DOCSLIB.ORG

New Mexico Judiciary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

New Mexico Judiciary Annual Report 2020 On the Cover Photo Credit: Beth Wojahn, Commnications Officer, AOC Acknowledgments: This report was prepared with special assistance from AOC staff, court personnel and judges across the state. Graphics: Beth Wojahn and Helen Gaussoin Editors: Barry Massey, Jeffrey Young and Beth Wojahn Statistical Addendum: Joseph Vigil, Judicial Information Division Contents 1 Message from the Chief Justice 9 Court of Appeals 2 Message from the Director 12 District Courts 3 State of the Judiciary 26 Metropolitan Court 5 By the Numbers 27 Magistrate Courts 6 COVID-19 Public Health Emergency 28 Court Operations 7 Supreme Court 29 Programs PROGRAMS 29 Adult Guardianship and Conservatorship 35 Judicial Information Division 29 Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission 36 Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission 31 Children’s Court Improvement Commission 37 Jury Services 31 Children’s Court Mediation Program 37 Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative 32 Commission on Access to Justice 38 Language Access Services 32 Court Appointed Attorney Fund 39 Magistrate Court Mediation Program 33 Court Appointed Special Advocates 39 New Mexico Compilation Commission 33 Domestic Violence 40 Problem Solving Courts 34 Family Advocacy Program 41 Safe Exchange and Supervised Visitation 35 Human Resources Division 41 Tribal-State Judicial Consortium About this report The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is required by a summary of statistical data for New Mexico’s appellate, law to submit an annual report to the New Mexico Supreme district, metropolitan and magistrate courts. Court and the Legislature. NMSA 1978, § 34-9-3.This report Find this report, as well as the complete Statistical is an overview of the Judiciary’s accomplishments during the Addendum, at www.nmcourts.gov. 2020 fiscal year (July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020) and includes As Chief of Attorneys for Rural New Mexico; Justice, I am the Court Navigator Committee; and pleased to the Ad Hoc Committee to Study the present you Feasibility of Licensed Legal Technicians with the Judicial in New Mexico. The Court also formed Branch’s 2020 a Commission on Equity and Justice Annual Report. Like to study issues related to bias and many essential service inequities in our justice system. In the providers and emergency responders State of Judiciary and following pages, during 2020, courts and their staff we will further explain what we have endured precautionary safety measures done in fiscal year 2021 and where we and risked exposure to COVID-19, but are going. courageously carried out their duties. From March through November, district, The Judicial Branch is grateful for magistrate, and metropolitan courts the support that the Legislature and handled more than 149,000 new cases Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has and closed out over 179,000 cases. We shown the Judiciary. In fiscal year 2022, Chief Justice Michael E. Michael Vigil Chief Justice evolved and adapted to the current the Judiciary seeks to continue providing public health emergency by defaulting citizens with all the judicial services to remote proceedings and holding that they need and deserve, without in-person jury trials when necessary. We the necessity of furloughs and court Message from Message cannot be prouder of our judicial officers closures. Our constitutional system can and employees as they work even harder only function as intended if the Judicial to meet increased demands. Branch is funded adequately. We look forward to working with the other Despite the pandemic, the Judicial branches of government as we strive Branch continued to make strides in a to fulfill our shared mission to provide number of important areas, including meaningful access to impartial justice for pretrial services, e-payment, online all New Mexicans. dispute resolution, and e-filing. The Court established the following committees to address access to justice initiatives: the Ad Hoc Committee for the Recruitment and Retention 1 We all recognize that 2020 was a year folks to like no other. At times the pandemic maintain the threatened to overwhelm our ability appropriate from Message to adjust to the ever-advancing health minimum emergency. As detailed in this Annual six-foot physical Pepin W. Arthur Courts Director of the Office Administrative Report, while we may have been slowed distance are new at times and challenged to conduct and not fun additions business, our courts have always to the already taxing work remained open and safe. Adoptions, these employees accomplish every day. divorces, criminal cases, business It is also important to recognize the folks disputes and the whole gamut of in the Judicial Information Division and motions, writs, orders – everything the technology specialists in our courts existing to accomplish justice – who stepped up to provide and support continued. In a very short time and with generational changes in how we use remarkable resilience, courts pivoted to technology to accomplish our work. a new, “virtual” environment that found all of us communicating through screens, With luck and through the genius of the waiting in line for those unpleasant world’s best scientists, we should all be (negative!) tests, and learning about vaccinated before summer and 2021 will the newest social, travel, and business be as productive, if less stressful, than restrictions. 2020. Until then, please keep up the great work, wear your mask, stay at least I salute all our court employees and six feet apart, and be home as much as especially the “front line” judicial possible until we can safely return to the specialists, jury managers, and others friendly and joyful social interactions we who still serve the public face-to-face, all miss now. even as many of our employees work from home or other remote locations. Wearing a mask all day, constantly washing hands, and endlessly reminding 2 No democracy, or society for that matter, can survive without a fully functioning judiciary. A government that can’t enforce its own laws and orders will also fail. Chief Justice Michael E. Vigil What have we done in fiscal year 2020 (July 1, 2019-June 30, 2020) COVID-19 Response Centralized Delivery of Services One of the Judiciary’s main challenges A centralized team now enters certain has been the coronavirus pandemic. traffic citations, reducing the need to From the beginning, the Executive have clerks at the courthouse enter Branch recognized all judicial employees citations. A customer service call center as essential service providers. The was also established to provide basic Supreme Court issued numerous information in English and Spanish administrative orders and formed an about services, cases, and compliance Emergency Response Team to respond with citations, summonses and to the pandemic. New Mexico judges, warrants, reducing the need to go to the clerks, administrators, and staff have courthouse to seek information. gone beyond the call of duty to respond to this crisis by keeping the courts Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) open and functioning while keeping ODR now allows plaintiffs and themselves and the public safe from the defendants in landlord-tenant and debt coronavirus. cases to file and respond to claims online and negotiate settlements, assisted by Online Payments a mediator when needed. Access to Courts have expanded the public’s justice is faster, less expensive, and more ability to pay court obligations online predictable. in district court, as the public has been able to do in magistrate courts. Courts Language Access Services also expanded their use of e-payment Video language services now provide machines for those who come to court. lower costs and meet the need to have courtroom interpreters. “Clara,” E-Filing in Criminal Cases a multilingual, interactive, hands- Electronic filing has been expanded free avatar, was introduced to answer from civil cases to include criminal cases questions and provide information at to avoid filing paper documents at the courthouses. courthouse and for greater efficiency. Video Streaming For the first time ever, video streaming of district and magistrate court proceedings State of the Judiciary State allows the public and the press to watch proceedings from remote courtrooms or on their personal devices. The Supreme Court live streamed hearings in high profile cases, providing online access to interested parties and the public as justices and parties appear with appropriate physical distancing or Judges Lucy Solimon, left, and Clara remotely by audio-visual links. Moran joined the Second Judicial District Court’s criminal bench this past year 3 Where we are going in fiscal years 2021 and 2022 Securing Adequate Funding and Ana, Grant, Hidalgo and Luna counties. Resources With requested funding in fiscal year Anticipating the resources needed 2022 the Judiciary can build the state’s during a public health emergency is not capacity to provide judges with reliable a perfunctory exercise. In fiscal year 2021, evidence about a defendant’s risk of flight the Judiciary may need supplemental and risk to reoffend during the pretrial funding as case backlogs and filings in period if released, as well as services to certain areas, such as landlord-tenant reduce risks to the public through pretrial and debt cases, are predicted to increase, services in additional counties. of the Judiciary State requiring pro tem judges to assist in New Mexico Behavioral Health Summit managing caseloads. For fiscal year 2022, the Judiciary is seeking to restore the The Judiciary is planning to host in budgetary cuts made during the 2020 October 2021 the first ever New Mexico first special legislative session, fully fund summit on how to improve court and five judgeships the Legislature created community responses to those with in 2020, and have the ability to manage mental illness. The event will bring its unified budget. Currently, when the together national and state experts with Legislature imposes cuts, it looks to them court personnel and community officials. on a district-by-district basis, which may not be proportionate or where they are Commission on Justice and Equity needed most).
Recommended publications
  • Should Judges Be Elected Or Appointed?

    Should Judges Be Elected Or Appointed?

    Should judges be elected or appointed? Election provides too much opportunity for influence and conflicts of interest. Actually I approved the Missouri system where out state judges are elected Appointments are political anyways. I have been appointed to one seat and elected to another seat. Elections, even though highly charged politically, are less political than an appointment. with an appointment, there are "behind the scenes" influences. Elections are largely in the open and not subject to deal making. Judges should be independent and should not have to run for election. We have a code of ethics and are limited by what we can and can't say. We can't make promises and can't prejudge a case, often what those seeking political office do. Additionally, who are we most likely to raise money from? The lawyers who appear before us. Not a good practice. Running for election takes time away from doing what we are being paid to do - be fair and impartial judges, rule on cases in a timely manner, and not be swayed by public opinion - in essence be an independent judiciary. Alaska uses a screening system to evaluate candidates with direct participation from legal communities and a council that forwards a slate of the best candidates to the appointing authority from which to choose. The system reduces the level of politicization. We have been well-served by this system. Let the people of municipalities decide I believe in the power of democracy and the ability to vote. Appointment is like an anointment and not good for society.
  • 50 State Survey(Longdoc)

    50 State Survey(Longdoc)

    AGREEMENTS TO INDEMNIFY & GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: A Fifty State Survey WEINBERG WHEELER H U D G I N S G U N N & D I A L TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Alabama 4 Alaska 7 Arizona 12 Arkansas 15 California 19 Damages arising out of bodily injury or death to persons. 22 Damage to property. 22 Any other damage or expense arising under either (a) or (b). 22 Colorado 23 Connecticut 26 Delaware 29 Florida 32 Georgia 36 Hawaii 42 Idaho 45 Illinois 47 Indiana 52 Iowa 59 Kansas 65 Kentucky 68 Louisiana 69 Maine 72 Maryland 77 Massachusetts 81 Michigan 89 Minnesota 91 Mississippi 94 Missouri 97 Montana 100 Nebraska 104 Nevada 107 New Hampshire 109 New Jersey 111 New Mexico 115 New York 118 North Carolina 122 North Dakota 124 Ohio 126 Oklahoma 130 Oregon 132 Pennsylvania 139 Rhode Island 143 South Carolina 146 South Dakota 150 Tennessee 153 Texas 157 Utah 161 Vermont 165 Virginia 168 Washington 171 West Virginia 175 Wisconsin 177 Wyoming 180 INTRODUCTION Indemnity is compensation given to make another whole from a loss already sustained. It generally contemplates reimbursement by one person or entity of the entire amount of the loss or damage sustained by another. Indemnity takes two forms – common law and contractual. While this survey is limited to contractual indemnity, it is important to note that many states have looked to the law relating to common law indemnity in developing that state’s jurisprudence respecting contractual indemnity. Common law indemnity is the shifting of responsibility for damage or injury from one tortfeasor to another
  • New Mexico District Court Self Help Guide

    New Mexico District Court Self Help Guide

    NEW MEXICO DISTRICT COURT SELF HELP GUIDE Rev. December 2015 NM District Court Self Help Guide, December 2015 Page 1 of 29 The most current version of this guide is available at: http://www.nmcourts.gov/cgi/prose_lib/ NEW MEXICO DISTRICT COURT SELF HELP GUIDE Table of Contents Topic Page A. Representing Yourself – Basic Information 3 B. Domestic Violence 9 C. Dissolution of Marriage 13 D. Kinship Guardianship 15 E. Name Change 18 F. Probate 21 G. Appeals 24 H. Resource List 26 NM District Court Self Help Guide, December 2015 Page 2 of 29 The most current version of this guide is available at: http://www.nmcourts.gov/cgi/prose_lib/ REPRESENTING YOURSELF – BASIC INFORMATION This information guide is general in nature and is not designed to give legal advice. The court does not guarantee the legal sufficiency of this information guide or that it meets your specific needs. Because the law is constantly changing, this guide may not be current. Therefore, you may wish to seek the advice and assistance of an attorney. WHO THIS GUIDE IS INTENDED TO HELP This guide is intended to help individuals who are representing themselves, either as a plaintiff/petitioner or a defendant/respondent in a civil lawsuit or a domestic matter filed in a New Mexico State District Court. That means this guide is not intended to be used for any other type of court, including Metropolitan Court, Magistrate Court or Municipal Court. It does not have information about appeals from these courts. It is not to be used by defendants in a criminal case.
  • Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC

    Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC

    Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC From: Sullivan-Leshin, Isaac, PRC Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:44 PM To: Records, PRC, PRC Subject: 21-00095-UT; Filing Submission Attachments: 21-00095-UT, Final Order.pdf IN THE MATTER OF NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY, INC.’S ) APPLICATION FOR AN EXPEDITED VARIANCE APPROVING ITS PLAN ) CASE NO. 21‐00095‐UT FOR RECOVERY OF THE GAS COSTS RELATED TO THE 2021 WINTER ) EVENT ) Please file the attached FINAL ORDER into the above captioned case. Thank you, Isaac Sullivan‐Leshin Paralegal for Office of General Counsel New Mexico Public Regulation Commission PO Box 1269 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504‐1269 isaac.sullivan‐[email protected] Phone: (505) 670‐4830 1 BEFORE THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY, ) INC.’S APPLICATION FOR AN EXPEDITED VARIANCE ) CASE NO. 21-00095-UT APPROVING ITS PLAN FOR RECOVERY OF THE GAS ) COSTS RELATED TO THE 2021 WINTER EVENT ) FINAL ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (“NMPRC” or the “Commission”) on New Mexico Gas Company Inc.’s (“NMGC”) April 16, 2021 Application (“Application”) for Expedited Approval of a Variance Approving its Plan for Recovery of 2021 Winter Event Gas Costs Under the Extraordinary Circumstances Provision of 17.10.640.14. WHEREUPON, being duly informed, THE COMMISSION FINDS AND CONCLUDES: NMCG’S APPLICATION: NMGC’s Application, supported by the direct testimonies of Ryan A. Shell, Joshua J. Tilbury and Daniel P. Yardley, seeks approval of NMGC’s Plan for Recovery of its 2021 Winter Event Gas Costs under the Extraordinary Circumstances Provision of 17.10.640.14 NMAC.
  • Report of the Working Group on Judiciary Law §470

    Report of the Working Group on Judiciary Law §470

    REPORT OF THE NYSBA WORKING GROUP ON JUDICIARY LAW §470 Background Judiciary Law §470 provides: A person, regularly admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor, in the courts of record of this state, whose office for the transaction of law business is within the state, may practice as such attorney or counsellor, although he resides in an adjoining state. In 2009, Ekaterina Schoenefeld, an attorney licensed to practice in New York, but residing in New Jersey and having an office only in New Jersey, commenced an action in federal court in the Northern District of New York to challenge Judiciary Law §470 under the United States Constitution. In 2011, the District Court found §470 unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.1 The Attorney General appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit certified the question of what constituted an office within the state to the New York Court of Appeals.2 The Court of Appeals accepted the certification3 and, interpreting the statute for the first time, held that §470 “requires nonresident attorneys to maintain a physical office in New York.”4 In its opinion, the Court of Appeals recognized that the State “does have an interest in ensuring that personal service can be accomplished on nonresident attorneys admitted to practice here.” However, the Court acknowledged that currently “there would appear to be adequate measures in place relating to service on nonresident attorneys” under the CPLR and its own Court rules and that the Legislature could take additional action if necessary. On June 30, 2015, while the appeal was pending before the Second Circuit, then NYSBA President David Miranda appointed the Working Group to address the issue of the requirements on non-resident attorneys to practice in New York and to make a recommendation once the Second Circuit determined the issue of the statute’s constitutionality.
  • 2016 Judicial Performance Review

    2016 Judicial Performance Review

    2016 Judicial Performance Review Prepared by The Iowa State Bar Association Table of Contents Judicial Performance Review Information....................................................................................................3 Judicial Performance Review Q&A...............................................................................................................4 Judicial Biographies.....................................................................................................................................6 Judicial Performance Review Results Iowa Supreme Court..................................................................................................................................22 Iowa Court of Appeals...............................................................................................................................23 District 1A.................................................................................................................................................24 Allamakee, Clayton, Delaware, Dubuque, Winneshiek Counties District 1B.................................................................................................................................................25 Black Hawk, Buchanan, Chickasaw, Fayette, Grundy, Howard Counties District 2A.................................................................................................................................................26 Bremer, Butler, Cerro Gordo, Floyd, Franklin, Hancock, Mitchell, Winnebago, Worth Counties
  • Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States

    Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States

    Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Composition of the Supreme Court Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Written Statement of Marin K. Levy Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law Co-Chair Bauer, Co-Chair Rodriguez, and distinguished members of the Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of Supreme Court expansion and composition. By way of background, I am a Professor of Law at the Duke University School of Law and a faculty advisor to the Bolch Judicial Institute. My research and teaching over the past twelve years have focused on judicial administration and appellate courts. It is a distinct honor and privilege to speak with you on these matters. Court expansion and other changes to the Court’s composition implicate fundamental questions about the role and operation of our nation’s highest court. These include whether expanding the Court would harm the institution’s legitimacy, whether expansion would prompt a series of expansions in the future, whether an expanded Court could function well as a single decision-making body, and whether expansion would contradict existing constitutional norms and conventions. Even if the answers to these questions were known, there is a larger background question to be answered—namely how such considerations should be weighted in assessing any proposal to change the Court’s structure. It is no easy task that the Commission has been given, and I hope that the legal community and public at large is cognizant of this. In contrast to the subject of the panel, my own testimony will be fairly circumscribed.
  • Rule-Of-Law.Pdf

    Rule-Of-Law.Pdf

    RULE OF LAW Analyze how landmark Supreme Court decisions maintain the rule of law and protect minorities. About These Resources Rule of law overview Opening questions Discussion questions Case Summaries Express Unpopular Views: Snyder v. Phelps (military funeral protests) Johnson v. Texas (flag burning) Participate in the Judicial Process: Batson v. Kentucky (race and jury selection) J.E.B. v. Alabama (gender and jury selection) Exercise Religious Practices: Church of the Lukumi-Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (controversial religious practices) Wisconsin v. Yoder (compulsory education law and exercise of religion) Access to Education: Plyer v. Doe (immigrant children) Brown v. Board of Education (separate is not equal) Cooper v. Aaron (implementing desegregation) How to Use These Resources In Advance 1. Teachers/lawyers and students read the case summaries and questions. 2. Participants prepare presentations of the facts and summaries for selected cases in the classroom or courtroom. Examples of presentation methods include lectures, oral arguments, or debates. In the Classroom or Courtroom Teachers/lawyers, and/or judges facilitate the following activities: 1. Presentation: rule of law overview 2. Interactive warm-up: opening discussion 3. Teams of students present: case summaries and discussion questions 4. Wrap-up: questions for understanding Program Times: 50-minute class period; 90-minute courtroom program. Timing depends on the number of cases selected. Presentations maybe made by any combination of teachers, lawyers, and/or students and student teams, followed by the discussion questions included in the wrap-up. Preparation Times: Teachers/Lawyers/Judges: 30 minutes reading Students: 60-90 minutes reading and preparing presentations, depending on the number of cases and the method of presentation selected.
  • State of New Mexico V. Del E. Romero V. Mathew Gutierrez.On Petition For

    State of New Mexico V. Del E. Romero V. Mathew Gutierrez.On Petition For

    No. 06-765 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Petitioner, v. DEL E. ROMERO and MATTHEW GUTIERREZ, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF RESPONDENT DEL E. ROMERO Richard W. Hughes Counsel of Record ROTHSTEIN, DONATELLI, HUGHES, DAHLSTROM, SCHOENBURG & BIENVENU, LLP P.O. Box 8180 1215 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Tel. (505) 988-8004 Laurel A. Knowles Assistant Appellate Defender 301 North Guadalupe Street, Suite 101 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-5502 Tel.: (505) 827-3909 Counsel for Respondent Del Romero TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................. ii SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................1 ARGUMENT ................................................................1 I. THE DECISION BELOW IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY DECISION OF THIS COURT OR ANY APPELLATE COURT ON THE ISSUE PRESENTED ....................................................1 II. THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT PUEBLO GRANT LANDS ARE “DEPENDENT INDIAN COMMUNITIES,” AND THUS INDIAN COUNTRY, UNDER THE VENETIE ANALYSIS, AND THAT THAT STATUS HAS NEVER BEEN DIMINISHED BY CONGRESS .....................................3 A. The History of Federal Authority Over Pueblo Lands Demonstrates Their Indian Country Status .................................3 B. This Court’s Ruling in Venetie Confirmed that Pueblo Lands are “Dependent Indian Communities.” ............................7 C. Pueblo Land Grants Are Equivalent to Reservations, and Were Not Diminished by the PLA .....................................10 III. CONGRESS’ RECENT AMENDMENT OF THE PUEBLO LANDS ACT CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATES THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION BELOW, AND RENDERS THE STATE’S PETITION ACADEMIC ....................................................14 CONCLUSION .............................................................20 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 522 U.S.
  • Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan: a Dinosaur on the Edge of Extinction Or a Survivor in a Changing Socio-Legal Environment, The

    Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan: a Dinosaur on the Edge of Extinction Or a Survivor in a Changing Socio-Legal Environment, The

    Missouri Law Review Volume 62 Issue 2 Spring 1997 Article 3 Spring 1997 Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan: A Dinosaur on the Edge of Extinction or a Survivor in a Changing Socio-Legal Environment, The Jay A. Daugherty Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jay A. Daugherty, Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan: A Dinosaur on the Edge of Extinction or a Survivor in a Changing Socio-Legal Environment, The, 62 MO. L. REV. (1997) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol62/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Daugherty: Daugherty: Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan: The Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan: A Dinosaur on the Edge of Extinction or a Survivor in a Changing Socio-Legal Environment? The HonorableJay A. Daugherty* I. INTRODUCTION Surveys have shown that as America's distrust of the political system increases, so does its unfavorable perception of the judiciary.' This distrust and unfavorable perception result in declining retention percentages for judges and 2 challenges to the merit selection system by minorities and legislatures. Although the authority of the courts is grounded in the law, that authority ultimately depends on the public's knowledge and trust in the courts. If public knowledge and trust in the courts has eroded, the result may be new and varied challenges against non-partisan or merit selection plans, with outcries from the legislatures and minorities to repudiate such plans and return the judiciary to partisan politics.
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures

    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures

    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
  • A Guide to the Federal Magistrate Judges System

    A Guide to the Federal Magistrate Judges System

    A GUIDE TO THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE JUDGES SYSTEM Peter G. McCabe A White Paper Prepared at the Request of the Federal Bar Association Hon. Michael J. Newman, United States Magistrate Judge Chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Magistrate Judge Task Force (2013-14) President of the Federal Bar Association (2016-17) Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí, Jr., United States District Judge President of the Federal Bar Association & Creator of the FBA’s Magistrate Judge Task Force (2013-14) August 2014 Updated October 2016 Introduction In the United States District Courts, there are two types of federal judges: United States District Judges (confirmed by the Senate with life tenure); and United States Magistrate Judges (appointed through a merit selection process for renewable, eight year terms). Although their precise duties may change from district to district, Magistrate Judges often conduct mediations, resolve discovery disputes, and decide a wide variety of motions; determine whether criminal defendants will be detained or released on a bond; appoint counsel for such defendants (and, in the misdemeanor context, hold trials and sentence defendants); and make recommendations regarding whether a party should win a case on summary judgment, whether a Social Security claimant should receive a disability award, whether a habeas petitioner should prevail, and whether a case merits dismissal. When both sides to a civil case consent, Magistrate Judges hear the entire dispute, rule on all motions, and preside at trial. There are now 531 full-time Magistrate Judges in the United States District Courts. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in 2013, Magistrate Judges disposed of a total of 1,179,358 matters.1 The importance of Magistrate Judges to the day-to-day workings of the federal trial courts cannot be overstated.