Rating judges: ABA evaluator tells concernsAuthor(s): Cheryl FrankSource: ABA Journal, Vol. 70, No. 10 (October 1984), p. 39Published by: American Bar AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20757392 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 19:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ABA Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ABA ANNUAL MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

Shepherd: The contingent fee is the key to the courthouse for many.

delays have contributed to the profes sion's poor public image. Through rec ommendations calling for courts to

simplify pre-trial procedures, expedite appeals, and use telephone conferencing in place of court appearances, the prob lem can be controlled, said Shepherd,

who is a former member of the commis sion. He does not advocate a freeze on

attorney's fees, a move supported last

winter for physicians by the American Medical Association.

Shepherd is a partner in the St. Louis firm of Shepherd, Sandberg & Phoenix. He served as a member of the House of Delegates for 10 years and was its chair man from 1978 to 1980.

Will work on adding members Shepherd said he would continue to

focus on a major goal of his predecessor, Wallace Riley, in trying to increase ABA membership. The association includes half the nation's 600,000 lawyers. When a questioner noted that women and mi nority lawyers have not joined the asso ciation in proportion to their numbers, Shepherd said he "can't force them to do so."

"A lawyer in his or her office can do so much," said Shepherd. "Coupled with other lawyers in the nation, they can do more. To sit on the sidelines and not do more is not in the advocate's best interest." ?Staff report

Rating judges ABA evaluator tells concerns

The growing pool of merely "qualified" nominees?which may be

the main supply of new federal judges? has prompted some concern on the part of Robert Raven of San Francisco.

He is a vice president of the American Judicature Society and a former chair

man of the American Bar Association's

Standing Committee on the Federal Ju diciary, the panel that scrutinizes the character and background of potential federal judges. He voiced some of his concerns at a seminar sponsored by the

Judicial Administration Division at the annual meeting.

That committee's highest rating is "ex

ceptionally well qualified," which means

the person must have made contribu

tions "over and above just being a law

yer," Raven said. Such a person is "one

of the best available." A prospective

judge also may be rated "qualified" or "not qualified."

Most difficult problem The most difficult problem is in the

"qualified" category, "which gets to be

rather large," Raven said.

Unless the committee can "get some

thing" substantial and negative on a pro

spective judge, "that person is probably going to be pushed forward" by his or her senator and other powerful people. Raven said.

For decades the committee has

provided confidential ratings and back

ground information to the Justice De

partment and Senate Judiciary Commit

tee. Members screen only names

submitted by government officials, but do not select judicial nominees. Raven

said.

"If we see some problems looming, we immediately notify the attorney gen eral," he said. "Our best work is done

when a name is just withdrawn and

never surfaces."

The ABA committee can rate potential

judges easier than the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he pointed out, because it

is not subject to the Freedom of Infor mation Act.

But he conceded that the secrecy spawns "myths" about the committee's

role. Anyone giving confidential infor mation about a prospective judicial nom inee is assured that only committee

members will ever know the source.

Raven said.

'Many exceptions' Asked how a candidate can confront

derogatory information. Raven said:

"That's a good question, because we

never mention any names. From the due

process point of view, if we really get pinned down on a piece of information

that we can't confront the person with

because it will reveal the source, we put it aside. ... We finally decided that's

the only thing we could do." In a "recent flap" over the nomination

of J. Harve Wilkinson III to the Fourth Circuit, he said the Senate Judiciary Committee had asked the ABA commit tee for telephone logs "and that sort of thing," but he insisted that any informa

tion provided would preserve con

fidentiality of informants. (See Con

gresScan, this issue, page 42.) Raven said that in order to rate

women and minority group members

higher the committee makes "many ex

ceptions" to its criteria that the nominee

should be admitted to the bar for at least 12 years and have "substantial trial ex

perience" or comparable work. "It's

been difficult, but the committee wants that. The committee is very aware of the charge that 'it's these old white guys. . . .'" ?Cheryl Frank

Raven: "Our best work is done when a name is just withdrawn. . . ."

October 1984 Volume 70 39

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions