US District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe this fall took over as Chief Judge of the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire, replacing Judge Paul Barbadoro. The administrative position rotates to the next most senior judge after a fixed seven-year term. Via e-mail, Judge McAuliffe answered some questions about his perspective on his new duties and other developments in the court.

Question: How will the recent US Supreme Court decision play out with regard to sentencing in the NH district?

McAuliffe: The Booker and Fanfan cases return a degree of discretion to sentencing judges, and effectively make the Guidelines guidelines, rather than the inflexible mandatory minimum sentencing ranges they had largely become over the years. I, for one, find the Guidelines very helpful (as guidelines) in reminding me to consider all relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence in a given case. Obviously, federal sentencing is a hot topic of discussion in the legal profession and in the Congress, and no doubt we haven't heard the last word yet. In the near term, I expect sentencing will be more complex than it was pre-Booker. (See District Court Administrative Order on page 24).

A greater burden has been placed on both prosecutors and defense counsel to develop the record regarding the discretionary sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. ss 3353. Greater responsibility now rests upon district judges to craft sentences tailored to the specific circumstances of the offenses committed, as well as to the individual characteristics and histories of the defendants appearing for sentencing.

It's a two-way street, however - discretion can be exercised to increase as well as decrease the sentencing ranges that once were fairly firm. We don't yet know if our docket will experience a sharp increase in collateral review petitions following Booker, and, of course, no one yet knows what the Supreme Court meant when it established "reasonableness" as the standard for sentence review on appeal. Time will tell.

Question: What impact will there be with a change in the administrative judge?

McAuliffe: Our court is very collegial. We all get along rather well, both personally and officially, and administer by consensus. So, the change in administration doesn't mean very much from a practical (or any other) point of view. By statute, each district judge has a vote in governing the court, so policy is not set solely by whoever happens to be Chief Judge, but by the court as a whole - and we include the magistrate judge in all court meetings and policy discussions and determinations.

As might be expected, the Chief Judge does handle many matters that are routine and don't warrant the attention of the full court, but even as to those matters the other District judges and magistrate judge are kept informed. The Chief Judge also presides at full court sessions, and ceremonies, and assumes responsibility for budgeting, record keeping, property management, personnel matters, etc.

We are very fortunate to have Jim Starr as our Clerk and Dan Lynch as our Chief Deputy Clerk - it will come as no surprise to those who know me that my intent is to continue our practice of leaving as much of the court's administration to Jim and Dan as is possible (indeed, I am actively seeking to delegate even more administrative functions than did my predecessors). We think of Jim as the CEO and the judges as the Board - - we rely upon him to keep the administrative ship sailing on course; we intervene in things administrative only when we are required to by law or rule, or when Jim thinks we should, or the circumstances genuinely warrant it.

I did suggest that my caseload should be substantially reduced due to the increased responsibility I am assuming, but the ideal of consensus failed and the vote was 3-1 against that happening.

Question: What is the biggest challenge facing the court?

McAuliffe: The most troubling issue presently facing our court is the federal budget. We are painfully aware that we do not suffer from the same lack of resources experienced by the state judiciary, and, comparatively, we are better off in terms of available resources, so don't have the same standing. But, still, we are looking at a very real possibility of a 30 percent reduction in funding, and past budget shortfalls have already reduced our Clerk's Office staff to its lowest level in 12 years.

Our staff has routinely and repeatedly received the highest marks from the Bar for service and friendly assistance, but they are now overworked and stretched thin; we would hate to see the high level of service our staff has worked so hard to maintain suffer due to underfunding, but that's the reality right now. Needless to say, we are all very proud of the work our staff does and the recognition they receive, and we will do the absolute most we can to protect that core function.

On a completely different front, another issue I would like to see addressed relates to our appointed criminal defense panel. We need more attorneys of experience and accomplishment to join our CJA panel - and not just experienced attorneys, but younger capable attorneys as well. I have asked {Federal Practice Section Chair] Larry Vogelman to think about ways in which we can elevate the level of CJA practice in our court. It's fine now, but could be much better, and we would hope to develop the same high level of representation from the CJA panel that we regularly see from the Federal Defenders.

Question: What do you believe were the accomplishments of Judge Barbadoro as Chief Judge, and what will be your priorities?

McAuliffe: We had a small in-house ceremony of sorts when I took over, and I was dismayed to hear that one is expected to develop a "legacy." Chief Judge Barbadoro developed an admirable legacy - initiating the electronic filing system; making the courtrooms high-tech; starting the Federal Practice Section of the Bar Association, creating the Federal Court Advisory Committee to keep us aware of the Bar's pulse and help administer the court and the library fund, and other accomplishments too numerous to mention.

My immediate legacy goal is to do no harm. I would also like to see more involvement by the court in public education initiatives. For the past few years we have participated in a national program aimed at high school students which has proven successful, and I would like to see more of that, as well as more effort on our part to reach out to ordinary citizens to explain the structure and processes of the Judicial Branch, and why our nation's tradition of judicial independence has made all the difference in maintaining the freedom we enjoy today.

My administrative priorities are simply stated: Continue to give Jim Starr the support he needs to run the efficient, effective, and friendly service organization he has put together here. He and Dan Lynch have done an outstanding job implementing the electronic case filing system, and that continuing smooth transition remains a priority (yes, it is difficult for judges to get used to ECF also, but it is well worth the effort - I was able to work for a week from a computer in another state back in December, without having to carry a suitcase full of files).

I have less patience than most for bureaucratic nonsense, and fortunately we only see that occasionally, and then it's from Washington. We strive to oppose it when we confront it, and my personal goal is to eliminate as many administrative hassles as possible. Toward that end, I welcome input and suggestions from anyone who thinks we're doing something that causes as many problems as we are solving. I also hope to expand the functions of the Federal Court Advisory Committee in our continuing effort to work cooperatively with the Bar.

Question: How is the electronic filing implementation going?

McAuliffe: Electronic filing is working extraordinarily well. As with any new system, there are isolated glitches, some unexpected nuances, some getting-used-to-it-all, but, all in all, I think it is terrific. There can be little doubt that this is the future and it is only a matter of time before the state seeks to implement an electronic filing system as well. I would encourage all attorneys to attend one of the (free) ECF training sessions we put on (and, equally as important, have their administrative assistants attend!), as well as to visit our court website (www.nhd.uscourts.gov) and become familiar with the ECF resources available.

Attorneys frustrated by ECF or high tech presentation equipment are usually ones who haven't attended training, or haven't learned how to operate the equipment available. Let me stress that the Clerk's Office stands ready to help anyone struggling with ECF . . . counsel/assistants should take advantage of the training/materials, and try to work out any problems, but don't waste hours on a problem that's stumping you when a call or email to the Clerk's Office or to Dan Lynch might solve the problem easily - an ECF problem may seem unique and insurmountable to you, but it also could well be a recurring issue easily resolved by a known fix. Feel free to ask for help.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer