Times Top News

Times Top News

Summit offered research-based roadmap for law firms seeking to implement generative AI

by | Apr 11, 2025 | Law



I was honored to facilitate the “What’s Hot?” session for leading large law firm innovation professionals at the 2025 invitation-only Strategic Knowledge & Innovation Legal Leaders’ Summit in New York City on March 27, with Oz Benamram, the event’s co-founder and the former chief knowledge and innovation officer at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

In a combination of discussion and exploration of survey research, the conversation served as a roadmap for law firms aiming to advance their practices into the future.

The SKILLS survey interviewed approximately 100 professionals in the first quarter of 2025 regarding their use of various artificial intelligence applications. The research respondents primarily came from large law firms, although firms of all sizes that emphasize innovation were encouraged to participate. The overwhelming majority (70) were based in the United States, with nine from the United Kingdom, eight from Canada and 13 from international law firms, mainly split between New York and London headquarters and various other countries. Completing the survey was a requirement to attend SKILLS.

Large law firms are deploying generative AI

The report identified 22 use cases and 180 solutions. On average, the law firm leaders that responded have 18 active generative AI solutions, six in a pilot phase and 22 under consideration. The most common use cases included contract drafting, time entry, due diligence and legal research.

One foundational principle resonating with the group is the leadership essential for driving change, and participants offered several recommendations to gain support. First, effective change management demands consistent communication from the top down throughout the organization. Second, innovation leaders who report directly to an executive, including the managing partner, may wield more influence in implementing change. Third, cross-functional leadership can enhance a team’s value for specific projects.

Nearly all SKILLS law firms have AI use policies

Nearly all law firms that responded (99%) have an AI use policy. However, fewer firms have developed an AI strategy (92%) or created an AI task force (87%). These results underscore the significant importance that law firm leaders place on tactical AI guidance, effective deployment protocols and collaborative talent.

They also serve as vital benchmarks for innovation teams dedicated to laying the groundwork for new initiatives. Without policies, strategies and skilled teams, companies may struggle to gain the essential trust of their internal stakeholders and clients needed to succeed with generative AI. This is particularly important as many legal professionals still fear and remain unfamiliar with several AI applications used by the respondents.

Developing an AI roadmap requires leadership and a framework

During the discussion, attendees recommended that policies governing the use of artificial intelligence include provisions for ethics, restrictions on firm-approved products, the significance of human involvement and a framework for risk assessment. Companies should also enhance their efforts by collaborating with external providers to supplement limited in-house resources.

While the adoption of generative AI at some firms is strong and sustained, the audience agreed that no clear demographic patterns exist. One attendee noted that the more senior a professional is, the greater value they can derive from using an AI platform by asking “smarter questions,” given their depth of knowledge and ability to add substance to a prompt.

Innovation teams are adapting to the shift from tools to transformation

Unsurprisingly, the innovation teams at the responding law firms hold primary responsibility for implementing the firms’ AI strategies (59%), closely followed by knowledge management (44%) and IT (43%), both of which share a similar level of oversight.

While the innovation team’s involvement has remained stable over the past year (59% in 2025 compared to 62% in 2024), knowledge management (44% in 2025 compared to 63% in 2024) and IT (43% in 2025 compared to 74% in 2024) have seen changes. Additionally, a quarter of respondents in 2024 indicated that other departments provided input, and 15% relied on external support for their AI initiatives.

Specific law firm trends have influenced which teams are responsible for certain actions. The discussion among law firm leaders regarding the deployment of artificial intelligence has quickly transitioned from technology to transformation. Law firms are increasingly reexamining their entire suite of applications and evaluating the quality and integrity of their data to ensure that any large language models they use can deliver the best results.

In 2025, this will concentrate less on technology and more on redefining the law firm’s strategy for maximizing the value of its information. Consequently, the innovation, IT and knowledge management teams will work together to navigate AI’s transformative impact on the firm.

Many organizations lacked clarity a year ago as law firms were still assessing potential applications and use cases. The rapid pace of AI development and the insatiable demand for its availability necessitates a cross-functional and interdisciplinary team to drive the firm forward, with a designated ambassador coordinating its proliferation. That diplomat is the head of innovation at many firms, whose responsibilities are broader and deeper than in 2024, yet the diplomatic corps remains multifaceted.

In particular, the role of IT teams in law firms has become significantly more prominent since the pandemic. As budgets have increased, cybersecurity has become essential, and growth is closely aligned with technology. This position emphasizes holistic operational excellence rather than merely digital transformation.

Another important trend to note is the expansion of knowledge management to include innovation, legal operations and artificial intelligence. Today, law firms frequently recruit talent from knowledge management and either assign responsibilities for innovation or promote a KM leader to a broader innovation-focused role. While only 35% of respondents work at firms that have appointed a “Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer” or created a similar leadership position, this will likely change and influence who addresses or navigates these challenges.

While the data indicates that innovation teams are becoming the primary AI stakeholders, the ownership structure remains more nuanced due to overlapping talent and experience. Additionally, more professionals use the term “innovation” in their titles.

The majority of law firms have deployed generative AI

More than two-thirds of participants (73%) have implemented an internal generative AI solution—either developed an AI chatbot internally or deployed one through a secure API. Sixteen percent reported that they built or commissioned a custom internal language model. Although uncommon, almost a quarter (24%) have created client-facing or revenue-generating products using generative AI. This trend appears to mirror the actions of law firms several years ago, which initially developed mobile apps for internal use and later began offering more comprehensive versions to clients.

One participant suggested creating a fully accessible library for generative AI prompts and project-specific recommendations, akin to Netflix for queries.

OpenAI’s GPT is the leading LLM in law firms, but the generative AI support market is fragmented

Among the 73% of respondents who have implemented a generative AI solution, about three-quarters (76%) use OpenAI’s GPT as their foundational LLM model. Anthropic’s Claude ranks second with 19%, while Google‘s Gemini ranks third with 15%. Interestingly, 3% reported developing with China’s DeepSeek.

A third (33%) reported using an external provider to help them build their language model; however, the market remains fragmented. Respondents mentioned about 15 applied AI partners. Although consolidation is expected, the current demand will likely drive short-term growth rather than contraction in the provider market.

Encouraging the adoption of generative AI remains challenging

While 73% of respondents indicated that their firms utilize a legal AI assistant or chatbot, 62% have adopted the application across the entire firm or a substantial subset for testing purposes.

Adoption rates have remained low, with only 22% reporting a 50% to 100% adoption rate. This low adoption level is one reason certain teams stopped using specific tools. Other factors include cost-effectiveness and the availability of better alternatives. As the market grows and the barriers to entry diminish due to advancements in robust AI models, competition will continue to intensify.

To ensure success, the attendees agreed that law firms should begin their initiatives with individuals who are willing and passionate, especially since adoption is rising within the existing user base rather than from a surge in new participants in any given project.

Additionally, when evaluating technology and processes, exploring markets beyond the United States, especially in Europe, can be advantageous for generating fresh ideas and acquiring a thorough understanding of the evolving legal industry.

In some firms, discussions about generative AI use cases are reigniting interest in document automation. It is experiencing a renaissance, as it may provide a more effective and cost-efficient solution to the challenges that some professionals expect generative AI to address.

AI legal assistants and chatbots are leading use cases

The research indicated that an AI legal assistant or chatbot was the most popular use case. Other significant applications included data extraction, summarization, legal drafting, contract review and analysis, proofreading, research and searching. In contrast, the least cited applications were patent and IP drafting, litigation management, automation of discovery responses, pitches and proposals, and compliance.

When considering a new application, “try to avoid signing a long-term agreement,” advised an audience member, who added, “Price renewals are also absurd, and a similar tool is often available at half the cost with better functionality.” A peer offered, “Applications without a unique value proposition, i.e., a moat protecting their competitive advantage, may not be worth a long-term investment.” Finally, one participant cautioned, “Don’t try to learn everything because the technology will continue to evolve and only get faster.”

Ari Kaplan is a lawyer and legal industry analyst who publishes benchmarking reports on legal technology trends and is an experienced webinar and conference facilitator.

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.





Source link

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees to license suspension for alleged election-review misconduct

by | Apr 11, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees…

Judiciary

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees to license suspension for alleged election-review misconduct

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, an investigator hired by Republicans to look into President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss, refused to answer questions from Circuit Court Judge Frank Remington while on the stand in 2022. (Amber Arnold/Wisconsin State Journal via AP, File)

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Gableman has agreed to the suspension of his law license to resolve an ethics complaint that stems from his investigation of the 2020 election for the Wisconsin State Assembly.

Gableman and the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation agreed a three-year suspension of Gableman’s law license is an appropriate sanction in a stipulation signed on April 7 and filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court must approve the suspension.

The stipulation acknowledges that Gableman can’t successfully defend against the misconduct allegations.

The Associated Press, Reuters and the Washington Post have coverage. Law Forward had filed a grievance against Gableman, according to a press release.

Gableman’s $2.3 million election review did not find significant fraud, according to past reporting by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The ethics complaint accused Gableman of failing to tell a legislative committee about cooperation by the cities of Madison and Green Bay in Wisconsin and falsely stating in court documents that the cities’ mayors had failed to appear for depositions without justification.

He was also accused of criticizing a judge instead of responding to questions during a court hearing on a group’s public-records request in Dane County, Wisconsin. He claimed that Judge Frank Remington “has abandoned his role as a neutral magistrate” and later said, “You want to put me in jail, Judge Remington? I’m not gonna be railroaded.”

“With this deal,” said Jeff Mandell, president and general counsel of Law Forward, “Gableman stipulates that he misled courts, lied in public meetings, and violated government transparency laws.”

Gableman served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 2008 to 2018. He filed the stipulation a week after a Democratic-backed candidate won election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, giving the court a 4-3 liberal majority, the Washington Post points out.





Source link

‘Stay out of my shorts,’ other discourteous comments led to censure for New York judge

by | Apr 10, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. ‘Stay out of my shorts,’ other discourteous…

Judiciary

‘Stay out of my shorts,’ other discourteous comments led to censure for New York judge

By Debra Cassens Weiss

A New York judge who didn’t want to transition to new case-tracking systems has agreed to a censure for gratuitous and discourteous remarks that he made while expressing his displeasure to colleagues and to officials who transferred him to a new court. (Image from Shutterstock)

Updated: A New York judge who didn’t want to transition to new case-tracking systems has agreed to a censure for gratuitous and discourteous remarks that he made while expressing his displeasure to colleagues and to officials who transferred him to a new court.

The remarks by Judge Daniel L. Seiden of the Binghamton City Court in New York contributed to a hostile work environment, according to an April 8 press release by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Seiden raised his voice and told the chief clerk and the deputy chief clerk to “stay out of my shorts” when they came to his office in April 2023 to discuss a change to a check-box case-history system, according to a March 28 determination and an agreed statement of facts signed in February.

Seiden said the “stay out of my shorts” comment was intended to convey “stay out of my business as a judge.”

Then when the administrative judge announced that the court was going to implement a new web-based case-filing system, Seiden declared in an email that he will always ask the clerks for physical files when he is on the bench.

Seiden emailed senior court officials in October 2024 after he was told of his reassignment.

“The game that you are playing, using an administrative trick to de facto remove me from my elected position for your own nefarious purposes, is a dangerous one: trying to get in the back door what you will probably never get through the front door, all the while depriving the citizens of Binghamton of their elected official while brazenly violating several state statutes,” he wrote.

He also said the officials’ “arrogance is breathtaking,” they “are utterly out of control and intoxicated by power and privilege,” and they used “administrative sleight of hand.”

During the ethics proceeding, Seiden was “cooperative and contrite,” according to the statement of facts. He has also completed civility training.

Seiden apologized to the clerks and judges for his “unprofessional remarks” and “appreciates that an apology to them at the time would have been appropriate,” the statement of facts said.

Robert H. Tembeckjian, the judicial conduct commission’s administrator, said in a statement judges must be patient, dignified and courteous.

“Petulant quarreling with colleagues is neither productive nor conducive to the administration of justice,” Tembeckjian said.

In a separate action, Seiden sought to be transferred back to the Binghamton City Court. The court to which he was reassigned is 45 miles from his residence, and his transfer there was arbitrary and capricious, he argued in a Jan. 7 mandamus petition that is pending in the Appellate Division’s Third Judicial Department of the New York Supreme Court.

The petition said Seiden’s statement to “stay out of my shorts” was misinterpreted as sexual in nature and may have been used to justify the July 23, 2024, transfer order, which was made without notice and without explanation. The same day that he received the order, he was escorted from the Binghamton City Court premises “in full view” of his colleagues, the petition said.

The petition also referenced “a corrosive culture in Binghamton City Court” because of the marriage of two officials that is “perhaps not technically nepotistic or illegal.”

A Feb. 25 letter indicated that the parties were in settlement negotiations.

Seiden declined the ABA Journal’s request for comment but informed the Journal in an email that he is scheduled to resume regular duties in the Binghamton City Court on April 28, and he is still working in the Cortland City Court in New York.

His judicial term expires in 2034, but he will have to retire at the end of 2028 because he turns 70 years old that year.

Hat tip to the Legal Profession Blog, which noted the censure.

Updated April 11 at 11:04 a.m. after Judge Daniel L. Seiden declined to comment and provided his return-to-office date. Updated April 11 at 2:29 p.m. to include information on Seiden’s mandamus petition.





Source link

Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t harm public confidence in judiciary, judicial council rules

by | Apr 10, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t…

Judiciary

Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t harm public confidence in judiciary, judicial council rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Judge Stephen A. Vaden of the U.S. Court of International Trade responds to a question during a U.S. Senate hearing to examine his nomination to be the deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture on April 8. (Photo by Mattie Neretin/Sipa USA/Sipa via the Associated Press)

A judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade did not violate ethics rules by refusing to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University, according to the judicial council of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago.

In an April 8 decision, the council dismissed the complaint against Judge Stephen A. Vaden, one of 13 federal judges who participated in the boycott and explained why in a letter to the school.

Law360, Reuters and the Volokh Conspiracy have coverage.

President Donald Trump has nominated Vaden to be the deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Reuters reports. A U.S. Senate panel had a hearing on his nomination Tuesday.

The judges had refused to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University or Columbia Law School because of the university’s handling of disruptions caused by pro-Palestinian protesters. Columbia has become “an incubator of bigotry,” the judges said in their letter to Columbia, and the judges have lost confidence in the institution.

Vaden’s boycott and his signature on the letter do not harm the integrity of the judicial office, do not harm public confidence in the judiciary, and do not cast doubt on his impartiality, the judicial council said.

“A judge may refuse to hire law clerks from a law school or university that has, in the judge’s view, failed to foster important aspects of higher education, like civility in discourse, respect for freedom of speech and viewpoint nondiscrimination,” the opinion said.

The chief judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade had transferred the ethics complaint against Vaden to the 7th Circuit’s judicial council for review. The person who filed the ethics complaint is in prison for his role in firebombing and vandalizing Jewish synagogues.

Vaden was represented by the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit conservative legal organization, and Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly.

Judicial councils have also tossed ethics complaints against 11 of the other 12 boycotting judges, including, apparently, two federal appeals judges: Judge James C. Ho of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans and, according to Reuters, Judge Elizabeth L. Branch of the 11th Circuit at Atlanta.





Source link

‘There is no question that we will fight,’ says latest law firm targeted in Trump executive order

by | Apr 10, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. ‘There is no question that we will fight,’…

Law Firms

‘There is no question that we will fight,’ says latest law firm targeted in Trump executive order

By Debra Cassens Weiss

The latest law firm targeted by the Trump administration, Susman Godfrey, won’t be the last, President Donald Trump said Wednesday. (Photo from Shutterstock)

The latest law firm targeted by the Trump administration, Susman Godfrey, won’t be the last, President Donald Trump said Wednesday.

Trump said the administration had signed deals with many targeted firms, and, “We have another five to go,” Bloomberg Law reports.

Other publications with coverage include Law.com and Reuters.

Susman plans to fight the executive order signed by Trump on Wednesday. It is the sixth firm targeted by Trump in punitive orders because of their representation of clients and causes adverse to Trump.

One of the targeted firms—Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison—is no longer subject to an order because of a deal that it reached with Trump that included an agreement to provide $40 million in pro bono services to mutually supported pro bono projects.

Three other firms also reached deals with Trump to avoid future executive orders targeting them.

Susman vowed to fight in a statement published on its website.

“Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it,” the statement said. “This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”

The Susman order seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman has been hired to provide services, including contracts retained by its clients.

Susman was one of the firms that filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News for false claims that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems were used to help former President Joe Biden win the 2020 election. The case settled for $787.5 million.

The executive order alleged that Susman “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.”

According to Bloomberg Law, “Susman is home to some of the country’s top trial lawyers and is well-known for taking major contingency fee cases.” It has profits of nearly $7 million per partner in fiscal year 2023.

Executive orders that targeted Paul Weiss and three other firms included provisions similar to the Susman executive order. A memo targeting Covington & Burling was more limited.

In addition to Paul Weiss, the firms that reached deals with Trump are Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Each of those three firms agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono services to mutually agreeable pro bono projects.

Firms that sued over the executive orders are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie. They have all obtained temporary restraining orders blocking many sections of the executive orders.

See also:

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?





Source link

Dialogue on Deregulation, Politicization: Arizona vice chief justice discusses innovation, retention elections

by | Apr 10, 2025 | Law



Bold. Innovative. Visionary. At a time when many courts are losing the battle to provide access to justice, especially in low-income communities, the Arizona Supreme Court has brought fresh ideas to bridge the justice gap.

Vice Chief Justice John Lopez, at the invitation of the ABA Crossroads Caucus, discussed innovations his court has recently put in place in a conversation with moderator Mark Martin, dean of High Point University School of Law at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Phoenix in February.

As reported by the Legal Services Corporation in its most recent Justice Gap Study in 2022, low-income Americans do not get any or enough legal help for 92% of their substantive civil legal problems. To address this issue, Lopez and his colleagues have focused on improving access to legal services by lowering costs and increasing options. For lower income citizens, the court approved several programs, including the Legal Paraprofessional Program, the Lawyer Apprentice Program, the Legal Advocate Program and the Government Law Admission Program.

The Legal Paraprofessional Program, to highlight a very successful program, has been in operation since early 2021. It grants a license that allows nonlawyers to offer limited legal services, including legal advice; drafting and filing legal documents, opinions and strategies; and representing clients in court. The first licenses were granted in November 2021, and Arizona has 65 licensed LPs. The program improves access to justice by allowing trained nonlawyers to represent clients in criminal, family, civil, administrative and juvenile law matters. The University of Arizona and Arizona State University offer a Master of Legal Studies that prepares students for the legal paraprofessional licensure exam.

To address the problem of Arizona’s “legal deserts,” a term coined by the ABA to describe counties with few or no lawyers (i.e., fewer than one lawyer per 1,000 residents), the Arizona Supreme Court approved a Lawyer Apprentice Program. The program encourages aspiring lawyers to stay in Arizona, creates a pathway to licensure for law graduates with lower bar scores and increases the number of lawyers in the state. In a state that ranks 49th of 50 states in lawyers per capita, such a program is a necessity, but it’s a very disciplined necessity: Applicants must (1) be graduates of an ABA-accredited law school (2) score 260-269 on the Uniform Bar Exam (3) and commit to practice under the supervision of a qualified Arizona attorney for at least two years in rural Arizona or a public law practice.

More controversial are the Arizona Supreme Court-approved “Alternative Business Structures.” The ABS program allows nonlawyers to partner with lawyers in businesses that provide legal services. The program was created to encourage innovation in legal services and make them more affordable. ABS are subject to the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court regulating the practice of law, including the requirement that the ABS employ a member of the Arizona Bar who supervises the practice of law. While such arrangements are common in the United Kingdom and Australia, they are actively debated in the U.S.

When Big Four accounting firm KPMG was approved on Feb. 27 to own a law firm under the ABS program, some skeptics asked whether such a step would actually bridge the justice gap or lower costs for lower-income citizens. Lopez acknowledges that some have also raised concerns that the “one-stop shop” model may put traditional firms out of business.

As part of the Arizona Judiciary’s Five-Year Plan, Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, a 2021 ABA Journal Legal Rebel, has made public trust and confidence in the judiciary a foundational goal. Lopez strongly supports this goal, and the court has put in place several initiatives to address the problem.

He told his audience: “Much of the public’s distrust in our courts is driven by inaccurate media coverage of our cases. Too often, media coverage centers on a case result and often fails to accurately identify the issue, if at all. Inaccurate framing of judicial decisions is then used to drive a narrative that judicial opinions are invariably political decisions. To that end, too many media reports on judicial opinions are limited to the party affiliation of the judge, the case result and its political significance or palatability. This coverage encourages public cynicism and distrust of courts.”

To counter objectively inaccurate characterizations of judicial opinions, the Arizona Supreme Court recently adopted a practice of releasing a brief summary of the judicial opinion that identifies the issues and sets out the reasoning and the decision in the case. Lopez observed that the initial results seem to be positive, noting that coverage of judicial decisions has been more accurate. He said the purpose and effect is not to diminish critical reporting of decisions, but to increase the likelihood that the criticisms and coverage accurately reflect the actual issues, reasoning and conclusions in the case.

Lopez’s final topic was retention elections. Arizona adopted a merit selection system in 1974 that applies to Arizona’s appellate judges and trial court judges in Arizona’s four most populous counties, where a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and citizens investigates and evaluates candidates for judicial positions. The commission then submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants to the governor, who makes the appointment from that list.

Once appointed, judges are subject to retention through regularly scheduled retention elections, by which a majority of votes in favor of a judge results in retention for another term. During judges’ terms, beginning in 1992, a commission of citizens and lawyers, known as “Judicial Performance Review,” assessed judges’ performances and issued recommendations to the voters prior to an election.

From 1974 to 2020, no endorsed judge had ever been removed by voters. In fact, most judges recommended for removal by JPR were retained by voters. Moreover, during those nearly 50 years, only three judges were removed by voters in retention elections; all were embroiled in legal scandal or were otherwise deemed unfit by the JPR Commission.

But, Lopez said, “Something began to change about Arizona’s retention elections in 2020. For the first time, a major political party targeted judges for nonretention. All were retained. But in 2022, voters failed to retain three Maricopa County Superior Court judges. In other words, as many judges were removed by voters in one election as had been removed over the previous 48 years. Notably, two of the three judges had been recommended for retention by the JPR Commission—a first in the history of Arizona’s merit selection system. One of the judges was targeted not for his judicial performance, but rather for his prior associations and his work as an assistant A.G. in Arizona.”

In 2024, the merit selection system, including the retention election, became a major political issue. One side of the partisan/ideological divide cited an unpopular abortion decision, while the other side of the divide expressed dissatisfaction with the court’s election decisions. These political forces culminated in two primary events: (1) a significant campaign was marshaled to remove two members of the Arizona Supreme Court (2) and Proposition 137 was placed on the ballot to eliminate routine retention election for judges unless they committed various crimes, filed personal bankruptcy or were not recommended for retention by JPR. This proposition was rejected by nearly 80% of voters.

Lopez concluded his presentation by questioning the wisdom of politicizing the merit selection process. He quoted the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who called the prospect of jettisoning the merit selection system “a great step backwards.”

Jo Ann Engelhardt is a member of the ABA Board of Governors representing District 8, a member of the board of the American Bar Foundation and a founding member of the ABA Crossroads Caucus.

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.





Source link