Justice Sanders Criticizes KCBA Rating Process
I declined to participate in the King County Bar Association’s rating process, and requested not to be rated, because I have no assurance the committee will be any more fair to me now than it was in 1995. After that experience, I promised myself I would never return. And I’m keeping that promise.
That year, seeking my initial election to the Supreme Court, I cooperated fully with the committee, expecting my rating would reflect my proven professional ability and experience as a practicing lawyer. By then I had tried several hundred cases during my 26 years of legal practice, litigated more than 100 appeals to every level of the appellate system, and taught CLE courses in my recognized area of expertise, land use litigation. Many of my cases which ended in published appellate opinions were recognized as landmarks in the field. (For further details, run my name through the attorney field of Westlaw or Lexis.)
I attended the KCBA interview expecting probing questions regarding my representation of clients. Had I cited an overruled case? Had I missed a deadline? Had I pursued a weak theory or screwed up? But not to worry. I was not asked a single question about my competence as a lawyer but assaulted with unverified, untrue, and/or irrelevant anonymous personal anecdotes that seemed to come from some politically correct checklist.
This year the association has elicited, once again, “confidential” personal views about me from every one on its e-mail list. There can be no accountability in the context of secret gossip or rumor. My request to state or explain my case by my own e-mail to the KCBA list was, moreover, refused by the Association.
Unlike a committee which operates behind closed doors reviewing tips from anonymous informants who might say anything, I am accountable for the public discharge of my duties. And I explain my reasons in writing for public inspection in every one of over 320+ opinions I have published. These opinions, as well as many of my writings and speeches are listed and accessible though my web site, www.justicesanders.com
I ask, why can I not be judged on my public record?
Do I protect the legal rights or those who come to court, or not? What else matters? One need not take my word for it, and should not take a committee’s word for it. Judge for yourself.
When I was in private practice the vindication of legal rights was the only thing that mattered to my clients or me. I was a professional, and they needed their legal rights protected. And, frankly, nothing else really matters to me now. Especially unimportant to me is the political and social values, attitudes, and beliefs of those on the rating committee. That, I believe, is really what their ratings reflect.
Richard B. Sanders - Justice, Washington Supreme Court
KCBA Response
KCBA's Board of Trustees charges the Judicial Screening Committee with rating all candidates in contested elections, even if a candidate declines to participate in the judicial screening process, if the Committee has adequate information to credibly evaluate. The Committee may obtain information from people with personal knowledge of the candidate, public records, electronic searches, professional discipline organizations and judicial evaluation surveys.
The purpose of the KCBA Judicial Screening process is to improve the judiciary in King County and in certain appellate courts by rating on the basis of merit. In the case of elections, the ratings are made public so that voters may be better informed.
For further information about the judicial screening process, go to www.kcba.org and click on 2004 Judicial Elections.
Alice Paine - KCBA Executive Director
