Miscellaneous

Justice Delayed is Judge Reprimanded

By Anne Skove, Esq.

Do case processing time standards mean anything?

We often wondered this as we tracked time standards -- both aspirational and, uh, less aspirational.

Where do they come from? What happens when they're not followed? Does efficiency (or lack thereof) count for anything in the courts?

Yes they do. For the first time ever, an Ohio judge was reprimanded for his inefficiency. The reprimand was based not only on time standards but also (and perhaps more importantly) on Judicial Canons.

At issue in particular were his handling of divorce cases (both with and without children). If ever a case type cried out for closure, it would be a divorce. The high court compared this judge's performance to that of his peers, who fared much better in similar cases.

Chief Justice Moyer noted that "the timely resolution of cases is fundamental to the judicial system [...] Lengthy, unjustified delays in the disposition of a court's docket compromise the interests of parties and diminish confidence in the judiciary and the legal system. By failing to efficiently resolve the cases before him, respondent left the parties referred to above and many others in legal limbo, often for a period of years. Respondent's conduct was inherently injurious, as it prevented timely resolution of disputes that profoundly affected the lives of those, in particular children, whose interests were before his court."

The court decided that the appropriate sanction would be a public reprimand. Perhaps "thrashing by Steelman" is considered too cruel and unusual.

See Sandusky County Judge Reprimanded for Failure to Decide Cases in Timely Manner, 2007-2294, Disciplinary Counsel v. Sargeant, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-2330.

Full post as published by court-o-rama.org on June 02, 2008 (boomark / email).