Who Are The Best Clark County Family Court Judges?
Each party, as a matter of right in a civil action, is entitled to change the judge assigned to a case by filing a “peremptory challenge.” It may be filed for any reason, within a specific time frame, at a cost of $450.00.
The reasons why a party, or more likely the attorney, will choose to file a peremptory challenge may vary. An attorney could have a personality conflict with a judge, the judge may have a perceived bias on an important issue in the case, there may be uncertainty as to how a judge may rule on a specific issue of the case, the judge may be new to the bench and his or her positions on certain issues unknown, and, in some cases it may be used solely for the purpose of causing a brief delay in the divorce proceedings.
Some new family court judges will be perempted relatively often until attorneys can see their case management skills and how they adjudicate specific issues. Once a judge has a “track record” and the attorneys have acquired a certain comfort level with a specific judge, the peremptions normally will decrease over time. If a judge’s peremption rate does not decrease over time, then the peremptions may be attributable to a personal issue with the judge or an overall lack of confidence in a judge’s ability manage his or her calendar or properly adjudicate specific legal issues.
I have analyzed the 33-month period from January 2011 through September 2013. Only the 12 judges who had full-time domestic calendars that were subject to peremptions were analyzed, but all peremptions were used for the totals. This was not a scientific study and while the information being presented it believed to be reliable, there could be inaccuracies. The chart below shows the total numbers of peremptory challenges filed in the 33-month period:
2011
279
2012
235
2013 (through September)
162
Total
676
Percentage of Total Peremptory Challenges for each judge for time periods
2011
2012
2013
E
0.00%
1.70%
1.235%
F
2.87%
5.96%
3.704%
H
1.43%
2.98%
2.469%
I
5.38%
5.11%
8.642%
J
5.73%
10.21%
12.346%
M
7.53%
3.40%
1.235%
N
5.02%
5.11%
1.852%
P
10.04%
13.62%
14.815%
Q
0.72%
0.00%
1.852%
R
2.87%
2.98%
2.469%
S
3.58%
5.53%
8.025%
T
36.92%
28.09%
19.136%
It can be seen that departments E (Judge Hoskin), F (Judge Gonzalez), H (Judge Ritchie), Q(Judge Duckworth) and R (Judge Henderson) have the most stable peremption rates for each year. These stable rates suggest that attorneys believe these judges are competent or at least consistent in their rulings. Departments I (Judge Moss) and S (Judge Ochoa) have had a minor increase every year.
Departments J (Judge Pollock) and P (Judge Pomrenze) have had relatively significant increases in being peremptory challenges every year suggesting growing dissatisfaction, for whatever reason, with these judges.
Although Department T (Judge Nathan) was the most frequently perempted judicial department in the 33 month period, her peremptory rate has actually shown a significant decrease each year. This decrease suggests that attorneys are slowly becoming more comfortable with the rulings and case management of the Judge Nathan. A new judge, such as Judge Nathan, sometimes requires time to “shake off” the reputation she may have had as an attorney. Just because a judge represents a certain demographic, or promotes a certain position as a lawyer, does not mean that will carryover into their decisions from the bench. The statistics suggest that Judge Nathan is being perceived as a better judge over time.
It could be argued that the peremption rate is a better indicator of the bar’s perception of a judge than is the RJ survey. The decision to preempt a judge costs $450.00, money that could better be spent in the payment of legal fees. An attorney likely will not spend $450.00 unless he or she believes that there is a compelling reason to change the judge and that there is a likelihood of drawing a better judge for that particular case. Arguably, personality issues and the ease of simply voting “no” for a judge on the RJ’s survey, make it less reliable.
As to whether there is any correlation between the peremption rates and the retention rates, there clearly is. Using 2013 as a sample,
Judge
Rank Based on Percentage of Peremptions
Rank based on RJ poll
E
1
2
F
6
6
H
5
3
I
8
11
J
9
12
M
1
8
N
3
4
P
11
10
Q
3
1
R
5
4
S
7
7
T
12
9
With few exceptions, the rank based on peremptory challenges and the RJ attorney poll are amazingly consistent. The one major exception is department M, which attorneys ranked 8th in the qualifying pool while the department had few peremptory challenges than any other department. My take on this is that the Judge Potter is actually better than he is perceived. He was voted to retain by only 59 percent of attorneys, but after two years of a decreasing peremption rate, the judge is the least perempted of all judges in the qualifying pool. All of the other departments are within three ranks in both surveys with some being the same. Again, this analysis applies to the 12 judges who have heard domestic cases full time from January through September of 2013 only.
It should also be noted, and I do not believe it is coincidence, that two of the three lowest rated judges on both samples did not practice family law before become a family court judge and the third had little legal experience. Practicing attorneys sometimes see family court judgeships as “low hanging fruit’ and believe it is easiest to both run for and be a family court judge. It takes a special person to be any effective family court judge and the public should be wary of electing attorneys who do not have significant family law experience.
Another factor which family court judges do not likely give much consideration is their support staffs. A judge’s support staff reflects the judge. Generally, a good judge is going to select a good support staff. For judges challenged in other areas, a good support staff can certainly boost their appearance of competent. A poor judge, with a poor support staff likely suffers in the RJ survey.
The conclusion I draw is that a review of the peremption rate and the RJ poll gives readers an excellent overview what the practicing attorneys think of the family court judges. The statistics support the fact that Judge Hoskin, Judge Duckworth and Judge Ritchie are the three best family court judges.