Q: I was recently in Small Claims Court and have got to tell you that the judge really disappointed me. Even though I won the case against my former tenant, first of all the decision was mailed to me which took several days, and I thought the judge would lecture the defendant on the importance of telling the truth and being responsible. But he seemed totally unconcerned with obvious contradictions and lies. I expected Judge Judy, not Judge Wimpy! Am I wrong, or are most Small Claims Court judges afraid to speak up?

A: Real life isn’t a TV courtroom

Ever since the appearance of Judge Judy and The People’s Court type of television programs, I have frequently heard from readers with similar complaints. “It was an empty victory,” is the way one Eureka reader put it. “Case after case, no sense of moral outrage, no effort by the judge to point out obviously unethical and morally questionable behavior. A chance to send a strong message to the litigants and spectators was missed.”

Are there courtrooms where clones of Judge Judy preside? If they exist, I have never seen one, and for a lot of reasons, some valid, but many a symptom, in my opinion, of a justice system that far too often just doesn’t get it. (I will explain that statement a bit later.) Judge Judy — a former New York family law court judge — is a superb television entertainer, but she isn’t acting. She is free to say the things that many judges feel and think, because Judy does not have to worry about complaints from members of the public, or from unhappy voters who might toss her off the bench.

She is probably the only judge in America who is truly independent. I enjoy watching her show; she is my kind of judge, real courage, strong ethics, morality, and she can smell BS a mile away. Right and wrong matters to her, matters in the real world, and so often appears unimportant in too many of the courtrooms most of us visit. Judge Judy is a success because our legal system is seen by the public as failing miserably to deliver justice.

Politics

“Small Claims Court is that place in our legal system where emotions run as high as in family law, sometimes higher. When the public complains about judges, Small Claims tops the list. You’ve got people who are representing themselves in cases that might have been going on for a very long time, who often do not understand their rights or legal obligations. They want someone to blame, and that someone can be the judge. So, if you behave as a Judge Judy, it is an invitation to have a formal complaint filed against you, and no judge wants that,” states a now retired Superior Court judge who has read my column for years.

“Beav,” he said, “When you become a judge, a lot of relationships end. You are under a magnifying glass, both in and out of the courtroom, but it is what happens in the courtroom that can easily get you in trouble,” he said.

“Judges are normally appointed to office, but must run for election every six years. With 58 counties in California — some of them politically very active — if a judge wants to run unopposed (which most do) then you need to do a good job and not offend the public,” he points out.

Why decisions are mailed out

Unlike The People’s Court, or Judge Judy, the decisions of real judges are often mailed to the parties for a number of valid reasons, not necessarily because the judge is a wimp as my reader suggests. Some cases require research before a correct ruling can be made. This takes time. It is also true that many decisions could be announced from the bench but are not for another good reason: preventing violence.

There is a reason that an armed bailiff is in court. Some people cannot control their temper if the decision goes against them. An experienced judge usually can sense when it is safe to announce the decision, but some just play it safe and notify everyone by mail.

Sitting as a Judge Pro Tem, I learned this the hard way one afternoon when a mild-mannered grandma suddenly went berserk after I ruled that her hair stylist was not responsible for the loss of her hair following grandma’s fourth hair color change in three weeks. It was, to say the least, a “hair”-raising experience.

Do Small Claims Court Judges care?

“The times that I have just visited Small Claims Court, over the years, the impression is that too many judges lack concern and aren’t all that strong in terms of character,” Hanford reader Dwight Wilbur told me when I asked his opinion of the judges he has seen. “Is it me, or does right and wrong not matter to many of them?” he wonders.

Today’s lawyers are the judges of tomorrow. In many ways, we get the legal system we ask for and deserve. If the legal profession is asked and permitted to play fast and loose with right and wrong and basic morality, when those lawyers become judges, do not be surprised by the kind of justice they will dispense.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Why are judges not more like Judge Judy? appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

If you’ve seen even one episode of the “Judge Judy” show on CBS and are waiting for your own day in small claims court, chances are good you’ve wondered, “is small claims court going to be like ‘Judge Judy?'”

Karen (names have been changed) certainly did. The Selma resident is a ministry student at Fresno-Pacific University, and sent “You and the Law” the following e-mail:

“Before my small claims trial against Sandra – my former college roommate – for not paying her share of our expenses, friends suggested that I watch the ‘Judge Judy’ television program for a good idea of what to expect, and how judges deal with the people who appear before them.”

“I followed their advice and watched the show for two weeks. She actually had several cases similar to mine, where roommates either damaged property belonging to the other or refused to pay their half of expenses for no valid reason.”

“I loved the show and the way she handled the irresponsible and dishonest people who appeared before her. There was a morally satisfying feeling, as she pointed out what they had done wrong and what they were legally obligated to do. If someone was a con or flake, then they wound up looking that way before millions of viewers, and I thought this was a terrific way of educating the public.”

But when she actually took her case to court, thinking “that our judges had the courage to tell it like it is, that the courtroom would be something like that, a tool for moral and legal education. I was so disappointed,” Karen wrote.

Tried to avoid going to court

“Sandra and I are doing a degree in Christian ministries, and the last thing I wanted was to sue her. If one truly practices our faith, then life should be all about doing what is morally, ethically and legally correct. Filing the small claims lawsuit was the only possible choice unless I wanted to just forget the whole thing. But to do that would be just as morally wrong, and a sign of cowardice, I believe,” Karen, 20, wrote.

“My school has a Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies with staff whose job it is to help roommates solve their problems and avoid going to court. I suggested that to Sandra but she would not even give me an answer.”

“When the case went to court, it wasn’t like Judge Judy at all. The judge listened to Sandra’s nonsensical excuses and yet said nothing, did not point out her irresponsible behavior, did nothing to educate her in anyway about living as a responsible adult. Yes, I won a judgment, but do not feel nearly that justice was at all accomplished that day.”

“Why isn’t small claims court more like Judge Judy? Why do our judges not tell people what they need to hear?” my reader asked.

A lot of people feel the same way

“Karen’s comments reflect the feelings of lots of people who have seen the Judge Judy’ show and then find something completely different – and are often very disappointed – when they go to court,” comments Don Fischer of Fresno. Fischer has been in a position to know that only too well.

He is a mediator for the Fresno County Superior Court and on the staff of the Fresno-Pacific Center for Peacekeeping and Conflict studies. “Judge Judy does something extremely well, which is why the show is so popular – that does not usually happen in real courtrooms,” he points out.

“She allows for story telling, truth and honesty to come out, and the parties and audience feel they have made things as right as possible at the show’s conclusion. What Karen wrote about good moral feelings viewers have in watching the show is correct. But that is television reality, and not generally courtroom reality.”

“Most litigants are first-time users of the court system. The only exposure they have may be television drama like Judge Judy courtroom shows. They mistakenly expect the same process when they get to court.”

“We always have to remember that, like it or not, judges deal with legal issues and try to avoid emotional issues. So, when you’re in court there is rarely a resolution of the emotional need to be heard. You might win a judgment, but that’s just a piece of paper from the court and collection of the judgment is something very different from feeling whole again.”

“The victory could easily be an empty one,” Fischer concludes.

Considering renting a place with a roommate? Hang in there – don’t sign a thing until you read next week’s advice from Fresno-Pacific mediators and roommate advisers. They’ll save you headaches – and money!

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Why isn’t small claims court like ‘Judge Judy?’ appeared first on Dennis Beaver.