DOM breaks the list of district judge applicants:

Jerald Bagley
Gerald Cope
Mary Barzee Flores
Darrin Gayles
Randee Golder
Judith Korchin
Robert Lee
Robert Levenson
Peter Lopez
Patricia Lowry
Ana Maria Martinez
Caroline Heck Miller
Maria Ortiz
Emmanuel Perez
Robin Rosenbaum
Robert Scola Jr.
Barry Seltzer
Tina Talarchyk
Patrick White
Kathleen Williams

Let's see....

Cope, name is familiar from somewhere.

Mary!!

Judith Korchin -- love her, but for some reason I thought she was already a judge.

Pat Lowry -- a few commenters have already told me the reunion is not until next week.

Scola -- great judge, but court observers indicate he needs to work on his serve.

Folks, I'll be here all week!

Actually, this is a surprisingly solid list and I feel pretty good about all the names here.

Good luck everyone!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:

A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case.

The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.

“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”

Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 over about 10 years starting in the 1980s, usually in cash. That includes $2,000 stuffed in an envelope just before the judge decided a major civil case that earned their firm $500,000 to $1 million.

Can you imagine?

I love this comment by the judge's attorney:

The judge’s lawyer, Richard Westling, acknowledged that some of his client’s decisions “in the light of day, looking backward, might have been handled differently.”

“I think what you’ll find is that there has never been an argument that what happened in Judge Porteous’ courtroom was anything but fair,” Mr. Westling said.

In other words -- corrupt, but fair.

The Judge has an interesting argument on immunized testimony you can read about here.

Ok, let's get back to Romina, whose Facebook page is (currently) here.

You know, I buy suits from Tom James on occasion, yet my sales guy looks nothing like Romina.

Then again, my suits don't look anything like what Scott used to wear either.

Oh Indiana federal district judge David Hamilton, you have been waiting eight months for confirmation to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. You have been endorsed by Indiana's senior Senator Richard Lugar and the Federalist Society of Indiana yet you are about to be filibustered.

President Obama and Senator Reid need to get off their arse, as the NYT editorialized Monday:

As of Nov. 4, he had nominated just 26 appellate and district court judges, and only four of them had been confirmed. Even considering that selecting Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and getting her confirmed took time, the administration’s pace has been disappointing.

On the confirmation side, the fault lies with the Senate. Obama nominees who have been reported out of the Judiciary Committee have waited months for a vote from the full Senate, far longer than is necessary.

Senate Republicans have been doing their best to drag things out. In March, every Republican senator signed an outrageous letter to the White House warning that they would filibuster any nominee from their home states if they did not approve the choice in advance. That was a dizzying reversal. In the Bush years, Senate Republicans professed to be so upset about Democrats’ filibustering that their majority leader threatened the “nuclear option,” which would have eliminated the use of filibusters for all judicial nominations.

Senate Democrats used the filibuster very selectively against Bush nominees who were true extremists. The real outrage was who was approved. Jay Bybee, the author of the infamous legal memorandums justifying the use of torture, is now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

The Democrats also allowed J. Leon Holmes to be confirmed to the federal bench in Arkansas. He had made a number of offensive statements about women, African-Americans and gay people. In 1997, he wrote that in marriage, “the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man.”

Republican senators, by contrast, are unreasonably opposing good nominees who are well within the legal mainstream. A current example is David Hamilton, a distinguished federal district court judge in Indiana who has been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. Judge Hamilton has decidedly moderate legal views and strong centrist credentials, including the enthusiastic endorsement of Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. Judge Hamilton in no way resembles extreme Bush nominees that Democrats opposed.

Apparently, however, Judge Hamilton, like Justice Alito before him, thinks judges should employ the dreaded "empathy" bomb:

Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, today told reporters that he plans on filibustering David Hamilton, President Obama's nominee to the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals. “I intend not to support going forward on the Hamilton vote,” Sessions said. “Unlike Justice Sotomayor, when asked to discuss the empathy standard he has embraced it.”

Senator Sessions, you are a tool and hypocrite of the highest order. May you never need the empathy you seek to purge from our judges.

If today was not an endless highway,
If tonight was not a crooked trail,
If tomorrow wasn't such a long time,
Then lonesome would mean nothing to you at all.
Yes, and only if my own true love was waitin',
Yes, and if I could hear her heart a-softly poundin',
Only if she was lyin' by me,
Then I'd lie in my bed once again.

I can't see my reflection in the waters,
I can't speak the sounds that show no pain,
I can't hear the echo of my footsteps,
Or can't remember the sound of my own name.
Yes, and only if my own true love was waitin',
Yes, and if I could hear her heart a-softly poundin',
Only if she was lyin' by me,
Then I'd lie in my bed once again.

There's beauty in the silver, singin' river,
There's beauty in the sunrise in the sky,
But none of these and nothing else can touch the beauty
That I remember in my true love's eyes.
Yes, and only if my own true love was waitin',
Yes, and if I could hear her heart a-softly poundin',
Only if she was lyin' by me,
Then I'd lie in my bed once again.

Hi kids, well it's that day again.

We've previously discussed how recent criticism regarding the composition of the Federal JNC may impact Michael Hanzman's long road to a federal judgeship, and here we see his name in the mix again in this excellent John Pacenti column:

Even before a call for official applications, some prominent names are swirling in the Miami legal community to replace U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley, who took senior status.

Federal Public Defender Kathleen Williams and Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Robert Scola are expected to apply. Sources say three other Miami-Dade judges — Kevin Emas, Mary Barzee Flores and Darrin Gayles — also plan to throw their hats into the ring.

Flores spent more than a decade as an assistant public defender before taking the bench in 2003. Emas was on the short list for the Florida Supreme Court twice last year.

Attorneys Michael Hanzman, a name partner with Hanzman Gilbert in Coral Gables, and Judith Korchin, a Holland & Knight partner in Miami, also are expected to be in the mix when the Federal Judicial Nominating Commission seeks applications. A notice is expected any day.

So far, the lawyers who are said to be interested in applying are exclusively from the Miami area even though Hurley sits in West Palm Beach. The Southern District has recommended to the administrative office of the 11th U.S. Circuit that the new judge be assigned to Fort Lauderdale, according to the office of Chief U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno.

Guy Lewis, former U.S. attorney and two-time candidate for federal judge, said some of those mentioned have called him about the process.

“It’s an excellent slate, but I think you will see a number of other people come forward, including sitting judges and judges from the 3rd District Court of Appeal. I think you will see a federal magistrate,” he said. “I don’t think the slate is complete. I think you will see a number of names come out of Broward County.”

Lewis said the Broward County bar is decidedly Democratic and played a key role in getting Barack Obama elected.

“I think a lot of weight will be given to Broward,” said Lewis, a name partner with Lewis Tein in Miami.

Mitchell Berger, a founder of Berger Singerman in Fort Lauderdale and a big player in Democratic fund-raising, said local bar politics will play as big a role as it does in state judgeships.

“People in the Southern District who practice in federal court are quite used to going to Palm Beach, Broward or Miami-Dade counties with respect to their cases,” he said. “I do think it’s important judges have a feel for their community in common law jurisprudence. In federal court, the community is the Southern District at large.”

The 56-member JNC will whittle the applicants to a handful to present to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, who make the final recommendation to President Obama. The U.S. Senate must confirm Obama’s pick for the position.

Hanzman has contributed to political campaigns for both parties. Among Hanzman’s contributions since 2000 is $15,000 to the Democratic National Committee and at least $4,000 to Nelson, according to the Federal Elections Commission. He also contributed $5,000 to Sen. Mel Martinez in 2004, according to the Federal Elections Commission.

Kathleen Williams and Judith Korchin are certainly prominent women lawyers, at least here in Miami, and both are well-known and respected among the federal judiciary. And Michael of course is eminently qualified.

But where are the powerhouse Hispanic applicants in this mix? And which Judge from the 3d DCA is Guy talking about?

(please no)

As I mentioned the other day, judges are frequently clueless about how much money it takes to litigate a case. The issue often arises when they are asked to approve counsel fees, and fail to inquire of opposing counsel how much they spent to litigate the exact same case.

Further proof is demonstrated by these preposterous comments from the Supreme Court during oral argument on whether enhancements are appropriate in a statutory fee-shifting case:

“Seven hundred thousand dollars for a lawyer. Wow!” Justice Stephen Breyer said, referring to the amount one lawyer could make for a year’s work on the Georgia litigation. “How do we explain this to the average person?”

Breyer said, “Very high is enough” when it comes to lawyer fees. “You don’t need very, very, very, high.”

Judge Breyer is a smart man and did not just fall off the turnip truck. Yet he appears shocked -- shocked -- that you can burn through $700k in a year on a closely-contested piece of federal civil litigation.

Judges, take a look at your docket -- every one of your civil cases of any significance at all has lawyers spending more than that in a year. If you call Marty Steinberg in for a discovery hearing you have just cost his client $5k minimum before it's done. A summary judgment motion can easily run $50k or more (not including all the pre-motion discovery and Westlaw fees). Abbey Kaplan claims to review every document personally in his cases -- do you think this comes cheap? (btw I like the new website!)

What exactly do you think we're doing out here?

Now let's talk federal judges.

I don't want to get all Peter Fay about it, but when Tom Scott took his dogs and bolted from the bench way back when to earn a lot more money doing insurance defense, he started a trend. Just the other day, Judge Stephen Larson of the Central District of California left for private practice, and Chief Judge Collins explains why in this excellent editorial:

This court, which serves more people than any other federal trial court in the country, faces a crisis of retention, arising from stagnating judicial compensation and ever increasing caseloads. Since 1998, eight of our judges have resigned or retired. Five joined JAMS, a private alternative dispute resolution provider, where neutrals can earn the equivalent of our annual salary in a matter of months. Two became state judges, with higher salaries and better health benefits.

Judicial salaries haven't kept pace with inflation

A May 2003 report urged Congress and the president to provide for immediate pay relief, noting that during the previous three decades, federal judges' salaries declined in value, while the average American worker's salary increased by 17.5 percent. This erosion in judicial pay deprives judges of the prospect of salary stability during their tenure, while other federal employees receive cost-of-living increases to keep pace with inflation.

While all federal judges are affected, we have been particularly hard-hit, given the high cost of living in California and higher than average (and rapidly increasing) caseload. We led the nation in the number of mega-criminal cases filed in fiscal year 2008, with 25 such cases — including one with more than 70 indicted defendants. We expect this number to rise again in fiscal year 2009.

The Southern District of Florida is in a similar situation, with a heavy criminal docket, vacancies on the court, and situated in a place with a high cost of living. Let's face it -- judicial pay sucks.

Meanwhile in DC Congress has been conducting hearings on the Federal Judgeship Act. As Senator Leahy pointed out in a letter to the WSJ yesterday (corrected link thanks to Glenn Sugameli, staff attorney for Judging the Environment, who wrote two great letters on this), things are slightly different this year:

The Federal Judgeship Act incorporates the recommendations of the nonpartisan Judicial Conference, led by Chief Justice John Roberts. Just as I have sponsored bipartisan bills incorporating the Judicial Conference's recommendations during the past eight years, I have done so again this year. The difference this year is that no Senate Republican is cosponsoring the effort. They have all apparently had a change of heart now that we have a Democratic President.

The WSJ predictably calls Senator Leahy's efforts to get more federal judges on the bench a "court-packing scheme."

Just as predictably, President Obama is moving too slow and cautiously on appointing judges:

During his first nine months in office, Obama has won confirmation in the Democratic-controlled Senate for just three of his 23 nominations for federal judgeships, largely because Republicans have used anonymous holds and filibuster threats to slow the proceedings to a crawl.

But some Democrats attribute that GOP success partly to the administration's reluctance to fight, arguing that Obama's emphasis on easing partisan rancor over judgeships has backfired and only emboldened Senate Republicans.

Some Republicans contend that the White House has hurt itself by its slow pace in sending over nominations for Senate consideration. President George W. Bush sent 95 names to the Senate in the same period that Obama has forwarded 23.

This is ridiculous. The time is now, be the change, yada yada yada.

Once we have more judges and they are paid better, maybe we won't see shock at the Supreme Court over a seven hundred thousand dollar legal bill.