I was waiting until the last article in the recent New York Times 3-part series “Broken Bench” to run today before making any comments about it. As a blogger, a law student, and an adult under the jurisdiction of NY justice courts, it is a perfect storm; I have a moral obligation to think about this information and determine what the significance might be.

As a teenager in Upstate New York, the Town Justice was the father of a classmate. I never had any legal interaction with my classmate’s father, but from what I’ve heard he was an excellent Justice. For many years I never gave any thought to the assumption that her father was a lawyer; he was a judge, after all. When I did eventually learn that justices don’t have to have a legal education, I assumed that they must have other qualifications for the position. Now I see that even a high school education isn’t a required qualification.

Here is an excerpt from part 1 to of 3:

Some of the courtrooms are not even courtrooms: tiny offices or basement rooms without a judge’s bench or jury box. Sometimes the public is not admitted, witnesses are not sworn to tell the truth, and there is no word-for-word record of the proceedings.

Nearly three-quarters of the judges are not lawyers, and many — truck drivers, sewer workers or laborers — have scant grasp of the most basic legal principles. Some never got through high school, and at least one went no further than grade school.

For the nearly 75 percent of justices who are not lawyers, the only initial training is six days of state-administered classes, followed by a true-or-false test so rudimentary that the official who runs it said only one candidate since 1999 had failed. A sample question for the justices: “Town and village justices must maintain dignity, order and decorum in their courtrooms” — true or false?

For decades, the agency has asked justices to fill out modest biographical questionnaires, then filed away the answers. Under freedom of information law, The Times obtained questionnaires completed by more than 1,800 current justices; they portray a group that is often poorly educated and poorly paid, even though the law they are dealing with is increasingly complex.

Of those who are not lawyers, about a third — more than 400 — had no formal education beyond high school. At least 40 did not complete high school, though several went on to earn equivalency degrees.

The article then goes on to give a number of examples of misconduct by NY justices. For me personally, the biggest revelation in this article was the incredibly short training that justices-to-be are given. Justices are responsible for administering the laws of our State while protecting those rights guaranteed by both the New York State and United States Constitutions. To ensure this, the State requires six days of training followed by a true-or-false test with a 99% passage rate.

Part 2 of the series uses the problems encountered in Franklin County (much of which is contained within the Adirondack Park and is, as the article points out, “bigger than Rhode Island”) as a model for the problems with the system. Despite the enormous size of the county, it has only a single higher court judge and thus the town justices wield an enormous amount of power. Often these justices have abused that power, either purposefully or negligently. As one justice in that county points out, “You learn by mistakes.”

Part 3 of the series describes that criticism that justice system has received in the last 100 years, and the many attempts that have been made to reform it.

I have to admit that prior to this article I had no idea all of the problems that the New York State justice system encountered. I find it to be rather alarming that someone with so little knowledge of the law can have the power to take away my rights or to incarcerate me.
So what is the solution? As I see it, there are two possible solutions that would ameliorate the situation (naturally there will always be people in positions of power who shouldn’t be there, regardless of their level of education). The first solution would be to require all justices to have a legal education (we can argue the validity of having to be licensed in this state). In this instance, as current justices’ terms ended, anyone wishing to replace them must have a law degree (lots of debatable topics there, as well). Naturally this raises a number of concerns. Most law school graduates are practicing attorneys, many of whom don’t have the time or inclination for poorly-paid public service. And in many areas (such as where I grew up), there aren’t any law school graduates to fill the position. Enticing people to fill these spots will require a significant pay increase, which will greatly tax (no pun intended) the state. Perhaps the less drastic and more inexpensive solution might be to screen candidates and greatly increase the amount of training. For example, the article points out that in Delaware candidates undergo academic and psychological testing before starting 11 weeks of training. This solution also has inherent problems – it will greatly reduce the candidate pool (for finding individuals with 11 weeks to spare could be difficult) and would also require more funding for the administration of tests and training.

Part 3 pointed out that throughout the last century the New York State justice system has received a great deal of criticism and survived multiple attempts at reform. In an age when the rights of the individual are more highly regarded than ever before, it is surely time to re-evaluate the system and find ways to protect everyone’s rights.