Big-Dollar Judicial Campaigns

Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Sue Bell Cobb decries the effect of money on judicial campaigns: I Was Alabama's Top Judge. I'm Ashamed by What I Had to Do to Get There. Politico, March/April 2015.

Cobb cites a 2014 report by Emory law professors Joanna Shepherd and Michael S. Kang that found a strong link between campaign spending and ruling against criminal defendants: Skewed Justice: Citizens United, Television Advertising and State Supreme Court Justices' Decisions in Criminal Cases.

Cobb is one of four former chief justices of Texas and Alabama who submitted an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold Florida's rule that bans direct solicitation by judicial candidates. The case is Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (docket number 13-1499), which was argued in January. On the other side, the ACLU has an amicus brief arguing that the ban infringes free speech. For much more about the case and the arguments, see SCOTUSblog.

Does Allocution Make a Difference?

The new issue of the Alabama Law Review has an article reporting the results of a survey of federal district judges about allocution in sentencing:

Mark W. Bennett & Ira P. Robbins, Last Words: A Survey and Analysis of Federal Judges' Views on Allocution in Sentencing, 65 Ala. L. Rev.  735 (2014)

Allocution—the penultimate stage of a criminal proceeding at which the judge affords defendants an opportunity to speak their last words before sentencing—is a centuries-old right in criminal cases, and academics have theorized about the various purposes it serves. But what do sitting federal judges think about allocution? Do they actually use it to raise or lower sentences? Do they think it serves purposes above and beyond sentencing? Are there certain factors that judges like or dislike in allocutions? These questions—and many others—are answered directly in this first-ever study of judges’ views and practices regarding allocution.

The authors surveyed all federal district judges in the United States. This Article provides a summary and analysis of the participants’ responses. Patterns both expected and unexpected emerged, including, perhaps most surprisingly, that allocution does not typically have a large influence on defendants’ final sentences. Most of the judges agreed, however, that retaining this often-overlooked procedural right remains an
important feature of the criminal-justice process.

Judge again rebukes lawyers who want him to step down

Defense attorneys for the men accused of killing a corrections officer in Monroe asked the judge to step down because of his allegedly flawed understanding of the law and improper behavior in an earlier case. That's only part of the friction between the judge and the lawyers. Judge again rebukes lawyers who want him to step down from Byron Scherf’s trial, Herald (Everett), Feb. 11, 2012.

Hot Coffee -- Documentary about Tort Reform

A new documentary explores the rhetoric and politics of "tort reform." Hot Coffee: Is Justice Being Served? begins with the the case that has been fodder for comedians and politicians, Liebeck v. McDonald's.

Seinfeld mocked it. Letterman ranked it in his top ten list. And more than fifteen years later, its infamy continues. Everyone knows the McDonald’s coffee case. It has been routinely cited as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of America’s legal system, but is that a fair rendition of the facts? Hot Coffee reveals what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the Albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald’s, while exploring how and why the case garnered so much media attention, who funded the effort and to what end. After seeing this film, you will decide who really profited from spilling hot coffee.

The next segment of the film looks at how a tort-reform damage cap has affected one family with a seriously disabled son.

And the third segment features Oliver Diaz, a justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court who successfully campaigned against a candidate backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, only to be indicted for accepting a bribe and then for tax fraud. Despite his acquittals, the charges kept him off the bench for years and probably cost him his next election.

The filmmaker, Susan Saladoff, is a lawyer who took on this project – her first film – during a sabbatical from her practice. She definitely has a point of view, and in the film and on the website encourages people to take action opposing tort reform. Whether or not you ultimately share her position, the film offers important information, with clips from advocates on both sides of the debate. Check it out: KF1250.H68 2011 at Classified Stacks.

Women on the Federal Bench

Sandra Day O’Connor sworn in, September 25, 1981.

Today is the 30th anniversary of Sandra Day O'Connor being sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice.

The appointment of the first woman to the Supreme Court was very big news back in 1981, when I was a law student. But most of today's law students have always had at least one woman one the Supreme Court. Today's 1Ls are starting law school with three female justices on the Court. (Beloit's Mindset List annually offers reminders of how a younger generation's experience differs from the last's.)

So I thought this might be a good occasion to offer some stats about the representation of women on the federal bench. I'm using a fascinating database from the Federal Judicial Center, The Biographical Directory of Federal Judges.

First, how many women did Justice O'Connor join when she was sworn in?

51 women had been been commissioned before Sept. 25, 1981. Only 23 were still serving. (That is, their commission date was before that date, but their termination date was after it.)

And what were the corresponding numbers for men?

2023 men had been commissioned, and 619 were still serving.

President Reagan made history by appointing the first woman to the Supreme Court. What was his record throughout the federal courts?

court	women	men
U.S. Supreme Court	1	3
courts of appeal	6	77
all federal courts	30	334

An important part of the historical context is that women were a minority in the legal profession. 1972 was the first year when women were over 10% of law school enrollment nationally, so in the 1980s there'd wasn't as large a pool of experienced female lawyer from whom to select judges as there is today.

Speaking of today, what is the makeup of our federal bench now?

All Sitting Federal Judges (including those on senior status)

Race or Ethnicity	women	men
African American	38	81
American Indian	0	1
Asian American	6	10
Hispanic	23	56
White	208	861
Total	278	1015

Photo credit: National Archives Today's Document blog, Sept. 25, 2011.

How Do Lay People React to Judicial Decision-Making?

A new study looks at how lay people respond to the judicial reasoning. Dan Simon & Nicholas Scurich, Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision-Making (July 18, 2011), J. Empirical Legal Stud. (forthcoming 2011), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1888630

This exploratory study examined lay people’s evaluations of judicial decision-making, specifically of the judicial decision-making process and the judiciary’s legitimacy. Seven hundred participants were presented with three judicial decisions, which were portrayed as following on the heels of solid and appropriate legal procedure.

Each decision was accompanied by one of four types of reasoning. Participants were asked to evaluate the acceptability of the decisions, focusing on the manner in which they were made and the legitimacy of the decision-maker, regardless of their outcomes. The study yielded four findings.

• First, lay people’s judgments were highly contingent on the outcome of the judges’ decisions. Consistent with the theory of motivated reasoning, participants found the decisions highly acceptable when they agreed with the judges’ decision, but deemed them relatively unacceptable when they disagreed with them.
• Second, participants were indifferent to the modes of reasoning when they agreed with the outcomes of the decisions, but were differentially sensitive to the modes of reasoning when the judges’ decisions frustrated their preferred outcomes.
• Third, when participants were sensitive to the modes of reasoning, they gave higher ratings of acceptability to decisions that openly admitted to good reasons on both sides of the case as compared with decisions accompanied by reasons that supported one side of the case exclusively. Giving no reasons at all was found to be more acceptable than giving a single, curt reason.
• Fourth, the findings replicated the coherence effect. Implications for the legitimacy of the judiciary are discussed.

Jurors Online Discussed in New Journal

The Reynolds National Center for Courts and Media and Donald W. Reynolds School of Journalism (University of Nevada Reno) launched a new journal in February: the Reynolds Courts and Media Law Journal.

The first issue, Winter 2011, included articles on venue after Enron, guidelines for unmasking in public figure libel cases, and a summary guide on courts and media for judges.

The Spring 2011 issue has four articles on "Modern Media in the Courts":

• Judge Dennis M. Sweeney, When Worlds Collide: Digital Natives Enter the Jury Box, p. 121
• Genelle I. Belmas, That's What "Friend" Is for?: Judges, Social Networks and Standards for Recusal, p. 147
• Gareth S. Lacy,* Untangling the Web: How Courts Should Respond to Juries Using the Internet for Research, p. 169
•  Stacy Blasiola, Say "Cheese!": Cameras and Bloggers in Wisconsin's Courtrooms, p. 197

*Gareth is a 2011 graduate of the University of Washington School of Law.

Judging in Black and White

Do judges vary in their treatment of race?

That's the question investigated by three researchers (David S. Abrams, Marianne Bertrand, and Sendhil Mullainathan) who studied thousands of felony cases in Cook County, IL, initiated between 1995 and 2001. Cases were assigned to judges randomly (and the researchers did some statistical checking to confirm that).

Controlling for a wide range of variables, it turned out that race did make a difference across all judges, and, with some judges it made a very big difference. Black defendanats were more likely to be incarcerated than non-Hispanic white defendants. (This paper does not address Hispanic defendants.)

Comparable defendants had different likelihoods of incarceration depending on which judge they were assigned.

With a judge at the lenient end of the spectrum,
a black male defendant had a 45% chance of incarceration
while a white male defendant had at 35% chance of incarceration.



Facing a judge at the harsh end of the spectrum, a black male
defendant had a 68% chance of incarceration, compared with
his white counterpart's 40% chance.

There were also differences in the length of sentences imposed (blacks got longer sentences) but these differences weren't statistically significant.

The researchers did not find significant differences based on race of the judge or whether the judge had experience as a public defender.

David S. Abrams, Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race? (Univ. of Pa. Law Sch. Inst. for Law & Econ. Research Paper No. 11-07), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1800840, J. Legal Studies (forthcoming). The examples about the black and white defendants are drawn from pp. 22-23.

By the way, Cook County gives a very large sample to study. "Cook County is the largest unified court system in the country, with over 2.4 million cases processed per year in both civil and criminal courts." (p. 8). For comparison, consider that all of Washington's superior courts handled a total of 752,082 cases in 2010. Caseloads of the Courts of Washington: Total Proceedings by Type of Case - 2010 Annual Report at 2.

Has the Judge Eaten?

A caricature of Legal Realism is that it says that outcomes depend on "what the judge had for breakfast." A new study looks not at what judges ate but when they ate.

Shai Danzigera, Jonathan Levavb & Liora Avnaim-Pessoa, Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions, Proceedings of the Nat'l Acad. of Sci. Early Ed. (published online before print), April 11, 2011, PDF (UW restricted), abstract (UW restricted). News stories: Facing a judge? Study says go early or after lunch, Physorg.com, April 11, 2011; Hunger Affects Court Rulings?, PRI's The World, April 11, 2011 (radio interview).

The authors examined 1,112 parole rulings by 8 Israeli judges during 50 court days over 10 months. Each day included a late-morning snack break (usually a sandwich and fruit) and a lunch break. The judges did not control the order of the cases that came before them, and they didn't know the content of each case until it was presented. Again and again, it turned out that prisoners whose cases were heard first thing in the morning or shortly after one of the breaks. The stats are striking: The authors didn't ask the judges whether having a snack (or meal) simply put them in a better mood and made them more sympathetic to parole petitions. Perhaps there's an effect due to mental fatigue in doing repeated tasks or low blood glucose levels as the court session wears on.

Graphics: (1) sandwich and fruit by mw; (2) graph, showing jump in favorable decisions after each break, from article.

Senior judges keep 9th Circuit courthouses open

With vacant judgeships and mounting caseloads, the ninth circuit relies on its senior judges. Carol J. Williams, Senior Judges Keep 9th Circuit Courthouses Open, L.A. Times, March 14, 2011. Featured is 88-year-old Judge Betty Fletcher (UW Law class of 1956) who carries a full caseload.

"Hot Coffee" Documentary Challenges "Tort Reform"

Oregon Attorney's Documentary 'Hot Coffee' Makes the Sundance Cut, ABA Journal, Feb. 1, 2011. Susan Saladoff explains her project here:



The movie's website includes links to resources. And this page gives links to Democracy Now! segments with film clips and interviews. One person interviewed is former Mississippi Justice Oliver Diaz whose election was opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. After he won, the local U.S. Attorney prosecuted him for campaign finance violations (he was acquitted) and then for tax violations (he was acquitted again).

The film got good press at Sundance. I'm looking forward to when the website includes a list of cities where it's playing -- and Seattle is one of them.

Judges Surveyed About Lawyers

How well do lawyers represent their clients? It's a hard question to answer. One approach would be to ask the judges who observe the lawyers at work, and that's just what Judge Richard A. Posner and Professor Albert H. Yoon have done: What Judges Think of the Quality of Legal Representation, 63 Stan. L. Rev. 317 (2010).

Here's the short version of their findings, from the abstract:

We find that judges perceive significant disparities in the quality of legal representation, both within and across areas of the law. In many instances, the underlying causes of these disparities can be traced to the resources of the litigants. The judges’ responses also suggest that they respond differently than juries to these disparities, and that the effect of these disparities on juries may be more pronounced in civil than in criminal cases.

But don't stop with the abstract! The more detailed findings are very interesting.

Judges' backgrounds.
I was surprised to see the number of judges with experience in criminal defense, since I heard or read somewhere that prosecutors more often became judges. But the patterns vary between trial and appellate courts and between federal and state courts.

exp	fed app	fed trial	state app	state trial
crim defense	19%	36%	29%	40%
prosecution	9%	14%	29%	44%

p. 323.

Disparities in civil cases.
The civil areas where federal trial judges saw the greatest disparity were civil rights and personal injury/malpractice. When there was a disparity, the defendant had better representation. State judges saw the greatest disparities in family law and personal injury/malpractice. Again, when there was a disparity in the tort cases, it was generally the defense that had the advantage.

Judges said that intellectual property and commercial litigation cases seldom had a great disparity between the sides' lawyers. These lawyers were rated between "good" and "excellent" -- i.e., at the top of the scale.

What about criminal cases?

Federal judges exhibited a clear divide, ranking public defenders highest, followed closely by prosecutors. Both federal appellate and district judges deemed court-appointed and privately retained counsel markedly (and statistically significantly) worse, although they disagreed which group was the worst. In contrast, state judges perceived greater parity among criminal lawyers, with both appellate and trial judges giving their highest ratings to retained counsel. Appellate judges generally gave similarly high scores to prosecutors and public defenders, whereas trial judges thought privately retained counsel distinctly better than other criminal lawyers.

pp. 325-26 (footnotes omitted). Judges across all categories said that they observed significant disparities in quality between prosecution and defense 21-40% of the time.


When there is a disparity in representation, many judges conduct additional research. p. 335. (But they aren't happy about this burden -- see p. 346.) The judges thought that many jurors favor litigants with better lawyers, but they thought they themselves could rise above the disparate representation. p. 326. But in many situations, they thought that the representation did not make much difference to the outcomes of the cases. p. 327. The authors discuss this perception -- and related studies about the impact of counsel in criminal cases -- at pp. 341-43.

Change law school?
The survey asked judges what could be done to improve the quality of representation.

About law schools, judges were in general agreement. The most common response in each judge group was that law schools should provide more coursework oriented to instilling practice-oriented skills. The second most popular response was expansion of core curriculum—-that is, courses required of all students—-to ensure a stronger foundation for practice. More than two-thirds of the judges in each group proposed changes in law school curricula, while no more than 10% in any group recommended higher admissions standards. Recommendations to make tuition more affordable drew slightly higher but still modest support (ranging between 5% and 14%).

p. 338 (footnote omitted)

The judges would like to see better trial skills:

Judges expressed concern about the effectiveness of the bar at trial advocacy. One federal district judge remarked that lawyers are “smart, well-prepared and know the law and write great briefs—but if the case goes to trial, their trial skills are nowhere near what their pre-trial skills were.”

p. 346

The whole article is worth a look: there are lots of interesting nuggets, and the footnotes cite other intriguing studies about lawyers' effectiveness.

Articles on E-Discovery Sanctions, Federal District Courts, and More

A recent study finds increasing sanctions of lawyers and their clients for e-discovery violations. Dan H. Willoughby, Jr., Rose Hunter Jones & Gregory R. Antine, Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers, 60 Duke L.J. 789 (2010). You can find a brief discussion of this 76-page article here: Study: Lawyer Sanctions Over Electronic Discovery on the Rise - Law Blog - WSJ, Jan. 13, 2011.

That article caught the eye of the Wall Street Journal's blogger, but it's just one in a special symposium issue: the 2010 Civil Litigation Review Conference. Here are the rest of the articles in that issue:

John G. Koeltl, Introduction, Progress in the Spirit of Rule 1 ... 537

John H. Beisner, Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform ... 547

Paul D. Carrington, Politics and Civil Procedure Rulemaking: Reflections on Experience ... 597

Steven S. Gensler, Judicial Case Management: Caught in the Crossfire ... 669

Patrick E. Higginbotham,The Present Plight of the United States District Courts ... 745

Emery G. Lee III & Thomas E. Willging, Defining the Problem of Cost in Federal Civil Litigation ... 765

For even more scholarship on civil litigation, see the shorter e-only articles on Duke Law Journal's Workshop site.

Patrick E. Higginbotham has been a federal judge for 35 years (N.D. Tex. 1975-82, 5th Cir. 1982-present), so I was curious about what he thinks the plight of federal district courts is. He observes that conducting trials has become a very small part of the work of federal trial court judges -- the average district judge has almost 300 days a year with no trials. While some see this as a good thing, Judge Higginbotham says it is "a manifestation of the illness" he discusses.

He argues "that federal trial courts are now more like administrative agencies than trial courts in their present efforts to discharge their duty to decide cases or controversies, and that we are witnessing the death of an institution whose structure is as old as the Republic."

The changes Judge Higginbotham examines are the rise of arbitration and other ADR, the decline of attorneys with trial experience, the loss of the 12-person jury, and "the drift of the federal courts to the civil law model and their capture by the administrative model." He urges a return to the trial model.

Thanks: Aaron McElhose

Social Media in Court

The Conference of Court Information Officers conducted a nationwide study of how social media affects the administration of justice: New Media and the Courts: The Current Status and a Look at the Future (Aug. 26, 2010). It discusses these media:

• social media profile sites (Facebook, Myspace, et al.)
• microblogging (e.g., Twitter)
• smart phones, tablets, and notebooks
• monitoring and metrics
• news sharing (blogs, RSS feeds, etc.)
• visual media sharing (YouTube, Flickr, etc.)
• wikis

Some of the findings (lifted from the executive summary, pp. 9-10):

• About 40 percent of responding judges reported they are on social media profile sites, the majority of these on Facebook. This is almost identical to the percentage of the adult U.S. population using these sites.


• Judges who are appointed and do not stand for re-election were much less likely to be on social media profile sites. About 9 percent from non-elected jurisdictions reported they were on these sites.


• Nearly half of judges (47.8 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement "Judges can use social media profile sites, such as Facebook, in their professional lives without compromising professional conduct codes of ethics."


• Judges appear to be more comfortable with using these sites in their personal lives, . . .


• More than half (56 percent) of judges report routine juror instructions that include some component about new media use during the trial.


• A very small fraction of courts (6.7 percent) currently have social media profile sites like Facebook; 7 percent use microblogging sites like Twitter; and 3.2 percent use visual media sharing sites like YouTube.


• A smaller proportion of judges than might be expected (9.8 percent) reported
  witnessing jurors using social media profile sites, microblogging sites, or smart
  phones, tablets or notebooks in the courtroom.


• Almost all (97.6 percent) respondents agree that judges and court employees should be educated about appropriate new media use and practices.

Prof. Anita Ramasastry has written commentaries on Findlaw about many aspects of social media in the courts:

• Facebook and MySpace Postings in Court: In a Lawsuit, Privacy Settings May Not Matter, Sept. 29, 2010 (discovery),


• Googling Potential Jurors: The Legal and Ethical Issues Arising from the Use of the Internet in Voir Dire, July 30, 2010,


• Why the Judge in the Casey Anthony Trial Was Right to Recuse Himself Due to His Remarks to a Blogger, May 6, 2010.


• A D.A. Puts Drunk Drivers on Twitter: Why The Policy Probably Won't Deter Future Offenders, Jan. 12, 2010.


• Should Courtroom Proceedings Be Covered Via Twitter? Why the Better Answer is "Yes", Dec. 29, 2009.


• Why Florida's Ban on Judges' "Friending" Lawyers on Facebook Is the Right Call, Dec. 15, 2009.


• Why Courts Need to Ban Jurors' Electronic Communications Devices, Aug. 11, 2009.

Magistrate Scolds Lawyers for Deposition Bickering

United States Magistrate Peggy A. Leen was faced with a 185 pages in which lawyers accused one another of behaving badly at depositions. They had behaved badly so she admonished them for it. But she also made it clear that she had better things to do than wade through hundreds of pages of tattling and whining. Mazzeo v. Gibbons, LV Police: Lawyers dressed down, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Aug. 3, 2010.

Judge Leen's order is here. Its conclusion:

The exchanges related in excruciating, repetitive detail in the moving and responsive papers and their attachments were painful to read. If I was an elementary school teacher instead of a judge I would require both counsel to write the following clearly established legal rules on a blackboard 500 times:

I will not make speaking, coaching, suggestive objections which violate Rule 30(c)(2). I am an experienced lawyer and know that objections must be concise, non-argumentative and non-suggestive. I understand that the purpose of a deposition is to find out what the witness thinks, saw, heard or did. I know that lawyers are not supposed to coach or change the witness’s own words to form a legally convenient record. I know I am prohibited from frustrating or impeding the fair examination of a deponent during the deposition. I know that constant objections and unnecessary remarks are unwarranted and frustrate opposing counsel’s right to fair examination. I know that speaking objections such as "if you remember," "if you know," "don’t guess," "you’ve answered the question," and "do you understand the question" are designed to coach the witness and are improper. I also know that counsel’s interjection that he or she does not understand the question is not a proper objection, and that if a witness needs clarification of a question, the witness may ask for the clarification.

Although these papers, and the conduct they relate, make me feel like a school marm scolding little boys, I am the judge whose duty it is to decide this motion. Accordingly, Mr. Kossack and Mr. Cannon are admonished for engaging in conduct which I know you know violates Rule 30(c)(2). You are better men and better lawyers than the conduct in which you have engaged illustrates.

Judge Leen very clearly was fed up with these lawyers, but that last sentence is classy.

Recusal Because of Remarks at Conference?

In a biotech case -- about the patentability of two breast cancer genes -- plaintiffs are asking the chief judge of the Federal Circuit to recuse himself, even before the panel is selected, because of remarks he made at a conference about the issue. Citing Possible Bias, ACLU Asks Rader to Recuse Himself in Myriad Case, Corporate Counsel (law.com), Aug. 5, 2010.

Can We Improve Judicial Selection in Washington?

Unlike federal judges, who are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, our state judges are elected by the people. But in practice, most of them are first appointed by the governor to fill mid-term vacancies and only face election if they are opposed at the end of their terms. There is very little public scrutiny of the appointment process, and when elections roll around, many voters don't have good tools for evaluating candidates. Professor William R. Andersen turns his attention to these issues in Judicial Selection in Washington -- Taking Elections Seriously, 33 Seattle U. L. Rev. 605 (2010), available on HeinOnline, LexisNexis, Westlaw.

Professor Andersen suggests that some problems cannot be fixed within the framework of our election system, but some can.

Some may decry big-money campaigns for judgeships, but Supreme Court precedent limits what can be done. And if there are to be elections, then judges will have to participate in campaigning -- raising money, giving speeches, and so on. To address problems resulting from this aspect of electing judges, Professor Andersen recommends revising the rules for recusal, and he says that "serious work is going on in professional bodies to make necessary revisions." (p. 609)

To make selection of judges more informed and transparent, Andersen urges "a borad-based and intentionally diverse citizen's commission charged with evaluating judicial candidates." (p. 614)

He also suggests regular, objective performance evaluations of judges, and he reports that systems for evaluating judges are being tried around the country (p. 612), citing the National Center for State Courts page on Judicial Performance Evaluation, which links to information from 18 states, including Washington. (By the way, the NCSC link is broken for Washington State's Walsh Commission Report, The People Shall Judge: Restoring Citizen Control to Judicial Selection (1996), but this link works. Prof. Andersen was a member of the Walsh Commission.)

King County judge charged over Knox letters

King County judge charged over Knox letters, SeattlePI.com, June 8, 2010.

Michael Heavey, a Superior Court judge who lives in West Seattle, is accused of violating the state's Code of Judicial Conduct by sending letters to three Italian judicial officials on Knox's behalf before her conviction in the murder of a fellow exchange student living with her in Perugia, Italy.

Judge Franklin Burgess Dies

Judge Franklin D. Burgess, the second African American judge in the Western District of Washington, died last week. Gonzaga star Judge Franklin Burgess a genuine legend, Seattle Times, March 27, 2010.

A Judge’s Unusual Request: Don’t Print This in Westlaw or Lexis - News - ABA Journal

Judge A. Howard Matz (C.D. Cal.) has issued orders marked: "This order is not intended for publication or for inclusion in the databases of Westlaw or Lexis." That is, "really, really unpublished." A Judge’s Unusual Request: Don’t Print This in Westlaw or Lexis - News - ABA Journal, March 11, 2010.

Stephen Montes, Matz’s courtroom deputy clerk, says the language is intended as a signal—and is not a command to Westlaw or Lexis.

“On the occasions when the judge has added that language, it was designed to signal to the reader that he knew that the analysis in the order was not necessarily definitive or exhaustive--that the order should not be viewed as something he intended to contribute to developing jurisprudence,” Montes writes in an e-mail to the ABA Journal.

Critics decry the creation of "secret" law and say it's useful for attorneys to learn how a judge has ruled even if the past decision lacks precedential value. And they also note that opinions can show up in many other online services besides the big two.