I have been practicing law in New Hampshire for over 20 years.  One of my heroes and role models is David Nixon.  As a lawyer, and, now as Bar president, I consider Dave not only a valuable colleague but a friend.  However, I want to address a part of his Jan. 6 Bar News article regarding the Superior Court.

First, I join Dave in the theme of his letter – that we must remain vigilant about the adequacy of resources for the Superior Court.  As our court of general jurisdiction, it is critical that now and in future, adequate resources are devoted to it.  As a result of historical budget practices by the Legislature, resources in the superior courts (and for that matter, all courts) have been strained.  Our bar’s response has been to engage in frequent candid and frank discussions with Chief Justice Lynn and other Superior Court judges when such issues arise, since many of them can be overcome without money or added staff.  We have had a number of rewarding meetings – and speaking for the Board of Governors, they have been terrific in educating both the court and our bar.

We have encouraged our Board to seek input from bar members – good or bad – about the courts, so we can provide meaningful, accurate information to the administrative judges.  Sometimes those concerns are global enough that we address them with the Supreme Court.

However, I disagree with the supposition in the letter that the improved relationship between the Legislature and the Supreme Court impairs the independence and impartiality of the Court.

First, in a mid-winter CLE four years ago, I, along with other bar members told the administrative judges that we were tired of the legislative practice of granting the courts (and for that matter, state agencies and departments) increases in funding various initiatives, and then rescinding that increase in a footnote requiring an across-the-board cut.  We said we were tired of hearing that the Legislature did not believe the implications of short-funding the justice system.  Why couldn’t the courts, we asked, create a dialogue with the Legislature so that the judicial branch budget was dealt with candidly and credibly?  At the time, we admitted that forging such a relationship was a pipe dream.

That relationship has been forged.  This year’s budget, while it does not contain an abundance of new resources, demonstrates that the Legislature appreciates and respects the new dialogue and has begun to accept the word of the Court about the impact of funding decisions.  This environment did not occur suddenly.  It was the result of hard work by the Court to create an open, candid atmosphere with legislative leaders. Bar members are applauding the Court for this new atmosphere of cooperation and understanding, and we hope it continues.  It has allowed our bar to begin forging relationships with the Legislature and the current Governor that haven’t been as productive in years.

We need these relationships to continue.  As Dave points out, the justice system needs greater resources.  Technology in the courts must be improved.  New courthouses must be built.  Administrative staffing in all branches of our court system must be reinforced.  Moreover, access to justice by those most in need must be tackled.  Lawyers for those in jeopardy of losing their homes, their families or benefits that allow them to survive – the so-called “Civil Gideon” — must be provided.  Those needs require cooperation and dialogue among all branches of government.  They will not be solved if the judicial branch isolates itself.  And they cannot be solved by the Court alone.

Second, as lawyers, we pride ourselves on our ability to communicate openly, civilly and candidly with one another, even when we represent zealous adversaries, without compromising our clients’ objectives or positions.  Our most productive relationships in the world of advocacy are with those lawyers with whom we can have open, frank dialogues.  Our worst relationships are with those whom we cannot trust, or communicate with.  That communication makes our system better and stronger, and helps us resolve (or at least understand) the problems that our clients face.  Our court is doing the same thing.

Finally, there is no evidence that the court’s independence or impartiality has been compromised.  As recently as 18 months ago, the Court ruled that the Legislature unconstitutionally exceeded its authority in attempting to de-unify our bar and create its own judicial conduct commission.  This occurred at the same time that the Court was reaching out to the Legislature, and the relationship was not shattered.  To be certain, there are still legislative measures which seek to erode the co-equal status of the judicial branch.  There will be times when the will of the legislature collides with the requirements of our Constitution, as interpreted by our courts.  But I do not see evidence that the Court’s dialogue has compromised its ability to rule independently on those difficult issues.

As a result, I believe that even the suggestion that the court’s independence and impartiality has been compromised does nothing for the integrity of the system that Dave and I both admire and respect.  And I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will sustain its improved relationship with the Legislature so that we are assured of adequate resources for the justice system.

Richard Y. Uchida, President

NH Bar Association

Richard Uchida is at the Bar Center most Mondays (excluding holidays) from 9 a.m. until noon to meet with members or take their phone calls.  To make an appointment, call 603/224-5004 or e-mail at richarduchida@hebertanduchida.com.

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