Posted on 05/07/2006 9:43:41 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Hollywood stars and business moguls alike are paying retired jurists to quietly handle their civil disputes outside the glare of public courthouses, a practice some warn is creating a secret justice system for the rich and famous.
Under California law, the parties to a lawsuit can agree to hire a private judge who, unlike those paid to act as mediators or arbitrators, issue rulings that can be appealed.
Such cases are still subject to the same public access requirements of trials held in court, but often many of them prove difficult to track. Proceedings are held in private offices and documents don't always make it into the public record.
Two high-profile divorce cases - one involving Michael Jackson, the other supermarket magnate Ronald Burkle - has helped reignite the debate over private judges after the media was denied access to proceedings and case files.
"It's relatively easy for a temporary judge to be lax at the behest of the parties," said Los Angeles County Superior Court Presiding Judge William A. MacLaughlin, who is overseeing reform designed to prevent elite litigants from buying secrecy in public court proceedings.
Retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephen Lachs, who was paid to decide the Jackson and Burkle cases, said private judges are a popular option because they can devote more time to resolve cases quicker than the regular system.
He added celebrities don't hire private judges "to hide things."
Still, media attorney Susan E. Seager suggested the lack of public access in the Burkle and Jackson divorce cases "may be part of a larger trend toward secret divorce-court proceedings for celebrities and the wealthy."
No one knows exactly how many civil disputes are referred to retired judges each year. Among the celebrity couples who have hired their own judge to oversee their divorce proceedings are Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt; Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards; and Renee Zellweger and Kenny Chesney.
Experts say no one but an appellate court can force a retired judge to observe all the rules of access and disclosure, but that can often be cost-prohibitive.
California Chief Justice Ronald M. George said that while private judging performs several useful functions, it "runs the risk of creating a perception among the public that there is a two-track system of justice, one for those who are willing and able to pay the person they select to try their case and another track for those who have to wait their turn in court."
Lawyers who specialize in high-end divorces also say efficiency is the main issue, not privacy.
The retired jurists-for-hire set their own prices and have been known to get up to $550 an hour.
Isn't that special?
I know of this because a friend had to go after someone running a company that he was a major investor in.
They in fact did try to do it through the regular courts and were told to take this out and do it with a private Judge and to also go rent a hotel room or ball room to have the trial in.
They HAD to do it.
They were TOLD to do it.
It wasn't an option, the courts told them they should go run the show on their own. Retired judges and all as it said,
It was a civil issue though, wasn't a criminal trial.
Both sides had to agree on the venue and Judge, so I don't know how this effects the public at all besides saving them money.
I agree. More power to celebrities. The people who are upset about this are those in the tabloid and paparazzi industries. Bunch of lowlifes with nothing better to do than gossip about movie stars' lives.
by your last statement, do you support sharia then?
We peons have to get dragged thru the Judge Judy courts. Why should the rich and famous, get privacy breaks?
That is exactly what they told my friend when the regular courts forced them to go get a retired judge and run this case themself.
They said they wanted to save money and court rooms for other issues.
Judge Judy is an arbitration proceeding, which is mocked up to look like a trial.
most jurisdictions currently allow for non-judicial mediation this post was more angled towards pay-per-preference. which is wrong.
First heard about this on FR years back. Still not entirely sure what the problem is. Non-governmental arbitration can be just as binding, when set up right, and it doesn't clog the system, speeding the way for poorer folks' cases. Anna Nicole Smith's case is costing taxpayers money, despite the jobs it provides for paparazzi.
Judge Judy is a profit making entertainment that fools go hopping to get money. People go on the show knowing that the one or both of the two parties will get money from the show. There are several of places to go for getting help settling disputes without making a fool of yourself on national television, many Churches or law schools will offer free services to help settle disputes.
Judge Judy is a profit making entertainment that fools go hopping to get money. People go on the show knowing that the one or both of the two parties will get money from the show. There are several of places to go for getting help settling disputes without making a fool of yourself on national television, many Churches or law schools will offer free services to help settle disputes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.