June 15, 2003

Survey pointed out judges' varying styles


   By Oliver Mackson
   Times Herald-Record
   omackson@th-record.com
   
   Five years ago, the Orange County Bar Association conducted a survey of its members' attitudes toward the judiciary.

   The survey covered County Court, Family Court and state Supreme Court justices sitting in Orange. It was the first and last of its kind.

   At the time, Judge Andrew Bivona got high marks for moving cases along in a timely way, for writing clearly and for being decisive. But he got the survey's lowest marks – 3, 3.2, 3.7 and 4.4 out of 10 – in the "patience," "non-arrogant," "open-minded" and "courteous" categories. That dragged down his marks to 5.2 for fairness and impartiality, and 5.5 overall – the lowest in the survey.

   And while an informal survey of a dozen lawyers still gives Bivona high marks for his knowledge, the general perception is that, in the words of one Family Court veteran, "I think Andy is a little mercurial. I think he has a good understanding of the law of Family Court. He can be a little impatient. I think he genuinely wants to do the right thing."

   Bivona didn't have much use for the survey back then, and he still doesn't. While more than half the bar association's 415 members at the time answered the survey, not every judge was evaluated in every survey. The conclusions were drawn based on an average of about 25 surveys per judge.

   "It was fraught with the ability to stack responses," Bivona said in a March 6 interview.

   During the same interview, Bivona talked about his reputation for being tough, even harsh. Generally, lawyers say Bivona has a good knowledge of the law and moves cases along quickly.

   Family Court judges say there's a divide between them. Some judges see themselves as problem-solvers, helping people resolve their differences so that children can have happier lives.

   But others go out of their way to say they're not social workers with robes. Bivona says, "I'm one of them. I figure that the people who are in this court are here for a judge, because the court is their best option."

   In the 1998 bar association survey, Debra Jenkins-Kiedaisch received a 7.8 rating for fairness and impartiality, and marks in the sixes for her knowledge of the law. But that was five years ago, and lawyers tend to see her now as cutting a middle path between Bivona and Carol Klein. In the words of a lawyer who's been before all three, "The middle courtroom, Judge Kiedaisch, is probably the most reasonable part to work with. To my mind, Debra Kiedaisch is acceptable. Generally speaking, she's fair. I know if I have something to explain that she will listen to it."

    Klein, who was elected in 2000, was bluntly dismissed by one lawyer as "lost." Another said, "Carol Klein is truly the kindest, nicest, well-meaning individual that you will ever come across. But she got elected because it was her turn, and that was itΨ…. None of it has any bad intent. It's just a lack of knowledge. If you have clients that are savvy, they're going to walk out of there scratching their heads."

    A third lawyer, with more than 15 years' practice in Orange County, said of Klein, "It's not the difference between smart and stupid. It's the difference between being decisive or being seen as going back and forth on your decision. I think it's a function of it being that she doesn't have the arrogance that some people have when they become judges."

   Klein said, "We all have different styles. Do I believe surveys? That's not for me to decide. That's for the Bar Association to decide." She pointed out that, like her colleagues, she's often on the bench after 5 p.m. and sometimes doesn't leave until 6:30 or 7 p.m. And if that's because she moves slowly, so be it.

   "I'm a judge who asks a lot of questions," she said. "That's how I get to where I want to go."