Bill would abolish 'rent-a-judge' law in R.I.

The Providence Journal  |  February 17, 2009

Tracy Breton

Feb. 15, 2009 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- PROVIDENCE -- A bill has been introduced in the Rhode Island House of Representatives that would repeal a controversial law -- never used, but which soon may be implemented -- to allow the parties in civil suits to hire a retired judge to hear their disputes in private.

Rep. Al Gemma, D-Warwick, is the prime sponsor of a bill to abolish the statute, which has become known in the legal community as the "rent-a-judge law." It is being cosponsored by three members of the Rhode Island bar: Representatives Gregory J. Schadone, D-North Providence; Robert B. Jacquard, D-Cranston; and Stephen R. Ucci, D-Johnston.

The law to allow private civil trials has been on the books since 1984. The Rhode Island Supreme Court is considering ways to implement it at the request of one newly retired judge, Howard I. Lipsey of the Family Court, who has expressed an interest in being hired by parties to hear their cases behind closed doors. Lipsey gets a 100-percent pension -- $150,933 a year -- plus health insurance because he continues to sit several days a week at the Family Court.

Lipsey says there is a backlog of contested divorce cases that could easily be heard in private and that the private trial system would allow people to have their cases heard at night and on weekends so they wouldn't have to take a day out of work.

If implemented, the law would allow all retired judges in Rhode Island to earn extra pay beyond their pensions adjudicating civil cases in private. The Rhode Island Association for Justice, the state association of plaintiffs' trial lawyers, has urged the high court not to implement the law. So have the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, prominent trial lawyer Thomas R. Bender and Barbara Meagher, a journalism professor at the University of Rhode Island who is president of ACCESS/RI, the state's freedom-of-information coalition.

"I don't think you should be able to rent judges," Gemma said in an interview. "The whole idea of secret negotiations and trials is completely anathema to me. The judicial system is public and should be transparent."

Gemma also contended that the law "really cheapens the system of justice. These retired judges don't need the money. It just looks like they are moneygrubbing." If there's a backlog in the courts, Gemma said, then have the judges work longer hours.

Ucci said that he thinks there is a public perception that "because it's a private trial, there's a hidden agenda." But he noted that civil disputes are being decided in the form of arbitration and mediation so there is precedent for some cases not to be heard in public courtrooms.

What concerns him about the hire-a-judge law, Ucci said, is that decisions from private trials could be appealed to the state Supreme Court, which could then make precedent-setting decisions based on incomplete records. "Private decisions could lead to public law," he said.

The bill to repeal the law has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Newstex ID: KRTB-0161-31885644