The Judiciary Committee of the Virginia State Bar Association - Essay Example

The Judiciary Committee of the Virginia Bar Association al Affiliation The Judiciary Committee of the Virginia Bar Association The organization of the Virginia State Bar was done in 1938 through a General Assembly Act. The Virginia State Bar is a true representative of Virginia lawyers as its life is characterized by more than 1,000 members have been served from the Bar’s numerous committees and offices. The membership of the Virginia State Bar is restricted to five categories that are active members, associate members, disabled and retired members, judicial members, and the emeritus members. Each group of members has defined roles and responsibilities that are aimed at ensuring the Bar’s responsibility to the state is achieved in the most integrated way possible. Members also belong to different committees with the Judicial Candidate Evaluation Committee being responsible for the consideration and search of appropriate nominees to fill any judicial vacancies (Virginia State Bar Council, 2012, p. n.p). The constitution of the committee is thirteen active members. These members are carefully selected to ensure that each of the ten existing disciplinary districts in Virginia is represented, while the other three are from the state. Each member’s election restricts them to remain in office for only three year terms after which they are no longer eligible candidates. In addition, the election of the committee members is by the Council upon the recommendation of the nominating committee. The major role of this committee is to ensure that any judicial vacancy is filled with the right candidate. The process involves first considering and appropriately searching for the right nominees. Finally, a committee member from a given Virginia State Bar disciplinary district is assigned the responsibility of scrutinizing any identified nominees from their district in Virginia (Virginia State Bar Council, 2012). The vacancies that require such nominations are often in the Supreme Court of Virginia, the State Corporation Commission, and Virginia Seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Each investigation brings out a report before the JCEC then interviews them. Upon investigation, the candidates are then voted for qualification and putting into consideration the committee policy requirements of integrity, experience, temperament, professional competence, public service, and civic activities (Warner & Kaine, 2014, p. 1). As active members, the members of the Virginia Judicial Candidate Evaluation Committee are admitted to practice law in Virginia as attorneys and are also engaged, whether part time or full time, salaried or not, in practicing law (The Virginia State Bar, 2010). Like most American States, Virginia State continues to use an electoral system to appoint and retain its judges. However, this is disadvantageous since nominees have to campaign and this is time consuming and expensive, and the judges find themselves ethical dilemma situations. Furthermore, such campaigns cause even the lowest ranking judges to receive reappointments despite proof of eminent unfairness and eminent disqualification like the case of Judge Birdie Hairston Jamison (Fain, 2014). For some judges like Lucas D-Portsmouth, the act involved systematic bias even though Jamison was a female from the minority black people. Virginia State Bar Association- Alternative Dispute Resolution Besides its responsibility in the selecting candidates for judicial positions, the JCEC in Virginia is responsible for addressing professional ethics and standards of practice; enlightening ADR professionals and lawyers regarding trending issues and opportunities in the field through the Virginia ADR newsletter, CLE programs, and the website; developing creative uses of ADR processes and Strategies to offer improved services to clients; and monitoring public and legislation policy. In the State of Virginia, ADR is the responsibility of a Joint Dispute Resolution Committee that is active in all areas of ADR, including conciliation, negotiation, arbitration, mediation, restorative justice, settlement conferences, and collaborative law. Mediation process involves dispute resolution at a point where the disputes are huge enough to involve lawsuits, or where disputes are yet to become lawsuits but may require litigation for failure of successful mediation. Either way, the JCEC understands that legal norms play a crucial role in disputes, particularly where the parties have filed suit and where the parties have not filed suit. As the parties get into mediation, process, they often raise questions or issues regarding what they should consider as their legal responsibilities or legal rights. The search for the right answers may involve the mediation of a mediator in evaluating or clarifying legal perspectives. Conversely, the mediator may seek for answers to reality-testing questions implicating lawful issues by the parties. This way, the mediator manages to offer legal information and engage in activities that facilitate considerate and informed decision making by the disputing parties. In Virginia, the absence of appellate courts’ mediator activities has not been considered. This is because the state’s dispute resolution proceedings directly affect the issue of practicing law and mediation present in state statutes, court rules, VSB legal ethic opinions, and conventions of ethics (The Virginia State Dispute Resolution Services Advisory Committee, 2001). For instance, the Virginia code considers the act of practicing law without authorization or license as a misdemeanor. In order to govern mediation in Virginia, the code of Virginia constitutes the main original mediation statute that defines mediation, explains mediation confidentiality, and defining the mediators’ permissible immunity. The Virginia State Bar Association Joint Committee on dispute resolution explored the art of establishing legislation to facilitate courts referral to maters of alternative dispute resolution proceedings and offer mechanisms of ADR mechanisms within court settings. In addition, the Code of Virginia’s § 8.01-576.4 permits judges to demand appropriate civil cases to free dispute resolution evaluation section such that each party can evaluate whether they are still in need of an ADR proceeding. Furthermore, Section 5 of the code of Virginia gives courts the mandate of referring contented civil cases to dispute resolution evaluation session aimed at ensuring the parties receive relevant assistance in assessing the case and choosing the pursuit of dispute resolution or proceed with adjudication. The mediator Standards of Ethics also promotes ADR through its guidance on ethical principles, the need for more comprehensive and particular ethical rules to clarify matters concerning the mediator conduct (The Virginia State Dispute Resolution Services Advisory Committee, 2001). For instance, through section D of the standards, the mediator must ensure that each party receives a written documentation that the mediator is not a legal advisor, the parties’ legal rights are affected by mediation, and that both parties can seek legal counsel, and the review of the draft agreement with the independent counsel. In Section E of the standards, the mediator is not expected to coerce any party to enter into an agreement or choose for any party. On the contrary, the mediator should only offer information in areas that the parties qualify to receive training or have the information provided. While mediation follows a more formal and structured organization, conciliation process involves a neutral facilitating dispute settlement through clarification of issues and acting as the negotiation intermediary in a way that is less formal and less structured. Ways of Disciplining Judges The Virginia State Bar Association comprises of a disciplinary board and is genuinely concerned regarding complaints, thus subjecting complaints to evaluation, and the public together with the volunteer lawyers decide the merits of the complaint at hand. Like lawyers, judges should be subjected to preliminary investigations in order to define the complaints’ merits (The Office of Bar Counsel Virginia State Bar, 2011). A second investigation should involve district committee investigators to interview the judges and the process requires patience. The findings could impose low level or high level discipline depending on the proof of misconduct available, thus retaining or dismissing complaints appropriately. My Recommendations My recommendation would be to ensure that the due process entails equal applications of law and procedure to all candidate evaluation and selection decision making processes. However, the JCEC members must be aware that not everyone would be satisfied with their results, but that at all times the laws, and not the people’s will reigns. In addition, I would recommend that the decision making process is open enough to involve the public as this would develop the delivery of justice and reinforce the public respect for judicial selection. References Fain, T. (2014, December 15). Bias alleged in Virginias judicial evaluations. Daily Press. The Office of Bar Counsel Virginia State Bar. (2011). Guide to Lawyer Discipline. Richmond: The Office of Bar Counsel. The Virginia State Bar. (2010, March 23). Professional Guidelines. Retrieved June 6, 2015 The Virginia State Dispute Resolution Services Advisory Committee. (2001). Mediation Resources-Unauthorized Practice of Law. Virginia: Virginia State Bar. Virginia State Bar Council. (2012, June 14). Nominations Committee Name Change, Policies Approved. Retrieved June 6, 2015 Warner, M., & Kaine, T. (2014). Virginia State Bar. Virginia: Virginia State Bar. Read More