Diversity in the Profession: Plenary Session

Outgoing President Charlie Harris addressed a packed room in the Diversity Plenary Session
 
University of Missouri at Kansas City Dean Ellen Suni moderated a panel that included: UMKC Prof. Nancy Levit, Hon. Dennis Archer, Florida Bar President Francisco Angones, and former Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White.

Diversity Plenary Session Panlists

Ms. Levit began by discussing diversity statistics.  Ms. Levit praised "diversity of thought" as "centrally important," giving as an example a person with conservative political views feeling comfortable in a predominately liberal law firm. 
 
Mr. Archer discussed the "business case for diversity."  Companies who realize that people of color have "discretionary dollars" to spend will achieve success in ways that other companies will not.  While law firms should not "dilute[]" their requirements, firms should make an effort to recruit "outstanding" candidates of color.
 
Mr. Angones remarked that lawyers are "keepers" of the "ever-changing document" known as the Constitution.  Caucasians have benefitted from the struggles of women and African-Americans. 
 
Mr. White said that while many Missouri firms make an effort in recruitment, there is a "disconnect" in retention.  He informed the crowd that, as Chair of the Appellate Judicial Commission, he had tried to make sure the Governor had a diverse panel of choices.  Dspite criticism for having done so, Mr. White thought then and thinks now that it was "the right thing" to do.
 
During the Question and Answer session, Mr. Archer suggested that white males who do poorly on law firm assignments are given the "benefit of the doubt;" whereas, minorities who do poorly on assignments earn bad reputations, and thus secure less work.  Mr. White recounted that, out a room with nineteen white male attorneys and himself, the African-American judge singled out Mr. White.  The judge wished to hear Mr. White's perspective, which Mr. White attributed to his being the only person of color in the room.  

 
Bench Battles: Partisan & Nonpartisan Paths to Fair, Impartial Courts 

Prior to the panel discussion, projectors displayed a rotation of five ads attacking the judiciary.  Included was an advertisement criticizing a judge who released a pregnant woman's killer by relying on "foreign law" and an "unratified U.N. treaty," as well as a commercial attacking a judge identified as "Loophole Louie."
 
Charlie Harris introduced a panel moderated by Dr. Rick Hardy.  The panel participants included Hon. Rebecca Love Kourlis of the Colorado Supreme Court, Robert Grey, Jr. of the American Bar Association, former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Judge Chip Robertson, and Missouri Representative Stanley Cox. 

Judicial Selection Panelists

Ms. Kourlis, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Robertson argued that the Missouri Plan or some version thereof is the best way of choosing judges.  Ms. Kourlis explained that judges should not be alligned with ideology or a particular group and that everyone should be assured of fair treatment.  Mr. Grey explained that the Framers intended for only two branches of our government to be political.   
 
Mr. Robertson characterized the "fight" to reform as "insidious" and claimed that reformers wish to "make the system do what [they] want."  Citing unnamed "forces from outside of this state," Mr. Robertson warned that reformers were pushing Missouri toward elections. 
 
Mr. Cox replied that he knew of no "serious" attempt to elect judges.  Mr. Cox also cited a recent poll conducted by The Polling Company, which found that the majority of Missourians felt that having the Chief Judge on the Appellate Judicial Commission was improper, and 80% would prefer a more open process.
 
During the question and answer session, Ms. Kourlis explained that judges should be accountable for a fair process, not a particular outcome.  Mr. Robertson explained that the media is barred from the Appellate Judicial Commission's meetings to keep the AJC's members from "not saying the truth" or making decisions just to be popular.  When asked if there were no flaws in the Missouri Plan, Mr. Robertson said that there was no reason to change, absent bad outcomes.  Mr. Cox noted problems of perception--that Missourians may be dismayed to find that the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys so dominates the selection process.