The Seventh Circuit Responds To Judge Richard Posner

Chief Judge Diane Wood disputes Judge Richard Posner's claims about pro se litigants and cameras in the courtroom.

Posner v. Wood: game on.

After announcing his surprise retirement from the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner has been speaking about what he views as the problems of the court. In a series of interviews — with the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, with me for these pages, and with Adam Liptak of the New York Times — and in a new book, Judge Posner has been leveling candid critiques at his former court and colleagues.

What do the Seventh Circuit and Chief Judge Diane P. Wood have to say in response? I was struck by how media accounts of Judge Posner’s retirement repeated his complaints about the court’s treatment of pro se litigants without any counter from the court, so I reached out to Chief Judge Wood for comment.

And comment she did. After all, Chief Judge Wood — herself one of the most highly regarded members of the federal judiciary, who came very close to sitting on the Supreme Court (and who would have been a great addition to that bench) — isn’t afraid to mix it up with Judge Posner.

Chief Judge Wood sent me the following statement, responding to Judge Posner’s claims that (1) the Seventh Circuit staff attorneys aren’t sympathetic enough to pro se litigants, supposedly because the judges aren’t, and (2) the Seventh Circuit needs to start broadcasting its oral arguments:

First, while [Judge Posner] is certainly entitled to his own views about such matters as our Staff Attorney’s Office and the accommodations we make for pro se litigants, it is worth noting that his views about that Office are not shared by the other judges on the court, and his assumptions about the attitudes of the other judges toward pro se litigants are nothing more than that — assumptions. In fact, the judges and our staff attorneys take great care with pro se filings, and the unanimous view of the eleven judges on the Seventh Circuit (including actives and seniors) is that our staff attorneys do excellent work, comparable to the work done by our chambers law clerks. We are lucky to attract people of such high caliber for these two-year positions.

Second, as for televising oral arguments, there is actually not as much disagreement with Dick’s views as one might think. As the Third Circuit did a year or so ago, we are moving forward with a plan for televising, and I expect to see it in place before too much longer.

On the first issue, I don’t have enough knowledge to take a view on who’s in the right about the Staff Attorney’s Office (although I can state, based on knowing some of them, that the Seventh Circuit staff attorneys are an impressive group). The key thing to note is that there’s another view on this issue besides Judge Posner’s — and that this opposing viewpoint is more widely shared, at least among Seventh Circuit judges.

Sponsored

On the second issue, my reaction is: YAY! I have long been a proponent of televising appellate arguments. This helps to educate the public about the judicial branch — thousands of people tuned in to watch Ninth Circuit oral arguments about same-sex marriage and the travel ban, for example — and it has pretty much no downside.

My only regret: Judge Posner is no longer on the bench to be televised. Because when Dick Posner is lighting into a hapless advocate, appellate arguments aren’t just educational, they’re entertaining.

Reforming the Federal Judiciary: My Former Court Needs to Overhaul Its Staff Attorney Program and Begin Televising Its Oral Arguments [Amazon]

Earlier:

Sponsored


DBL square headshotDavid Lat is the founder and managing editor of Above the Law and the author of Supreme Ambitions: A Novel. He previously worked as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at dlat@abovethelaw.com.