I dunno- some lawyers bring intangibles to the table. Let’s say I have a case with an important constitutional issue and a lot is at stake. I think if I bring in Orin Kerr or Eugene Volokh, that I get more than just good briefing and cogent argument. I could’ve done that on my own, if not as well; but there are dozens of lawyers who could’ve done as well as they. But by bringing these guys in- just like when you bring a Roy Black, or Russ Hardin, or some other bigger name- you are sending a signal to the judge that this is something they should take very seriously. On a lower scale, when you bring in one of the more influential members of the local bar, you are sending the judge the same message.

drunkdriver: Steve,
you are criticizing the system for this, but you’re telling us that you engage in this conduct! If you don’t think it’s right, you can stop.

DrunkDriver, what Steve is describing is basically a form of extortion. And you’re right, if you don’t like being extorted, you can stop paying, but it’s not always a good idea.

Steve: Do they do anything, or are they just there for the juice?Depends how sharp they are.Sometimes they might add a few words to your oral argument.Sometimes they’re just agreeing to put their name on your brief.But in any case, there’s no reason you’d ever be partnering with any of these people except for the hope that the judge might want to be in the good graces of a local legislator.Of course, just hiring local counsel (never mind lawyer-legislators) can be equally ridiculous in many cases, although the corruption is arguably to a lesser degree.I recall one time we hired local counsel who quite literally played golf with the judge on our case every Friday.“So, Judge, what did you think about that motion we filed?”This is not the reality of every case, but it is quite real.

Steve,

you are criticizing the system for this, but you’re telling us that you engage in this conduct! If you don’t think it’s right, you can stop.

Lawyers are hired all the time on a who-you-know basis; for similar reasons, lawyers remove cases to federal court, or pick certain venues, because they know the judges and/or will get better treatment in their preferred court.

Litigation is not a process of mathematical proofing. This is part of why lawyers fret so much about “presentation” of their case– it makes a difference how you present a case. Sometimes it makes a difference who presents it. Judges are human and are impressed by “stars,” though maybe less so than the average person. A lawyer who has the judge’s ear can make a huge difference for you.

As for the judge in this story: I think if I were legislator, I’d be GLAD he recused from my case. I’d hate to have him take my case only to rake me over the coals.

Work stoppages and strikes, like the one he engaged in and was encouraging with his fellow justices, are traditional, legally-guaranteed tools of the union.

The honorable L. Himelein must immediately have his record cleared of this illegal union-busting tactic and be appointed to a leadership position in the new organization.

ArthurKirkland: The conclusion derived from the evidence (e-mails). It is an assumption to the extent is relies on the judge’s authorship of those e-mails; what could make that assumption shameful?

I think he forgot a /sarc tag.

Nick

If the judges want legal assistance, they should pay for it like most people do instead of accepting free legal services as a bribe. While I think that judges in New York were underpaid, I am shocked that the manner in which they went about getting a pay raise was not perceived as an incredible abuse of power. They had a state judge, who is obviously an interested party, order the state give judges a 30% raise. I do not think many state judges would have had the guts to rule against his colleagues, regardless of the merits of the case. The fact that legal papers were filed and rulings were made by a person wearing a judicial robe does not mean that the proceedings had anything to do with law. Where was the outrage?

For shame, you assume bad faith and an inability to control personal bias from this judge?

The conclusion derived from the evidence (e-mails). It is an assumption to the extent is relies on the judge’s authorship of those e-mails; what could make that assumption shameful?

wm13:
I don’t know much about Texas, never having been there, but anyone who would refer to the government or political system of New York as “sane” evidently doesn’t live here.

The judge may be a boor, but one thing he was right about was calling Assembly Speaker Silver a slug.

Speaker Silver once argued that the legislators needed a pay raise, claiming that the legislators earned less than minimum wage. People did the math, and determined that, at the legislators’ base pay (most of them got extra perks for committee chairmanship and stuff like that), they would have to work 31 hours a day, 365 days a year for their salary to be minimum wage. In New York, the legislators only work about three and a half days a week (because of the large Jewish population, the legislature tries to get everybody home before the Jewish Sabbath), with the legislative session being only half the year (except when you have an equal split between the parties in the State Senate, which is a whole nother can of worms).

The [expletive deleted] legislators got their pay raise. That was back in 1998, and Silver is still the Speaker, 12 years on.

ArthurKirkland: Could Judge Himelein reasonably be perceived to be impartial, after the censure and public humiliation, with respect to any litigation involving one of the relevant legislators’ firms?He sounds like a judge who might hold a grudge.

For shame, you assume bad faith and an inability to control personal bias from this judge?

Alternatively, would the creation of bias retroactively excuse his recusals, thus eliminating the censure, and therefore eliminating the bias, making his recusals inappropriate, justifying the censure….

He sounds like a judge who might hold a grudge.

I suspect we work in different states. In my state, the district attorneys are clearly considered part of the executive branch.

Dave N.: Except, of course, that lawyers are not part of the judicial branch.This is particularly true of government lawyers. I work for my state Attorney General (an executive officer). I formerly worked for a District Attorney (also an executive officer). The fact that I work in a courtroom no more makes me part of a the judicial branch than having a post office box makes me part of the Postal Service.

interesting. I myself am a deputy Attorney General (executive branch) but when I worked for the county prosecutor I was considered part of the judicial branch. I didn’t realize it until I was looking through the annotations in the state constitution and there was a state court case that actually held that county prosecutors were considered part of the judicial branch.

this judge should be in jail and for a long time

If judges have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, it’s news to me.

cwolf: The post is about a judge and legislators from a relatively sane state, New York. Texas is plagued with problems few states outside the Red Zone suffer.

Such terrible problems like being one of the few states this year with a balanced budget. How is New York’s budget this year?

ShelbyC: Censure? Sounds like the guy should be in jail.Isn’t this extortion? And it’s not like he just extrajudically refused to hear the cases.A recusal is a judicial finding, isn’t it?How is this different from making other judicial findings to the detriment of the legislators with the intent to get them to pass laws he wants?

Absolute immunity is a wonderful thing, if you’re a judicial officer.

Richard Atwood: The way you draw line as regards legislators doing legal work is simple: You prohibit it. Lawyers are officers of the court in many states and therefore part of the judicial branch. They cannot serve in the legislative branch without conflict of interest. These conflicts are not rare but occur daily.

Except, of course, that lawyers are not part of the judicial branch.

This is particularly true of government lawyers. I work for my state Attorney General (an executive officer). I formerly worked for a District Attorney (also an executive officer).

The fact that I work in a courtroom no more makes me part of a the judicial branch than having a post office box makes me part of the Postal Service.

ShelbyC says: Do they do anything, or are they just there for the juice?

If the pol makes an appearance in a relatively minor or inconspicuous case, all s/he usually needs to do is say something to the court like “I believe there is reasonable doubt in this case” or some other line of BS & the compliant judge will dismiss the case based on the pleadings with or without additional evidence. This is called professional courtesy or in the instance of a retired judge/lawyer is known as, “Judicial Courtesy”. It’s a well trod path to dismissal of traffic tickets & misdemeanors (& even some felonies) in NY. (& likely in other states).

If the pol’s associate makes the appearance, the court often punishes the stand-in attorney by allowing the case to proceed for a little while before dismissing the information. These dismissals frequently come with sternly worded admonitions for the defendant.

It’s not only legislators who are allowed this “courtesy” but it is also extended to former DA’s, Judges, Mayors, Councilcritters, etc.

I have no experience with how the scam works in civil proceedings.

In this case, I wonder if that same judge is one of those for whom it’s important to hire a legislator as lawyer. It sounds like he is on the moral level where he just wants a piece of the action. It might be interesting to see how he got his job. Was he elected (if so, who backed him)? Was he appointed?

Steve: “So, Judge, what did you think about that motion we filed?” This is not the reality of every case, but it is quite real.

Heh. Rule in favor of our motion and I’ll let you do that shot over.

Depends how sharp they are. Sometimes they might add a few words to your oral argument. Sometimes they’re just agreeing to put their name on your brief. But in any case, there’s no reason you’d ever be partnering with any of these people except for the hope that the judge might want to be in the good graces of a local legislator.

Of course, just hiring local counsel (never mind lawyer-legislators) can be equally ridiculous in many cases, although the corruption is arguably to a lesser degree. I recall one time we hired local counsel who quite literally played golf with the judge on our case every Friday. “So, Judge, what did you think about that motion we filed?” This is not the reality of every case, but it is quite real.

He could’ve sent e-mails “confessing” his bias and thus implicitly encouraging others to join him.

Not a very smart guy, it seems.

Steve: you hire a local assemblyman as your co-counsel to give you that extra dollop of juice with the court.

Do they do anything, or are they just there for the juice?

Soronel Haetir says: Many states have short legislative sessions, Texas something like eighty days every two years as an example. …

The post is about a judge and legislators from a relatively sane state, New York. Texas is plagued with problems few states outside the Red Zone suffer.
Legislating in a real state like NY is a “Full Time Job” (relatively speaking) and NY pols are paid well for their (ahem) service.