Earlier today I was searching (in vain) at the Courant’s website for news of Martha Dean’s lawsuit against Jepsen, when I came upon this column by Rick Green, who has some unkind words to say about Martha. (So far as I can see, the case is still undecided, and is not even mentioned on the front page of the Courant’s website).
What interested me was the comments to Green’s column. The rightwingers felt that Jepsen should, to borrow a phrase, “man up” and prove his eligibility for the office. It all seemed oddly reminiscent of the birther’s approach to Obama: it’s up to him to prove he’s an American citizen, bearing in mind that nothing he says or does will ever convince them. And so, of course, it will be for a time with Jepsen. Nothing he says will satisfy any of them.
When I first heard about the lawsuit, I did a little searching around on the Judicial Department website. You can view the entire list of Martha Dean’s cases here. Now, a few caveats. These only go back to 1995 and they don’t include criminal cases. But in that entire time, and it’s now fifteen years, Dean’s firm has entered appearances in only nine cases (There are no cases listed under her personal juris number). I don’t know if there are other attorneys in the firm, but lets assume that there aren’t, to give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume she was lead counsel (for her client) in all nine. Of those nine cases, one went to trial. In one, she her client was not a party; she represented someone who was seeking a protective order, likely to avoid being deposed. In that case Dean was one of eight defense lawyers (there were numerous defendants), including two assistant attorney generals, at least one town attorney, and two high powered Hartford firms, so I’d bet a pretty penny that she was a minor player in the case. In another, her client was not a party; she represented someone who was seeking a protective order, likely to avoid being deposed. In one, the case appears to have been dismissed because Dean failed to prosecute. In others, there’s no reason to think there was any need for her to actually enter a courtroom. Hardly a hefty litigation resume. I’ve shifted my practice almost entirely out of civil litigation, but I have had more active cases than Dean just in the past few years, and I’ve certainly tried more cases in the last year than she has in the last 15.
Now the court decision required “some measure of experience in trying cases”, a phrase that, under the circumstances, amounts to almost judicial malpractice on the Supreme Court’s part. What is that measure, and what makes Dean think she has met it. In my opinion, the concurring judges were right, the litigation requirement makes no sense. But the majority rules, and what’s sauce for the goose, etc. Were I the trial judge in the Jepsen case, I’d make Dean prove her qualifications before I granted her standing to challenge Jepsen.
By the way, I’m not saying she’s unqualified. I think she is, at least, qualified under the statute, as is Jepsen. She’s bat-shit crazy, but that’s another issue.
Postscript: I should point out that small claims and housing cases don’t come up on the court’s website, so Dean might have done a lot of those.
Postscript: A commenter, who I think made the same comment on the Green piece, points out that I didn’t check the federal courts, and that Jepsen is not even admitted to the 2d Circuit or the Supreme Court. The statute refers to active practice “at the bar of this state”, so the federal courts are irrelevant. That doesn’t make sense, but neither does the litigation requirement the court grafted into the statute. I suspect, in addition, that Ms. Dean’s federal court experience is as thin as her state court experience, and I would add that nowadays, you can litigate scores of federal cases without ever walking into court. Oral argument on motions is rare, and lots of cases are decided by summary judgment. As to the Second Circuit, I’m not admitted there either, since I’ve never had the need to join, and you have to jump through too many hoops to do so. It’s not worth doing unless you actually have a case to argue there. I’ve no doubt there are many top notch lawyers in this state, who have extensive practices in the state courts, who never handled a case in the Second Circuit. On the other hand, I’m sure there are lawyers who go out of their way to get admitted to the Second Circuit even though they have no need to do so. The Supreme Court is the opposite. Any lawyer can get admitted to the Supreme Court bar with little to no effort. It’s totally meaningless. Lot’s of lawyers do it to impress, but it doesn’t mean they’ve ever been to the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter.
One Comment