over to take up all unused space. In like manner, it makes sense to build a new family law center, just as it made sense to build a new civil law center. Indeed, more than 50 percent of the cases filed in Harris County are now family law cases. Many citizens’ only voluntary exposure to the legal system is through the family courts. Should these courts not be as presentable as the beautiful new criminal and civil courthouse? In addition, family law courts require different facilities than the civil law courts can provide. Closed circuit televisions allowing underaged or easily influenced witnesses to testify out of the presence of jurors are something needed in a new family law courthouse, but that do not exist in the new civil law courthouse. Meeting rooms to keep the parties separate are imperative in family law courts, but the set up in the new civil law courts could leave abused family members too close for comfort. The civil law docket is humming along right now. Litigants down at the civil courthouse have never gotten their cases to trial more quickly than now. Indeed, the civil law judges have worked hard to whittle down their dockets so that cases can be tried as soon as the parties are ready. These trials would come to a grinding halt and the time to trial would instantly jump to years instead of months if the family law cases came over to the civil courthouse. Every morning in a court that combines family law with civil law would necessarily be taken up with hearings on temporary orders such as interim child custody and visitation, and injunctions to preserve assets. By contrast, civil judges have worked out a system where emergency motions are heard by one assigned judge for a two week period, thereby insuring that the normal process of the civil courts and their trials is not interrupted. That same system simply will not work with the family courts. What is needed, before any rash or rushed decision to transfer the family law courts anywhere, is study. Other than determining the facility costs, no study has been done on the actual effect upon the administration of justice. I submit to you that it is the administration of justice, and not the facility, that is of paramount importance.
|
