Kansas faces ‘constitutional crisis’ with rural attorney shortage, Supreme Court justice says

There is little doubt that there are parts of Canada as well as other states where obtaining a reasonably local attorney is difficult. Kansas faces ‘constitutional crisis’ with rural attorney shortage,Kansas Supreme Court justice KJ Wall recently said recently.at a news conference that released the findings of the Rural Justice Initiative.

Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Marla Luckert established the Rural Justice Initiative Committee on Dec. 1, 2022. The 35-member committee included judges, legislators, attorneys, educators, business leaders, and organizations that serve victims of sexual or domestic violence.

Luckert said at Friday’s news conference that she formed the committee after hearing from judges who said they couldn’t find attorneys who were qualified or willing to take cases, from attorneys who wanted to retire but didn’t want to leave their communities without legal help, and from local governments that struggled to hire a city or county attorney.

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS WHAT WE KNOW & DON”T KNOW

Charles Gardner Geyh (Indiana University Maurer School of Law) has posted this new article on judicial elections on SSRN:

In this essay, I begin with a discussion of established legal theory, which elucidates the difficulties created by calling upon judges to interpret and apply the law in a democratic republic. Next, I synthesize the scholarship, spanning thirteen books, that explains, defends, and critiques the modern era of judicial elections. Read synthetically, this body of work provides a well-developed, three-dimensional understanding of judicial elections at the turn of the 21st century. At the epicenter of the developments that this literature analyzes are battleground states where well-financed interest groups poured money into supreme court races to people high courts with judges whose perspective on tort liability was simpatico with that of their campaign supporters. That literature also reveals that tort reform campaigns in state judicial races later peaked as spending tapered off in the 2010s, signaling a lull in what leading, good-government interest groups denominated the “new politics of judicial elections.  I argue that this lull ended with the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which heralded the arrival of a new generation of judicial elections in which state supreme courts are becoming war-torn forums for the resolution of deeply divisive policy questions that the federal courts and the political branches of government have been unwilling or unable to address. It is a development that portends to be of unprecedented intensity and poses new challenges for legal theory and the existing judicial elections literature to explain. And it adds new urgency to an increasingly stark choice: whether to fight to preserve the distinctive role that judiciaries have long played in interpreting and upholding the rule of law; or to acquiesce to a new world order in which judges are politicized actors responsive to their constituencies in ways traditionally associated with the other, so-called “political” branches of government.

WHAT CAN A JUDGE SAY?

A California judicial ethics committee on Tuesday issued a formal opinion with guidance for judges responding to public criticism during a judicial election or recall campaign.

The guidance was issued by the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)—a body which is appointed and authorized by, but works independently of, the California Supreme Court.

In CJEO Formal Opinion 2024-027, the committee analyzes the 2020 amendment to canon 3B(9) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which permits, in connection with a judicial election or recall campaign, any judge to make a public comment about a pending proceeding, subject to certain restrictions. The committee outlines the ethical guardrails on the wider latitude judges now have to publicly respond to criticism:

  • The comment may not affect the outcome or fairness of the proceeding; and
  • It must be about the procedural, factual, or legal basis of a decision about which a judge has been criticized during an election or recall campaign.

The committee issued a draft of the opinion for public comment on August 5.

Canada’s Supreme Court has majority of women justices for 1st time

Trust in the Canadian justice system depends on clear communication to the public, Canada’s newest Supreme Court justice said as she was officially welcomed to the country’s highest court.

A welcoming ceremony was held Monday for Justice Mary Moreau, who was sworn in as a Supreme Court judge in November.

Her appointment means a majority of the nine justices on the Supreme Court are women for the first time in its history.

Moreau was called the bar in Alberta in 1980, and served as a lawyer for 14 years. In 1994, she was appointed a judge to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. She became the chief justice of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta in 1997.

During her speech, Moreau recounted how an experience early in her career as a judge shaped her professional beliefs.

She recalled when she first started working as a judge she overheard a senior colleague commenting on her age and professional experience.

“The only reply I could muster was, ‘Well, as my dear mother used to say, the proof is in the pudding.’ And it’s been my motto ever since.” For more of the story: https://www.hopestandard.com/national-news/canadas-supreme-court-has-majority-of-women-justices-for-1st-time-7319712