ONE-ON-ONE
- December 2001
by Ed G. Lane
'Family Courts are the Greatest
Innovation in Kentucky Law in a Quarter Century'
The Commonwealth's judge discusses the court system's importance
 |
Chief Justice Joseph
E. Lambert
A native of Mt. Vernon, Ky., Joseph E. Lambert was elected to
the Supreme Court of Kentucky in 1986 and in 1998 was elected
by his colleagues as chief justice.
Among his many honors,
Lambert has received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the
University of Louisville School of Law, Outstanding Judge of
Kentucky (Kentucky Bar Association, 2000), and the 2001 Kentucky
Public Advocate Award.
Lambert also serves on
a number of boards across the state and was recently elected
to the board of directors of the National Association of Drug
Court Professionals and the National Conference of Chief Justices.
He is chairman of the
board for Rockcastle Hospital and Respiratory Care Center and
the Kentucky Judicial Retirement System.
Lambert and his wife,
Debra, live in Mt. Vernon with their two sons, ages 17 and 10.
|
Ed Lane: You have served three years as the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court. During that period of time, what have been the top issues facing
the Kentucky judicial system?
Joseph Lambert: As you know,
the chief justice not only serves as a justice of the court but also
serves as the executive head of the Court of Justice. I assume your
question relates to the executive part of the position as opposed
to cases that are decided by the Court. The top three issues during
my tenure have been and are the Family Court Constitutional Amendment,
whereby the court is seeking approval of a constitutional amendment
that will expand the family court statewide.
A second and very important
issue is the construction and capital improvement of court facilities
all across Kentucky. During the three years that I have been Chief
Justice, we have completed 10 or so courthouses, and about 35 new
construction or extensive renovation courthouse projects are now underway.
The third area in terms of
importance has been the expansion of the number of judges in Kentucky.
For years, Kentucky had too few judges, which simply meant that many
people with very important cases in court had to wait. Since 1996
there are 34 additional judges in Kentucky.
EL: With regard to the family
court, more and more people are getting divorced and there are also
domestic relation issues involving families. What exactly will the constitutional
amendment do to help make the court system better for families in Kentucky?
JL: As it is right now, the
court has a pilot family court project that was designed by my predecessor
– the former Chief Justice Bob Stevens and others – to see
how effectively family courts would work. The family court started
in Jefferson County and was later expanded to other parts of the state.
After 10 years of experience, we are absolutely convinced that family
courts do improve the quality and the responsiveness of the court
system to families and children in need of help with family law issues.
Family courts observe the concept of one family, one judge, so that
the same judge sees a particular family with their problems again
and again, whenever they come into the court system. And finally,
the family courts make extensive use of social services such as drug
and alcohol counseling, anger management counseling, and a divorce
education program that attempts to teach parents how to deal with
one another in the period after their divorce is over.
EL: Going through a divorce
is time consuming and it’s very expensive, particularly if it is
contested and attorneys are involved. Will the family court system improve
on this situation?
JL: It probably will. Family
courts, in general, speed up the process, and of course the more rapidly
the process can be accomplished, the less is required in terms of
attorney’s fees. And I fully recognize that attorney’s fees
associated with divorce cases can be extremely burdensome on the parties
involved. In addition to potential cost savings, family courts actually
deliver better justice in terms of the quality of the judicial product.
I hesitate to describe it in those type of terms, but the outcomes
are often better. The parties come away from the divorce, if that’s
what it amounts to, with a better relationship; and with the idea
of improving the long-term relationships between parents and their
children, as well as the former spouse.
EL: Would a family court judge
be required to make a ruling within a certain period of time so that
there would not be significant delays caused by the court?
JL: We have a court rule,
applicable to all cases, that requires judges to rule on cases that
are finally submitted to them within 90 days of the date of submission.
I’m happy to say that most judges observe that rule scrupulously.
In circumstances where the judge fails to rule within that 90 day
period, the rules require the judge to inform the chief justice of
the reasons why he or she has not ruled within the time required by
law.
EL: If a judge is taking a
long time to make a ruling, what exactly can the affected parties do
to notify the court about the delay?
JL: The court has a procedure
whereby I, as chief justice, write the judge a letter and inform him
that a particular case appears to have been submitted to him or her
for an inordinate amount of time. Generally, the lawyers are the ones
who bring delays to my attention. And I request the judge to write
back and inform me why that case is taking so long. Normally that’s
all it takes. The letter usually results in a prompt ruling from that
judge and the matter is concluded with that. In aggravated circumstances,
however, a case or a charge can be brought against a judge before
the Judicial Conduct Commission, which is empowered to reprimand,
suspend or even remove a judge from office for aggravated behavior
of one kind or another, and that would include excessive delays in
ruling on cases.
EL: Because attorneys often
practice before the same judge and parties to a case may from time to
time have other cases coming before the judge, do you feel that this
system works effectively?
JL: You have identified, and
quite rightly, what I would regard as an inherent defect in the court
system. Quite frankly, lawyers are reluctant to complain about delays
caused by the judge. Parties are reluctant, clerks are reluctant,
because they all work very closely with the judges. So, it’s
an imperfect system, and I’m the first to recognize the imperfections
in it. But we have struggled to come up with a better system, and
have, thus far, been unable to do that.
EL: You indicated that approximately
35 new courthouses are under construction or renovation. Since the attack
on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, have there been significant
changes in the design of courthouses to make them more safe and less
subject to damage from terrorist attacks.
JL: We’re acutely aware
of the dangers associated with courthouses. People often come to court
when their emotion, their level of anger, is at its very highest.
They may be emotionally overwrought and pose a danger to themselves
or others. The court feels an obligation to do its very best to make
sure that the environment is as safe as it can be. There are some
practical realities. Court security costs money and we simply do not
have the money to go back and refit and bring all of our older courthouses
up to today’s standards. With new construction, such as we have
in Fayette, Kenton, Jefferson, Hardin and other counties, the new
courthouses are designed with security in mind.
EL: In some areas of the state,
the court has one judge for a three- or four-county circuit and in other
counties one county may have multiple judges. Where has the court been
adding new judges?
JL: New judges are added based
on case load statistics. Case load statistics don’t always tell
the whole story, but it is the best data that we have. Some account
of travel requirements is also considered in judicial circuits that
consist of three, and in a few cases even four, different counties
and there is only one judge.
EL: What is the Court’s
position about attorneys making contributions to judicial candidates
and/or being solicited by judges to support their campaigns?
JL: In Kentucky, we have a
long tradition of electing our judges. While some states select judges
by executive or legislative appointment, Kentucky citizens appear
to be committed to preserving their right to select their judges.
Our system provides for non-partisan
judicial elections. We endeavor to eliminate partisan politics from
the process. Nevertheless, candidates, including judges, must have
funds to wage their campaigns. Otherwise, the judiciary would be the
exclusive domain of the wealthy. Attorneys are treated no differently
than other citizens. They are entitled to participate by making donations
to judicial candidates as is every other citizen. Judges are forbidden,
however, from directly soliciting campaign funds from any person,
including attorneys. Solicitations are made on behalf of the judge
or judicial candidate by committees of responsible persons.
EL: Funds for operation of
the Judicial Branch are provided by the State Legislature. Do you envision
any funding problems since the state’s revenue is projected to
fall below estimates and the budget will be cut?
JL: The Governor’s office
asked the Judicial Branch to reduce its appropriations during the
last fiscal year ending on June 30, 2001. Prior to that time the governor
had requested that the Court of Justice reduce its current appropriations,
basically as much as we could. Even though it’s a separate branch
of government, the court accommodated that request from the governor
and voluntarily reduced its appropriations by one million dollars.
During the current fiscal year, we have received another request from
the governor’s budget director to reduce the court’s current
appropriated funds. And I can say to you, categorically, that the
court will accommodate that request to the greatest possible extent.
I often tell people that at all times the court wants the executive
and the legislative branches of state government to know that the
judiciary is on the team. The court recognizes its responsibility
to participate in the budget cuts and budget reductions right along
with other branches and agencies of state government, just as we expect
to participate when times are good.
EL: There’s been some
talk, out on the stump, that you might be a potential Republican candidate
for governor; please comment on that.
JL: I have heard those rumors
and reports and read a few news stories in which my name was mentioned
in that regard. I can say this to you, I have done nothing and am
doing nothing to generate that type of discussion. What I am doing,
is I’m traveling a lot, I’m making a lot of speeches and
appearances of one kind or another on behalf of the family court constitutional
amendment. That necessarily takes me before a lot of Rotary and Kiwanis
type groups; it also takes me before significant statewide groups
such as the KEA, the Kentucky Farm Bureau, the Burley Tobacco Growers
Cooperative Association, and the Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperatives.
So, I am traveling a lot on behalf of the Family Court constitutional
amendment. In fact, I certainly have not ruled anything in or out
in terms of any future plans.
EL: Is there any additional
issue that you think is important to the judicial system.
JL: Without being unduly repetitive,
the 10-year experience with family courts in Kentucky has been an
unqualified success. In my judgement, family courts are the greatest
innovation in Kentucky law in a quarter century. For the first time
ever, courts are giving their undivided attention to children and
families in their legal difficulties. I know of nothing presently
concerning the court system that is more important than ratification
of the family court constitutional amendment, and that will be on
the general election ballot in November of 2002.
EL: Excluding traffic court,
I presume there are three general categories of cases – civil litigation,
criminal cases, and family/domestic relation issues. What percentage
are family court issues?
JL: In general, I would say
that family law matters, viewed as broadly as can be, would represent
at least a third and maybe as much as 45 percent of the case load
of Kentucky courts. One benefit of family courts that I hadn’t
mentioned previously is this: When a family court comes into being
and takes away all the family law issues, that of course frees a lot
of time that circuit judges and district judges would otherwise devote
to those kinds of cases. So criminal cases get faster attention in
court. Civil cases, which are very important to the parties, get quicker
and better attention. It’s a system that generally improves the
administration of justice to take family law cases out of the normal
circuit court and district court mix and give those types of cases
a court and a judge who does nothing else.
EL: What is the possibility
of redistricting Kentucky courts to improve the efficiency of the court?
JL: Our judicial circuits
in Kentucky are based on long, long history and tradition. It’s
very difficult to change judicial circuits, despite the changes that
have occurred in population. My predecessor, Bob Stevens, whom I mentioned
earlier, found after exploring the political reality of it, that it
was essentially undoable, because of the number of people and the
number of powerful people affected by that were just too many and
the potential opposition was more than could be hoped to overcome.
I suspect a good argument could be made that a comprehensive re-circuiting
plan would result in the most effective use of our judicial personnel
in Kentucky. But, I return of course, to the original thought that
this is something that is politically undoable, and thus we have to
do the best we can by adding a judge where and when we can.
EL: Is having more than one
judge in a judicial circuit a benefit if a conflict of interest issue
should arise?
JL: You’re exactly right
about that, there is that benefit. And it often comes about, the judge
will have had maybe some knowledge of disputed facts will have had
a relationship of some kind with a party, and will find it necessary
under the code of judicial conduct to recuse himself or herself. And
that makes it very handy to have another judge in that same circuit
to whom the case can be handed.
EL: Under the court’s
ethics guidelines, are judges, if they have a relationship whether it
be business, personal, family, whatever, obligated to disclose the relationships?
JL: It’s not easily stated.
Judges have a duty to recuse themselves based on certain types of
relationships. Kinship, of course, is one of those. Former representation
would be one of those. Knowledge of disputed facts, in other words,
if a judge happened to be the witness to an accident, where he would
have an opinion of the facts. The broad catch-all is that a judge
should recuse himself or herself whenever impartiality might be reasonably
questioned based on whatever the factor is. If a judge’s impartiality
could be questioned then that judge has a duty to get out of the case.
EL: Have there been any recent
final rulings by the Kentucky Supreme Court which have had a major impact
on Kentucky law?
JL: As the highest court in
Kentucky, all Supreme Court decisions are binding precedent and thus
have a significant impact on Kentucky law. It is difficult to single
out particular decisions as being more important or less important
than others. However, the Supreme Court has recently refined Kentucky
law in the area of sovereign immunity, an area of considerable interest
to state and local government. We have also addressed punitive damages
cases, significant criminal cases, attorney discipline cases, and
family law cases that are of widespread interest and legal significance.
All newly rendered Kentucky Supreme Court decisions are on the Court
of Justice web site within a few days of the rendition date. The web
address is www.kycourts.net.
Ed G. Lane is chief executive of Lane Consultants Inc. and publisher
of The Lane Report.
edlane@lanereport.com
Back to One on One Index
Back to the December Issue
|
