The Other Side of the Bench

The man on the bench is usually an impartial figure who sits above the battle. What happens when a group of judges doff their robes and themselves seek relief in the courts? It does not occur often, but just such a case arose in Michigan this year when the 27 judges of the Third Circuit Court brought a suit against Wayne County. They claimed that the county was illegally denying them enough clerks and probation officers to handle the heavy traffic in their circuit, which includes Detroit.

But if the judges were all litigants, who would preside over their case? The State Supreme Court appointed Judge William John Beer of the neighboring Sixth Circuit. To represent them, the judges hired a Detroit law firm. This vas one case, however, in which the attorneys clearly benefited from the advice of their clients. The plaintiffs' 50-page brief was dazzling in its logic and citations from past decisions.

The judges claimed that they have inherent powers, as an independent branch of the government, to fix the size and compensation of their staff. Both the tate's laws and its constitution, said he judges, assure the operation of the courts against indifference by the county legislature. Only if it could be proved that their hiring practice was "arbitrary or capricious," they said, could the county deny them funds.

To Judge Beer at least, the argument made eminent sense. He affirmed the judges' right to sue and also gave them everything that they had asked for. The plaintiffs won a writ of mandamus that will compel the county to provide for leven more probation officers, eight more clerks, and one judicial assistant at a combined cost in salaries of at least $193,000 a year. The order may become a major precedent. For judges elsewhere may decide that the way to get more staff is to challenge from the other side of the bench.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.