Judges fume over remedial program

Three months after the state's top judge trumpeted a new ''judicial enhancement" program to assist poorly performing judges, many in the judiciary are bristling at what they perceive as a humiliating effort to help them do their jobs better.

A committee representing the more than 80 Superior Court judges statewide wrote a sharply worded critique of the program three weeks ago. The internal document, obtained by the Globe, skewers, among other things, plans to grade judges based on evaluations by lawyers and to team struggling judges with mentors on the bench.

In light of similar concerns throughout the judiciary, the leaders of the Massachusetts Judges Conference, which represents about 90 percent of the state's judges, plan to discuss the controversy at a meeting tomorrow, according to Judge Roanne Sragow of Cambridge District Court, president of the group.

Tensions flared at the biannual conference of the Superior Court judges in April, where a succession of judges told Robert Mulligan, the state's chief administrative justice, that the way the fledgling program identifies deficient jurists and seeks to improve their performance was deeply flawed, even insulting, according to several judges present at the closed meeting.

''It's so demeaning," one Superior Court judge said in an interview. The judge, who insisted on anonymity, said the tone of the April 4 report outlining the program was ''utterly unconscionable."

Mulligan, who oversees the seven trial court departments, said that the program was ''organic" and that he would consider changes. He declined to address specific criticisms, but he said top court officials have no intention of doing anything that would be ''humiliating or demeaning to a trial court judge."

Nonetheless, some judges are irked by the program, in part because they had no role in creating it.

''While we wholeheartedly endorse the concept of judicial evaluation, we want input into the methodology and the details," Sragow said in a statement.

Evaluating judges and improving their performance have long been thorny subjects in Massachusetts.

In 1992, after years of entreaties by the legal community, the state Legislature mandated that all judges be assessed. Proponents noted that judicial appointments typically last until judges reach the mandatory retirement age of 70, and that judges in Massachusetts do not face contested elections, reappointments by the governor or Legislature, or other hurdles found in most other states.

Judicial accountability gained renewed attention two years ago when a special commission headed by the Rev. J. Donald Monan, chancellor of Boston College, concluded that Massachusetts courts were sluggish and inefficient and that ''management of the judiciary is uneven at best and oftentimes dysfunctional."

It was not until Margaret H. Marshall became chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court five years ago that the state initiated a program to make sure all judges were evaluated by the same standards, according to a court spokeswoman. On March 5, Marshall announced to a Massachusetts Bar Association conference that confidential evaluations of the state's 378 trial judges had been nearly completed, and that the judiciary would begin helping poor performers with everything from short tempers to bad writing.

The surveys, completed by 5,800 lawyers, more than 4,000 jurors, and court staff members, revealed that the vast majority of judges are fair, respectful, and capable, she said, but that a small number were deemed ''deficient."

''Mandatory judicial enhancement will provide these judges with the tools they need to address their professional shortcomings," Marshall said. ''We will act. You will see the results."

This week, Chief Justice Charles R. Johnson of Boston Municipal Court, who chaired the Mulligan-appointed committee of judges and administrators that developed the program, said 22 trial court judges, or almost 6 percent, had gotten an unsatisfactory grade of 65 or lower from lawyers who appear before them. (The evaluations by jurors and court employees are not used to compile a grade, but can be considered before a judge is required to get help.)

The 22 judges have been contacted by supervisors and are supposed to begin remediation programs, Johnson said. Some may be ordered to take legal education courses; others could be required to have mentors, psychological counseling, or have other judges review audiotaped recordings of them in the courtroom.

''People should not equate enhancement with a form of punishment," Johnson said. ''It's not meant to be a demeaning process for any judge. It's designed to facilitate professional growth."

But that's not how many Superior Court judges see it. In response to objections at a conference in Lenox in April, Mulligan and Superior Court Chief Justice Barbara Rouse agreed to let a committee of eight jurists critique the plan.

The eight, who said they contacted most of their Superior Court colleagues, state in their report that they welcome evaluations and programs to improve the judiciary. Those goals, however, should be achieved ''without trammeling on the dignity and integrity" of judges, they wrote.

The eight judges singled out the use of a numerical grade to gauge a judge's performance, saying it could erode public confidence at a time when the judiciary is ''under assault" across the country. In addition, they wrote, allowing judges to be graded solely by lawyers is wrong.

''One of the main concerns is that the lawyers whom we rule against will use the enhancement process to take revenge and come back . . . and accuse you of bad temperament or bad intellect," said another Superior Court judge who attended the conference and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The committee was chaired by two Superior Court judges, Christine M. McEvoy and John C. Cratsley. McEvoy declined to comment; Cratsley did not return phone calls.

Johnson, like Mulligan, said he would consider the criticism but described much of it as misplaced or driven by emotion. Fears that disgruntled attorneys will target judges were unfounded, for example, given that more than 94 percent of judges got favorable ratings, he said.

And though Johnson insists that the program will treat judges fairly and with respect, he said the committee had other vital considerations as well.

''We didn't write the report just for judges," he said. ''We also wrote it for the public interest, trial court employees, and members of the bar. I believe that the report strikes an appropriate balance between all those vested interests."

Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at jsaltzman@globe.com.