Others might ask, ‘What if this person ended up as a law and motion judge?’ Evaluating these candidates was a real privilege.”
Krystal Bowen, a partner at Bingham McCutchen, chaired the committee last year, a particularly busy year with nearly twenty evaluations. “I was interested in being more involved in BASF,” Bowen says of her decision to join the committee. “I was curious about what the com- mittee did and felt it was important to be involved and have some kind of say in our judiciary.”
DORIS CHENG
Learning about the kinds of people who come through the process and the reasons they want to become judges was “very insightful,” she says. “The committee members are committed to having a bench that refl ects the diver- sity of our community. And the committee works to fi nd people who will try hard to dispense justice in a way that they see is fi tting and in a way that makes people feel they are heard and are getting a fair shake [in court]. We’re a kind of check.”
with the committee on potential judicial appointees.
In selecting Judiciary Committee members, BASF presi- dents strive for a balanced and diverse cross-section of the legal community itself. For example, committee members work at big fi rms, small fi rms, at corporations, in gov- ernment, and in solo practices. Practice specialties range from civil to criminal, from transactional to litigation. A diverse group of reviewers “ensures that issues important to various people will be considered” when evaluating po- tential judges, according to Tubach.
“The committee has a diversity of practices and all de- mographics—age, race, gender, sexual orientation,” adds Doris Cheng, a partner at Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger and a former chair of the committee, who reviewed about seventeen judicial candidates during her tenure. “It really is an independent committee where opinions could vary by where you are in life or what your practice is like. Some members may ask themselves, ‘How would this judge be in voir dire—more or less restrictive?’
18 FALL 2011
When the group meets to interview a candidate, every single member participates, not just the chair and one other member, Bowen explains. “The committee is never dominated by a single person or a single line of questions. Each committee member has his or her own analysis to bring to the table. That’s different from other boards I’ve been on where it’s typical for one person to sort of control and take over the meeting. With this committee, it’s a democratic process and everyone is engaged.”
The Judicial Committee charter is “a very interesting one,” Tubach adds. “It’s nice to get behind the scenes and see who’s applying [for judgeships]. The committee sees an incredibly diverse group of people who want to be judges.”
While Tubach reiterates that the work of the committee is confi dential, one of the fi rst questions candidates are asked is, Why do you want to be a judge? “You’ve got to know you’re going to get that question and you’ve got to be prepared to just knock that out of the park,” he says. “Candidates can’t just put their hat in the ring and not think about it. But we hear wildly different answers. What comes out in the responses is the candidates’ depth of experience and their thinking about what it means to
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68