by Bob Paolini Interview with Judge George Belcher
On July 17, 2012, VBA Executive Director Bob Paolini sat down with recently retired Judge George Belcher of the probate division of the Vermont superior court, Washington unit, to discuss his lengthy career of service to the people of Vermont, as well as the nature and future of the probate court in the state.
Bob Paolini: I am sitting with George Belcher, who retired from the Washington County probate bench last Friday, July 13, 2012.
George Belcher: Hi Bob. BP: Hi George, thanks for coming in.
Let’s talk about your time as probate judge. You have been on the bench in Washington County since … 1989? GB: I was elected in 1990, and served starting on February 1st
of 1991.
BP: 1991. So, you have completed … GB: Twenty-one years.
BP: Twenty-one years. Thank you for not embarrassing me with my math skills in an- swering that. Before you decided to run, I know you were practicing in Barre, and I think, if I remember correctly, you even practiced in Montpelier at the beginning of your career. Is that right? GB: Right.
BP: Let’s go through a little bit of that
background for people that don’t know much about you. GB: Sure. I graduated from VLS, in the second class, 1977. I got a job in Mont- pelier with a law firm in 1978, and worked there until roughly 1980. I had clerked with Reginald Abare, John Nicholls, and Pete Donaghy in Barre. I was always anx- ious to get back with them because they were great to work with. I was hired on as an associate and later became a partner with that firm. I worked there from 1980 until 1990. I knew Judge Olich and always tried to focus on estates and estate plan- ning in law school. That area of the law always interested me. When Judge Ol- ich was retiring she invited me to her of- fice one day, which she often did with law- yers who were cycling through the office. She said “George, you know you would be great as a probate judge. Why don’t you think about running?” I was so flattered, and sort of left the office with a bounce in my step; that really got me thinking about it. It wasn’t until later on, that I learned that she had said that same thing to a number of different people, all of whom thought that they would be probate judge as well. It was a much-contested election. I had a contested primary, and was lucky enough to survive that. Then there was a three-way
30
es, some exciting cases, and the run of the mill eviction work, divorces, and that sort of thing.
BP: You decided to set that all aside and run for the bench in probate court? GB: Right. It just seemed like a great job. It was, and it is. It’s a great opportunity to try to help people. I think most of us who work in the law want to help people. That’s why we go into it. As probate judge, you have an excellent opportunity to help peo- ple solve their legal problems or help them sort out when they have a dispute with an- other heir or somebody. It has been a won- derful opportunity to help people, and that is probably the best part of the job.
BP: There has been a lot of talk about
contest for probate judge in Washington County—one independent and another opponent. I was lucky to squeak in. I was elected by seventy-seven votes.
BP: In 1990? GB: In 1990.
BP: Have you had opposition in the four- year cycles after that? GB: A couple of times. I have never been challenged by another lawyer. Three times there were disgruntled litigants who ran. They were all non-lawyers, and had a case that they didn’t like the outcome of, so …
BP: You said you concentrated on es- tates/trusts while you were at VLS. What did you do in your practice in that twelve or so years that you were in practice? GB: Well, at that time, focusing on es- tate planning was difficult unless you were in Burlington or somewhere with a large population. I didn’t know anyone in central Vermont who was really focusing on that, because there just wasn’t enough work. I did evictions and a little criminal work to begin with and then backed out of that. I did domestic relations, divorces, and pater- nity actions. I had several major cases. One was a pollution case in Williamstown that took about three years of work, and in an- other, Eric Parker and I were counsel for a woodchip producer in the McNeil Generat- ing Station case. I worked on some big cas-
THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • FALL 2012
pro se, self-represented litigants, especial- ly in the family court. In 70% of the cases at least one person is not represented. What’s it like in probate court? GB: I can’t tell you the percentage, but
it’s got to be high, higher than 70% I would think. Most of the people come in and they want to settle a relative’s estate.
BP: They come in unrepresented? GB: Yes. They administratively need help in filing the papers, in understanding the process, in getting through it, and in end- ing it. Then we have, the guardianships, the minor guardianships, which are sometimes child-neglect proceedings initiated by one family member against another. When the powers of the state are brought against someone in that situation, the family court assigns counsel, and the reason for that is you may lose your child in that proceeding. Essentially, the same outcome can happen in a minor guardianship proceeding, where neglect is the issue. I guess my point is, we run the gamut from administrative pro- ceeding where you are essentially helping someone sort an administrative process to some of the most significant interference with rights that can happen. Probate court does termination of parental rights in the context of adoptions as well. So it runs the gamut. In adoption TPR cases, the law re- quires the appointment of counsel for in- digents, but helping pro se litigants in all spheres or the spectrum of legal problems is what probate court is all about.
BP: I know you have sat as a Judge in the
www.vtbar.org
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