LNH at the Supreme Court
LNH Visit to the NH Supreme Court
Tuesday afternoon, January 23, 2007
Kevin Peterson
The LNH Class of 2007 spent an enlightening three hours at the NH Supreme Court on January 23rd. About 20 members of the class were able to attend. Several attorneys in the class could not attend because they or their firm have a pending case before the court.
We arrived and passed through a metal detector inside the front door, then gathered in the court chambers. Laura Kiernan, special assistant to the Chief Justice, greeted us and provided a brief orientation to the building, which was constructed in 1970 and named in honor of Frank Kenison, who served as Chief Justice for 25 years. The large, high-ceilinged court chamber is adorned with paintings of all the former Chief Justices of the court. She also pointed out a small web camera mounted on the rear wall. All Supreme Court proceedings are broadcast on a live webcast. On the day that we visited, a NH public television crew also was visiting the court to do filming for an episode of the “A Day in the Life” series.
The five justices joined us in the chamber for an hour-long introduction and question-and-answer session. They sat facing us in five wooden chairs with the Supreme Court logo. As is customary, they sat “in formation”, with Chief Justice John Broderick in the center, flanked—in descending order of seniority—by Senior Associate Justice Linda Dalianis and Associate Justices James Duggan, Richard Galway and Gary Hicks. After introductions all around, each of the justices provided some brief background information on the court and its workings, followed by questions and dialog with the group. Discussion ranged from pressing priorities of the court system (new technology, workload, staffing, security) to common law, personal aspirations about becoming a justice (all five suggested that becoming a Supreme Court justice was not something they strove to achieve—in most cases, their arrival on the court was an accident or a case of luck or being in the right place at the right time), the time it takes to become fully versed in the court and a really effective justice (five to 12 years), and balancing the work of the court with home life and avocations. Don Kreis pointedly asked, “Is oral argument really worth anything?”, to which the justices answered “YES”, “Sometimes”, and “Depends on the attorney making the argument.” All of the justices agreed that oral argument can be very valuable, particularly to them (even though the attorneys think it’s really for THEM).
Later, we broke into three, smaller groups to visit with justices in their chambers. My group joined Justice Galway in his small office, which was adorned with paintings and photos from around New Hampshire, including several large prints of the Old Man of the Mountain. Justice Galway shared his insights about the collegiality of the court, the process of developing written opinions, the work of court clerks (each justice is assigned two clerks, whom they have a hand in selecting), the limited security in some of the court facilities around the state, the challenges of modernizing the state court system with financial resources so limited, the give-and-take involved in forming majorities (which can change in the course of writing an opinion), and many other topics. We talked a bit about the impact of the 2000 impeachment of three justices and the “trial” before the NH Senate of then-Chief Justice David Brock.
Our final gathering was in the court conference room at the back of the building. We reconvened as a large group, and Justice Broderick described the room and its furnishings, which included several original works of art on loan from the Currier Gallery. He noted that were this a federal court, the windows would be covered and a perimeter fence installed for security. As of yet, that has not been necessary in NH. He displayed a silver pitcher, the bequest of the wife of a former Chief Justice (it was a wedding present to the two of them in the 1930s), which is used to hold numbers representing cases to be assigned for writing to each of the five justices. While one Justice remarked that a Tupperware container could work just as well, it was pointed out that the pitcher represents an important thread of history for the Court—the hands of dozens of justices have reached into it to randomly select cases for assignment (including current US Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who was a NH Supreme Court Justice in the late-1980s).
Today was yet another example of the incredible opportunity offered by LNH: the chance to gain invaluable insight into the inner workings of this state.
Tuesday afternoon, January 23, 2007
Kevin Peterson
The LNH Class of 2007 spent an enlightening three hours at the NH Supreme Court on January 23rd. About 20 members of the class were able to attend. Several attorneys in the class could not attend because they or their firm have a pending case before the court.
We arrived and passed through a metal detector inside the front door, then gathered in the court chambers. Laura Kiernan, special assistant to the Chief Justice, greeted us and provided a brief orientation to the building, which was constructed in 1970 and named in honor of Frank Kenison, who served as Chief Justice for 25 years. The large, high-ceilinged court chamber is adorned with paintings of all the former Chief Justices of the court. She also pointed out a small web camera mounted on the rear wall. All Supreme Court proceedings are broadcast on a live webcast. On the day that we visited, a NH public television crew also was visiting the court to do filming for an episode of the “A Day in the Life” series.
The five justices joined us in the chamber for an hour-long introduction and question-and-answer session. They sat facing us in five wooden chairs with the Supreme Court logo. As is customary, they sat “in formation”, with Chief Justice John Broderick in the center, flanked—in descending order of seniority—by Senior Associate Justice Linda Dalianis and Associate Justices James Duggan, Richard Galway and Gary Hicks. After introductions all around, each of the justices provided some brief background information on the court and its workings, followed by questions and dialog with the group. Discussion ranged from pressing priorities of the court system (new technology, workload, staffing, security) to common law, personal aspirations about becoming a justice (all five suggested that becoming a Supreme Court justice was not something they strove to achieve—in most cases, their arrival on the court was an accident or a case of luck or being in the right place at the right time), the time it takes to become fully versed in the court and a really effective justice (five to 12 years), and balancing the work of the court with home life and avocations. Don Kreis pointedly asked, “Is oral argument really worth anything?”, to which the justices answered “YES”, “Sometimes”, and “Depends on the attorney making the argument.” All of the justices agreed that oral argument can be very valuable, particularly to them (even though the attorneys think it’s really for THEM).
Later, we broke into three, smaller groups to visit with justices in their chambers. My group joined Justice Galway in his small office, which was adorned with paintings and photos from around New Hampshire, including several large prints of the Old Man of the Mountain. Justice Galway shared his insights about the collegiality of the court, the process of developing written opinions, the work of court clerks (each justice is assigned two clerks, whom they have a hand in selecting), the limited security in some of the court facilities around the state, the challenges of modernizing the state court system with financial resources so limited, the give-and-take involved in forming majorities (which can change in the course of writing an opinion), and many other topics. We talked a bit about the impact of the 2000 impeachment of three justices and the “trial” before the NH Senate of then-Chief Justice David Brock.
Our final gathering was in the court conference room at the back of the building. We reconvened as a large group, and Justice Broderick described the room and its furnishings, which included several original works of art on loan from the Currier Gallery. He noted that were this a federal court, the windows would be covered and a perimeter fence installed for security. As of yet, that has not been necessary in NH. He displayed a silver pitcher, the bequest of the wife of a former Chief Justice (it was a wedding present to the two of them in the 1930s), which is used to hold numbers representing cases to be assigned for writing to each of the five justices. While one Justice remarked that a Tupperware container could work just as well, it was pointed out that the pitcher represents an important thread of history for the Court—the hands of dozens of justices have reached into it to randomly select cases for assignment (including current US Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who was a NH Supreme Court Justice in the late-1980s).
Today was yet another example of the incredible opportunity offered by LNH: the chance to gain invaluable insight into the inner workings of this state.
posted by LNH07 at 7:05 AM
1 Comments:
May I offer a brief elaboration on the nature of the question I posed, as accurately reported by my friend Kevin Peterson?
As I posed the question of the justices, I alluded to the fact that there were no cameras in the room (a public TV station crew, filming at the court that day, having left). So I invited the justices to be more candid than they would be in front of the cameras.
I didn't mean to suggest that the justices should, or would, give a different answer in private than they would in public. I merely meant, based on experience, that one can be a bit less guarded, in terms of the way one expresses her/his thoughts, when there are no cameras or news reporters present.
I posed my question as I did based on an expectation that the justices would have definite opinions on the subject that I raised. Kevin's report confirms that my expectation was well-founded.
I have served judicial clerkships at the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and the Vermont Supreme Court (as well as three years at the federal district court in Portland) so I've seen a lot of state-court appellate advocacy on the inside and the outside. As a newly minted lawyer at the time, I found myself disappointed by the quality of the typical advocacy at oral argument. In connection with my two appellate clerkships, I can't remember having heard something said at an oral argument that truly had outcome-determinative significance.
So, it was refreshing to hear the justices of the NH Supreme Court confirm that oral argument makes a difference to them. This is a welcome confirmation that good advocacy really does make a difference. It also struck me as significant that the justices said that, under their process, the oral argument is their first occasion to discuss a case with each other. This is insight that would be highly useful to lawyers and pro se litigants with cases before the court.
Kevin quite sharply picked up on the value of Justice Galway's observation that lawyers too easily forget that their oral and written advocacy is for the benefit of the decisionmakers. Something that has astonished me, during five years as a judicial law clerk and now as an official of a quasi-judicial state agency, is how often lawyers get caught up in zinging each other and entirely lose sight of the fact that the real 'consumers' of their advocacy are the decisionmakers.
Given my professional background, I was especially interested in yesterday's proceedings because I had never really talked informally with any justices of NH's highest court. As one who knows a bit about how such organization's work, I was struck by the positive karma of this particular group of judges who must work closely together. This is clearly a fortunate era in the history of the judicial branch of NH government.
I've worked with lots of judges. They are, collectively, the most un-cynical and earnest bunch of folks I've ever met. Every judge I know really and truly goes to work every day hoping they will do the right thing (as opposed to vindicating her/his personal policy or political preferences, or avoiding work, or indulge authoritarian impulses). These five judges struck me as very much cut from that same cloth, even though Justice Galway (author of a recent opinion affirming some admittedly voluminous decisionmaking by my employer) berated me -- affably, I hasten to point out -- over the length of the Public Utilities Commission's orders. When HE issues an opinion, it's almost always the last word. Crisp brevity is far more achievable in those circumstances than in those I confront!
Post a Comment
<< Home