High court may institute 'strong chief judge' system

As independently elected officials, District Court judges have always had such wide-ranging control over their courtrooms and court calendars that the departments are referred to as fiefdoms.

But with independence comes an element of inconsistency that has prompted the Nevada Legislature to consider passing a law requiring that a "Strong Chief Judge" system be installed.

Some judges have a reputation for conducting few trials and leaving the courthouse early in the day rather than accepting overflow trials from other courtrooms. Other judges are known to take extensive vacation time.

Court rules are applied inconsistently, particularly at Family Court, according to the conclusions of legislators who held public hearings last summer.

A strong chief judge would supervise other judges to ensure that cases are decided in an expeditious fashion, work is equally shared and judges spend all day at the courthouse and take only a few weeks of vacation each year.

Most judges are apprehensive about a supervisory system and some outright oppose it. There also is a question of the constitutionality of such a system if forced on the judiciary by the legislative branch, as is being contemplated as a result of the public hearings.

Because of that, it now appears a strong chief judge system in some form will be instituted by the Nevada Supreme Court, which has supervisory authority over all court systems under the Nevada Constitution.

It was the topic of discussion at Wednesday's district judges meeting, but the session was closed to the public under the guise of being a personnel matter. When that classification was challenged, Chief District Judge Lee Gates refused even to allow a vote of the judges about whether the closure was valid.

Sources who attended the meeting stated that while most judges accepted the inevitability of the system, some advocated trying to avoid an overly restrictive supervisory system by lobbying the high court. A few judges hoped to avoid any forced supervision plan.

The issue was revisited Thursday at a public meeting of a committee of six of the 27 district judges.

The topic was what sort of plan should be recommended to the high court and how to limit the powers of a chief judge so the one selected for the job does not become a bully or dictator.

They talked about whether decisions by a chief judge can be overturned through a vote by the other judges or if the high court must be asked to intercede.

District Judge Gene Porter emphasized that if the chief judge has wide-ranging authority, it will be "critical" to elect the proper person to the job.

District Judge Mark Gibbons said a system must be in place to remove a chief judge "if he does crazy stuff," but otherwise, if the chief judge says do it, we do it."

"No one is going to agree with all the decisions of a chief judge," Gates said.

Under the current system, the chief judge has a host of administrative duties but no authority to force action by other judges.

In a strong chief judge system, the Nevada Supreme Court would delegate its supervisory authority to the chief and require particular performance by the other judges. The chief would ensure that those dictates were followed or report the wayward judges to the high court or the Commission on Judicial Discipline.

One recommendation that seemed to be accepted would provide a second layer of supervisory judges, or presiding judges, over the civil, criminal and family branches of the court, although the chief judge would retain the ultimate power. Under the current specialized court system, the 27 district judges are divided among those specialties.

It is not yet clear whether the chief judge would have authority to transfer judges from one division to another.

archive