Reply #22: yeah

[Baltasar D. Cruz]

You're right about the PJC (to which I have not proposed any changes; mea culpa for being sloppy in my prior response) but your reference to the Family Code is not relevant. Guardian Ad Litems appointed pursuant to the Family Code serve a different function in different kinds of cases than Guardian Ad Litems appointed pursuant to Rule 173 TRCP. The common nomenclature is unfortunate and can easily be confusing.

The legislature has generally left it to the courts to police themselves and it would be difficult to get the Texas legislature to expand its role into policing judicial conduct.

Take a look at the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which has been promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court. http://www.courts.state.tx.us/judethics/canons.asp The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct requires a Judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. It is appropriate for the Texas Supreme Court to identify conduct which should be prohibited for these reasons and it has already done so with regards to certain conduct. I think that soliciting and accepting political contributions from parties and litigants in a judge's courts should also be expressly prohibitted by the Texas Supreme Court.

Each civil court in Texas follows its own procedural guidelines for appointing mediators. Many courts order mediation and appoint a mediator of the court's chosing in every case, even when the cost of mediation would exceed the amount in controversy! Usually lawyers prefer to select their own mediators and have to incur the expense of filing a motion to substitute mediators. I want to do away with that expense (by allowing parties to agree to a mediator) and to stop requiring mediations in cases where the amount in controversy does not justify the expense of mediation. These are also procedural matters which it is appropriate for the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to address.

You will never get the Texas legislature to address any of these issues for a variety of reasons, including the fact that these are largely procedural matters which are best left to the Texas Supreme Court to address. Samuel A. Houston will not address these issues. I already have.