- Quickdraw McLaw
- 24 Comments
- 286 Views
A few years back, commenters were discussing the fact that some judges are off the bench quite a bit more than you might expect. Now, it’s become a yearly tradition for us to discuss this topic each December. So, are the judges generally spending enough time in the courtroom this year? Which judges should be spending a little more time on the bench? Is there a minimum standard? Which judges would you commend for making the best use of your time? Which judges are always late and don’t respect your time? Are any of the judges giving you trouble over remote appearances? Are any of them ruling on the briefing instead of dealing with the hassle of a hearing? Which judge is the most adept at virtual hearings?
This will be a very interesting discussion, now that the pandemic is pretty much over.
I don't practice regularly in Family Court but thought this comment is a good fit for today's topic. A motion filed in FC in mid-May was set for hearing mid-Nov. by the Clerk's office, Chambers hearing, unopposed. I still do not have minutes or a signed order (a proposed order was submitted). Somebody is slacking off.
I haven't been hit with dates like that in quite some time. However, I would be figuring out a way to apply for OST's on every one that did.
Have you reached out to the Dept. Law Clerk?
Well then you have not practiced in Probate Court where due to snafus filings from March 2022 are being reset for January and February 2023.
Correct. I avoid that place like the plague. Except for no appearance Set Asides.
I honestly don't understand how probate got so far behind. Even during the time we didn't have a commissioner, couldn't the staff just move things forward the same way they did when we had a commissioner? It makes no sense.
Well, you can take a look at the caseload. Based on the case numbers, in 2020, we added about 3700 new cases to Probate Court. 4800 in 2021 and about 4350 so far in 2022. That's just new cases, not individual filings that have to be handled (granted, a fair amount are one-and-done Set Asides). Then you add in petitions for sales (although why anyone would be doing anything but independent administration in this clogged docket is beyond me), contested matters, rando pro se rants, etc. It's a bit for one person and a couple of staff members to do. Also, for part of that time, Probate was down to 1 staff member. Whether that was addition by subtraction or a substantial subtraction is left to the reader.
As 4:33 said, probate filings are increasing while the probate office has maintained a hard cap of 150 cases per week. It's basic supply and demand. The demand for hearing dates exceeds the available supply of hearing dates, so you keep getting pushed back more and more as the backlog continues to build up.
The hard cap of 150 cases has never really changed regardless of the amount of staff in the probate office. When it was fully staffed, it was 150 cases per week. When it was understaffed, it was 150 per week.
I don't see how this ever gets turned back around until they find a way to handle more than 150 cases per week, whether that is another commissioner and staff, or whether the probate judges take on more probate cases on their calendars, or whether they outsource review of undisputed cases to probate law firms as pro bono work to relieve the probate staff of that task.
I have fully read all the briefing both parties have submitted….
Nice of Judge Israel and Judge Escobar to take hearings from their courtroom every once in a while since I have continually showed up only to find them on video or (in Escobar's case) only audio.
Same here. She demanded we appear in person and then she was on video from her home.
Israel did the same thing to our firm. Demanded personal appearances and then appeared from his house (because I have seen his Chambers and it did not look like the background in the video).
The next time he's up for re-election, I hope Israel draws a female challenger.
Yo! 936pm is straight savage, wishing that upon a sitting judge.
936– With his horribly low approval ratings, why wouldn't a woman run against him? He is a sitting duck.
bonuses anyone?
Bonuses? In this economy?
Seriously though, this should be a whole other blog post. We should do a compensation/bonus survey so everyone can see how underpaid they are!
Agree! Comp survey!
How about Kishner asking attorneys if they filed notices of virtual appearances, and threatening to sanction them if they haven't? If she doesn't know if they were filed, then they serve no purpose and she is simply looking for excuses to sanction people.
You do not give her evil wiles enough credit. Oh she knows very well who filed and who did not. And she lets you self-immolate by giving you the choice of the chair (in the form of a show cause hearing), hanging (in the form of you agreeing to just not participate in the hearing and to just observe) or of suicide (in the form of a "voluntary" payment to a legal aid organization). It is a more diabolical way of doing what Tom Biggar used to do.
I mean, sure this practice humiliates lawyers for failing to notice their intent to do something that should be the default to begin with. But on the plus side, it also increases the time and expense of litigation, so it's got that going for it.
Kishner's use of the notice of virtual appearance to humiliate and/or sanction attorneys is simply a pointless power trip. It does not need to be done and accomplishes nothing, but she does it to show she is the boss. Not a good look.
90% of Kishner's courtroom could be described as "she does it to show she is the boss." I recall a few years ago when all the parties stipulated on a protective order in a case and she still made the parties make changes to it four or five times just to satisfy her vision of what constituted an appropriate protective order. If the parties are willing to stipulate, who even cares?
I don't think Escobar has been to courthouse since Covid hit in 2020.