Pixel Tracker

Thursday, February 21 , 2019, 7:02 am | Mostly Cloudy 43º

 
 
 
 

Brian Burke: About Your Divorce (Letter 28)

As in our continuing case, judges can pay a price for being good

Dear

Nick and Nora

Pinky and Spike:

It’s been 14 months since your sensational separation. You haven’t yet entered the 18- to 36-month window during which you and your case will be ripe for settlement. For now, you and your case are quiescent, or inactive.

At the moment there’s nothing I need to say to you, so I’m writing about the way your judge has been affected by your divorce. The resulting dynamics are complex, but we’ll gain valuable insight by focusing on your case.

Good Judging

I admired the way Judge Maryland handled your hearing, and I concluded that she was an excellent judge. I thought she might have the courage and the energy to reverse the continual decline of family law practice I’ve observed over the past 20 years.

But, as you’ll see, Judge Maryland’s determination to make a difference took a big personal toll on her, and she succumbed in a way that strikes me as especially craven. I can’t justify what she did, but I can explain both her actions and why the other judges have not been willing to do what she set out to do.

Our Shame

Because we were funnier than our teachers, the three of us spent a lot of time — together — in the principal’s office. It started in fifth grade and got continually worse through junior high. By high school I started to feel the emotional effect of being kicked out of (or excluded from) class; I know you both did, too.

We eventually learned to let the teachers be the funny ones, and they stopped telling us to get out of their classrooms. (I’ve since learned that sending a student “to the principal’s office” is an attempt to discipline with shame. By “shame,” I mean the exclusion from or the fear of exclusion from one’s group or tribe.)

A Good Judge Pays a Price

We want judges to perform as Judge Maryland did at your hearing. We want them to stand up to lawyers who are unprofessional, who inflame a case and who enrage the parties to generate high fees for themselves. As you’ll see, judges can pay a price for being good. Judge Maryland incurred the wrath of a murder of divorce lawyers; their retribution was to shame her for being a good judge.

When Judge Maryland is assigned to a case, and one of the lawyers challenges her on the ground that she can’t be impartial because of her prejudice toward him, Judge Maryland is given a chance to disqualify herself from the case or to insist that she isn’t prejudiced. A “second judge” from another county is assigned to rule on whether Judge Maryland is or is not prejudiced against the lawyer. Since two or three of these challenges were made every week, Judge Maryland was continually “on trial” for her alleged prejudice.

Each of these challenges came with a different “second judge.” It’s a “trial” where judges are judging judges so the outcome is predictable. However, if just one of the “second judges” rules against Judge Maryland, it means that another judge has found that she is prejudiced against the challenging lawyer and that she lacks the self-awareness to know when she can’t be impartial. She immediately loses her membership in the group of judges who are either not prejudiced toward a party or lawyer in the case or who have enough self-awareness to know when they can’t be impartial.

The group from which she’s excluded will include most, if not all, the “good judges” in her bench. This would be shame by actual exclusion, and it could lead to generalized doubts within the bench and bar about her ability to properly perform the duties of a judge.

The Effect of Shame

The only way I can estimate the effect of these actions on Judge Maryland is to imagine how it would be for me. I would want to do as she did in your case — and I would want to continue to work in the same way even if I were mobbed by a murder of divorce lawyers and even if it became apparent that if I didn’t change my ways, I was likely to lose my job. If I could maintain such an attitude, it would be, in part, because I acquired some immunity against the effect of mild shame by hanging out with you two troublemakers.

How often do you think the typical Superior Court judge was sent to the principal’s office? “Never” is a good guess. People who want to enforce rules (judges) are generally people who conform to them. One of the primary reasons people abide by rules is the fear of exclusion — shame.

Do you think adults who were never sent to the principal’s office are more or less affected by the fear of exclusion than those who were frequently excluded from the classroom for failure to comply with the norm?

The question can answer itself. I ask it because the most charitable explanation I can think of for Judge Maryland’s utter surrender is that she is seen by others as a good person, and she sees herself this way as well; she’s a welcomed and valued member of every group she belongs to. Because she’s always rightfully perceived herself as a thoroughly “good person,” she’s especially susceptible to shame in the form of both actual exclusion and the fear of exclusion.

In the next letter I’ll tell you exactly how she gave up on being a good judge — after I report some interesting stuff I’ve learned about judicial misbehavior — what judges do to get themselves in trouble, how often it happens and what’s done about it. I need to give a full explanation of what the murder did to her, because it’s background you need to understand her behavior.

From the two of you, no news is good news.

Your oldest and best friend,

Bucky

Click here to see an extended version of this letter.

— Brian H. Burke is a certified family law specialist practicing family law and mediation in Santa Barbara. A researcher and educator in the field of divorce and family conflicts, he is also the creator of the Legal Road Map™. Click here for more information, call 805.965.2888 or e-mail .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Talk to Us!

Please take Noozhawk's audience survey to help us understand what you expect — and want — from us. It'll take you just a few minutes. Thank you!

Get Started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.