More on That Supposedly Better-Qualified Judge Who Lost to the Bagel Lady: Maybe the Voters Were Right After All!
You remember that terrible tragedy wherein the idiot voters threw out the awesome judge and voted in a bagel lady? Because the bagel lady spent a bunch of money and targeted the judge because of her name? And that was so unfair that maybe we need to scrap elections for judges?
Maybe it wasn’t so unfair after all.
Yesterday I went to a birthday party for the daughter of some friends of ours. I was speaking to a mutual friend of ours who is a very bright and capable civil lawyer. Also present was another mutual friend, who is the wife of another bright and capable civil lawyer (who wasn’t himself at the party because he has a trial beginning on Monday).
Somehow, we started discussing the topic of the bagel lady who unseated the supposedly more experienced judge — an electoral outcome that the Los Angeles Times had decried as so distressing that it
sent a jolt through Los Angeles County legal circles, leading some to question whether the system to select judges needs overhauling.
I wrote some posts mocking this view, and noted that accountability is a good thing. I didn’t know the half of it.
My lawyer friend hadn’t heard the bagel-lady story. He had probably been working too hard to keep up with current events. Here, as best as I remember it, is the conversation between me, my lawyer friend, and my other lawyer friend’s wife:
MY LAWYER FRIEND: So who was the judge who lost again?
ME: She had an unusual name, which was why the newspaper said she said been targeted by the bagel lady. I think her last name is Janavs.
MY LAWYER FRIEND: Dzintra Janavs lost? [Laughing] That’s great! She’s a terrible judge!
MY OTHER LAWYER FRIEND’S WIFE: Oh, I know. That’s what everybody says.
ME The newspaper made her sound like she was wonderful.
MY LAWYER FRIEND: She’s awful!
ME: The paper said that maybe she should have done a better job of campaigning.
MY LAWYER FRIEND: Maybe she should have done a better job of judging!
ME: What’s so bad about her?
MY LAWYER FRIEND: She’s completely irrational!
MY OTHER LAWYER FRIEND’S WIFE: [Nods.]
MY LAWYER FRIEND: She’ll make some crazy ruling and you’ll just look at her and say, “Judge, did you even read the cases??” It’s not just me who thinks this. Everyone I talk to says the same thing.
MY OTHER LAWYER FRIEND’S WIFE: [Nods.] [To my lawyer friend:] The paper was saying that she was targeted because of her name. [Rolls eyes.]
MY LAWYER FRIEND: That’s ridiculous. She’s a terrible judge.
ME: I guess the paper was complaining because she was very experienced, and she was unseated by this woman who had let her law degree lapse because she was running a bagel shop, and only recently reactivated her bar card.
MY LAWYER FRIEND: Well, to me, experience for a judge isn’t necessarily as important as having a brain. You need somebody who will read the cases, know the law, and be fair. She’s not that kind of a judge.
Now, is my lawyer friend right? Is the wife of my other lawyer friend right?
I don’t know.
But I’ll tell you this: I respect my friends’ opinions quite a bit. They’re very smart and honest people. And what they said certainly opened my eyes to the possibility, at least, that maybe the voters got it right.
Here I had assumed that the unseated judge was better qualified, because the L.A. Times said so. You’d think, of all people, that I would know better.
So when I got home, I went back and read the original L.A. Times story on this election. I noticed something that I didn’t notice the first time: the paper did not directly quote a single practicing lawyer.
Janavs, the losing judge, is quoted as saying that many lawyers called her and said they were appalled. OK. Given that all these comments are filtered through the losing candidate, these quotes are less than compelling.
Four other judges are quoted as supporting Janavs. For example:
“Judges are devastated by the loss of an esteemed colleague,” said Judge Terry Friedman, president of the California Judges Assn. He said he could recall only two other times in 30 years when a sitting judge was voted out of office.
I have a hunch that’s what’s going on here. Judges thought that they were safe — but apparently this election means they’re not. That must really suck! No wonder they’re criticizing the result!
Another judge is quoted in the article: Nora Manella. As far as I know, she’s a good judge. But she also did just give up a position as a federal district judge — a position with lifetime tenure — for a position as a state appellate judge. She must be distressed to see someone voted out of office, huh?
Aside from Janavs herself, and four other judges who probably don’t like the idea that they could be voted out of office, the only other person quoted in the article is Laurie Levenson — who seems very pleasant, but also has a quote about any legal issue under the sun. There is no reason to believe that Levenson is any more informed about Janavs than she is about countless other issues that she yaps about to the media.
That’s it. The story quotes plenty of judges, but doesn’t quote a single lawyer who ever appeared in front of her. Yet it asserts that the unseating of Janavs “sent a jolt through Los Angeles County legal circles,” and says: “In the legal community, a different mood prevailed: shock.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
It would be more accurate to say:
Among other judges who realized that they, too, could lose elections, a mood of shock prevailed. But among some practicing lawyers, yet another mood prevailed: happiness at the unseating of a judge whom they considered difficult and irrational.
Again, elections aren’t perfect, by any means — and there are plenty of outrageous results. But, nutty me, I still like democracy and accountability. That’s what I take from this whole episode.
That, and the fact that even I need to constantly remind myself not to believe everything I read in the Los Angeles Times.
There is precious little evidence anyone should look for accuracy in the LA Times, and overwhelming evidence, time and again, of botched information, slanted information, incomplete information, inaccurate information, misinformation and outright disinformation.
All that and a genuflecting obsequiousness to Democrat Party perfidy, topped off with a haughty insolence toward corrections.
And they have the astonishing chutzpah to sell this absurd opera bouffe every day of the week, and the people of Southern California fork over good money for it, my mother included. According to her, the LAT’s one redeeming feature is the crosswords.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 6/18/2006 @ 1:49 pmMoreso, perhaps, on the rare occasions where they endorse Republicans (“Pete” McCloskey, anyone?).
Xrlq (995633) — 6/18/2006 @ 2:00 pmI understand that Governor Schwarzenegger is poised to reappoint Judge Janavs who was rated extremely well-qualified by the Bar Association. Patrick, I am afraid your attorney friends will be burdened with this judge again.
Her opponent, the Bagel lady, was rated unqualified.
But, 85K in direct mail slate cards will buy you alot of
friendsvoters on election day.Flap
Flap (e8485f) — 6/18/2006 @ 3:23 pmSomebody should ask an occasional expert witness about judges. Ye gods ! Some of them are amazing. Lawyers should know but it is an interesting point of view to be a witness in a hundred or two hundred cases.
Even worse are the administrative judges who hear medical board disciplinary hearings. If you want to know why bad doctors are never disciplined, sit in on a few hearings. I quit in disgust about 10 years ago. I still do an occasional malpractice case. I used to do lots of criminal cases when I ran a trauma center. Unique point of view, I’ll tell you.
Mike K (416363) — 6/18/2006 @ 5:21 pmI’d be the first to concede that judicial qualifications commissions are capable of partisan manipulation. (Consider the ABA). But Janavs, despite a tendency to seriously consider defense arguments in civil cases, was rated “exceptionally well qualified” by the LA County Bar, and I have appeared before her (albeit the last time 7 years ago) and found her to be outstanding in her capacity to absorb a large amount of complexity, and act sensibly.
The reason she lost is that Los Angeles Democrats follow the lead of their party mailers. If they want, they can get rid of every conservative judge. That would be even more of a disaster for LA than our civil court system already is.
lincoln republican (6ec212) — 6/18/2006 @ 9:24 pmI voted for Janvaas on the strength of her “well qualified” rating by the Bar Association and the “unqualified” rating of her opponent.
Patterico and other attorneys who post here, how does the bar association decide on these ratings? Is there some other source of judicial ratings that is non-partisan and authoritative?
Stu707 (cc7fa3) — 6/18/2006 @ 9:53 pmI believe the unusual name Dzintra is of Latvian origin.
dchamil (ae28ef) — 6/19/2006 @ 7:46 amI’ve argued in front of Janvs on 3 occassions in the last 10 years. She is outstanding. If anything, she is defense oriented & might be disliked by the plaintiff’s bar for that reason. There used to be an ETREMELY pro-plaintiff judge in Writs & receivers (perhaps accross the hall from Janavs) who bent over backwards for the plaintiff’s bar & never met a union supported teacher that he ruled against. Apparantly, Janavs is not so fond of the teachers’ unions. At least the one’s I’ve fought. 😉
Trojan (3f4b89) — 6/19/2006 @ 5:18 pmI hate to say it because it sounds so reactionary, but when the L.A. Times praises or sympathizes with someone, my radar alarm snaps on: “Uh oh, the Times sounds favorable to them, there must be something wrong with them.”
I now recall having the same reaction when I read the Times’ article about Janavs losing to the bagel lady. The thing that lulled me a bit was that the Times indicated in the article Janavs was a Republican. I suppose the fact that the L.A. Times appeared sympathetic to a Republican should have set off other alarm bells.
I suppose it’s good to trust your instincts when it comes to the Times. I’d be interested to hear why the Times went out of their way to sympathize with Janavs.
Trained Auditor (152340) — 6/19/2006 @ 7:12 pmDuring 2002-2003 I worked as a Research Attorney for Judge Janavs. She is committed to getting the ruling right. She took reams of briefs home every weekend, and had the facts and issues committed to memory by Monday morning. Commentators have suggested that she is biased toward local agencies. But remember that she presided over a writs and receivers department, and the standard of review of administrative decisions is abuse of discretion. As administrative agencies have wide discretion to make their decisions, she righfully upheld their decisions so long as the discretion was not used an an arbitrary or capricous manner. Further,the claim that she favors the Republican viewpoint is without merit. Many of the adminstrative decisions reviewed concerned land use appeals from disgruntled developers, who themselves are traditionally republican. Janavs can be demanding, but only because she demands justice.
MR (fa0f5d) — 7/11/2007 @ 2:56 pm