Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | Trial

Do private judges need more public scrutiny?

Article Excerpt
When Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston divorced last year, they hired a private judge to hear their case. So did Heather Locklear and Richie Sambora--after a battle of legal filings challenging the objectivity of two successive state-assigned judges. And Michael Jackson opted to do the same in a custody hearing.

The use of "rent-a-judges" has become popular in California and Texas, where it is favored by celebrities and other wealthy people because it speeds up their cases and--perhaps more important--keeps the details of their personal lives out of the public eye.

A private judge--typically a retired judge, sometimes a lawyer--usually hears cases in a conference room or lawyer's office. Some private judges have special facilities designed for the purpose. Both parties in a dispute must agree to use a private judge, agree on which judge to hire, and pay his or her fees, which can range from $200 to $500 an hour or more.

Lawmakers in several states--including California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas--have passed legislation allowing the use of private judges to resolve disputes. The practice is most popular in California, where there are reportedly around 500 working private judges; Ohio has only about 15. Some states limit the types of cases that private judges may hear. In Indiana, for example, they are limited to disputes involving contract law, tort law, or a combination of the two.

It is difficult to estimate the number of people using private judges; no state agency tracks hearings held by private judges. But there is no question that this alternative to the traditional court system is gaining popularity...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!