*1 Complaint Against the Matter of Judge, Warren Circuit Court Branch Grady, A. County, Ozaukee Wisconsin.
Supreme Court Argued January May 30, No. 82-2234-J. 1984. 1984. Decided (Also reported 559.) in 348 N.W.2d *3 For the Judicial Commission of the State of Wisconsin joint there by were briefs Daniel W. Hildebrand and Smith, S.C., Madison, and Natalie at- Stevens, Ross & argument Commission, and oral torney for the Judicial by Hildebrand. Mr. Grady A. there were briefs Honorable
For the Warren Bunk, R. Bunk, Patrick G. William Griffin argument Doherty S.C., Bend, and oral Griffin, & West Bunk. G. William proceeding; disciplinary Judicial PER CURIAM. reprimand imposed. review, pursuant 757.91, Stats., the find- to sec.
We ings fact, and recommendation of conclusions of law judicial disciplinary panel conduct in the against brought by proceeding Judicial Commission Grady, circuit for the Honorable Warren A. alleged county, persistent for failure to Ozaukee his perform panel official duties. The has recommended Judge Grady reprimanded persistent for his prompt performance failure to be in the of his official organize duties, persistent his failure his prompt judicial business, disposition per- and his period sistent failure to decide matters within the time provided by 757.025, pursuant and to file affidavits accurately reporting to that statute unde- the status of recognized panel Judge Grady’s cided cases. The delay deciding explained part by the sub- variety assigned stantial number and increased of cases *4 following reorganization to him panel in 1978. The during twenty-one years also noted that county his as a and judge, circuit reputa- Grady has earned the being tion of hard-working, fair, judge a and honorable and fully timely performing he is now and his offi- cial 757.025, duties established sec. Stats. we While accept panel’s agree do not all of conclusions, we reprimand Judge Grady appropriate discipline under the circumstances of this case. amended, complaint, as Commission’s
The Judicial following judicial charged Judge Grady with the mis- conduct :1
(1) aggravated persistent failure deciding organize prompt and to his court disposition judicial prompt busi- and efficient alleged ness, constitute a willful violation of a rule Ethics, (4) 60.17, 60.01 SCR Code Judicial Stats.; 757.81(4) (a), sec.
(2) persistent willful or failure to render deci- sions in cases submitted to him in final form for decision plus 90-day days, period ex- within 90 an additional tension, 757.025, Stats., alleged provided in sec. persistent perform constitute willful or failure to offi- duties, 757.81(4) (b); cial sec.
(3) filing persistent pur- the willful and of forms porting Stats., required 757.025, to be affidavits sec. claiming salary despite persistent entitlement his fail- 90-day ure render period decisions within the time specified certify ap- that statute or in the record of judicial Stats., discipline, 757.81(4), context de fines “misconduct” to include: “(a) Wilful violation aof rule of the code of ethics. “(b) persistent perform Wilful or failure to official duties.” Ethics, chapter prescribes Code of Judicial SCR stan- judicial conduct, dards of including: 60.01(4) SCR judge prompt performance “A should he in the duties, of his or recognizing her litigants, jurors, that the time of attorneys witnesses and judge organize is of A value. his should supervise or her personnel court and charge under his her so that dispatched business of promptness the court is and convenience.” That Code also conduct, establishes rules of which are “of gravity sufficient they to warrant sanctions if are not obeyed,” 60.02, including: SCR “SCR 60.13 A indulge gross personal shall not mis- conduct.” aggravated “SCR 60.17 persistent An comply failure to with the standards of SCR 60.01 is a rule violation.”
767 alleged inability so, constitute do his plicable misconduct, 60.13, a viola- gross personal SCR willful Ethics, of 757.81 a the Code Judicial sec. tion of rule of perform persistent (4) (a), or failure a willful and (4) (b). duties, 757.81 official subsequently Commission withdrew The Judicial allegations gross personal stipulation misconduct all rules of of Judicial and Code willful violation allegations judge’s remained the Ethics. There misconduct a willful conduct constituted perform persistent failure to official duties. judicial disciplinary proceeding was before
This Decker, consisting panel, of the Honorable John A. Dykman P. Honorable and Honorable John Charles P. Judge, Foley, Presiding stipulated facts, supplemented on hearing. accept testimony presented at a We will clearly findings panel’s findings fact are unless those ex erroneous. This is the same standard of review pressed prior judicial disciplinary proceedings that they panel’s findings accepted fact must unless against great weight preponderance are clear Complaint Against In Matter Sera evidence. 485, Disciplinary phim, (1980), 509 Proceed 97 2dWis. ings See, Against Guay, (1981). 101 2d Wis. Robertson-Ryan Pohlhammer, v. 592fn. Wis. 2d findings panel following fact con- made stipulation parties: sistent with a Judge Grady’s in each Between and 1982 decision of 21 than presided which he was more cases over made six him months after the case had been submitted to final form for decision.2 cases, year Of those 21 six less after were decided than form, submission two in final nine were decided between one years, years, two and three between one between four three *6 1982, 21 await- there were at least As of June Judge by Grady, ing 14 had of which remained decision for than six under submission more months. Grady system Judge keeping no for track had of cases days for that those under submission or more so brought although attention, could be to his he initiated system a such complaint after the Judicial Commission filed its disciplinary proceeding. in this through signed Judge Grady Each month of 1979 “Being part, sworn, reciting, duly filed form in and a upon that, pursuant . . oath . to section 757.025 of the statutes,3 no matter or cause which in was submitted salary final to me form exceeds the time limit and that for due me the above month.” is None of recita- those tions was truthful and accurate as to causes or matters Judge Grady’s submitted in final form to court remain- ing beyond period provided by undecided time Judge 757.025, pleted Grady Stats. that he knew had not com- days decisions within 90 after in final submission certificates any stating form and that he had not filed complete given any that he was unable to decision 90-day period. within a case August Judge Grady As of had no cases sub- mitted in final form which remained undecided for 90 days has been longer, and, February, 1983, Judge or Grady since prompt performance in the of his duties and years, and, five examples, the most extreme two small claims unpaid wages actions for years were decided more than seven testimony, argument all after evidence and had been submitted to judge. 767.026, Stats., provides: Section “(1) judge No of a court of record receive or be allowed draw, any salary, he or unless she first executes affidavit stating no that cause matter which has been submitted in final form to his or her court remains undecided that has been submitted days, for decision for 90 exclusive of the time that he or she has actually been disabled or unless judge sickness extended under sub. presented The affidavit shall be to and filed with every official who part, certifies in judge’s salary. whole or in “(2) judge If complete is unable to a decision within the 90-day period specified (1), certify sub. shall so period thereupon record and the is extended one additional period days.” exceed 90 personnel supervised organized his court has charge of his court so that the business his under promptness and convenience. dispatched with Wahlberg, Grady reporter, David Judge his court Judge Grady panel at the time testified before Wahlberg, month, signed forms each the affidavit Judge Grady notary an oath to public, administer did not although forms, signing Wahl- prior his the affidavit basis of berg of those forms. On the notarized each testimony, panel found uncontroverted forms Grady executed the not under oath when he was although affidavits, that, purporting the forms to be *7 panel found that since The also were not affidavits. Judge Grady affi- executed and filed March, has 757.025, compliance in with sec. Stats. under oath davits parties’ stipulation, panel concluded, based on The deciding Judge Grady’s prompt in cases failure to be that organize that its business could be his court so convenience, promptness when dispatched with against in 60.01 measured set forth SCR standards Ethics, persistent (4), of constituted a Code Judicial duties, perform defined as misconduct failure to official panel 757.81(4) (b), in The also concluded Stats. sec. Judge engaged misconduct, in Grady that in as defined by persistently failing perform his offi- statute, that period cial es- duties to decide matters within the time 757.025, pursuant tablished sec. and to file affidavits salary. to that statute This conclu- in order to draw his panel’s sion was based on the determination duty judge 757.025, establishes an of a to decide official days a matter within the court its submission to certify or, so, final form if unable to do to so on record, thereby extending period of for one additional days deciding matter, time for well as duty judge compliance official of a to file an affidavit of any with that salary. statute in order to draw setting stipulation parties into a entered second mitigation Judge Grady’s conduct. On forth facts panel stipulation, made the fol- basis of findings lowing fact: Judge during through Grady’s years workload heavy,4 1982 was reorganization aAs result of court Branch August county 1, 1978, III in to from Ozaukee was vacant July during 31, 1979, time all cases docketed assigned Judge Grady,
in that branch were Implementation by Supreme judicial rotation Court reorganization 70.23(3) Judge Rule and court resulted in Grady’s presiding increasingly over of an cases varied required complete nature and him to cases which had assigned judges been of the former 24th cir- cuit, Judge Grady secretary, clerks, interns, had no law working fulltime court, clerk commissioners in his Judge Grady’s output business for calendar years through 1982 was substantial. During period, Grady relevant time exer- selecting cised discretion in the order in which he de- assigned cided priority cases and status to he felt required early decisions.
On the stipulated panel basis of these facts the found during years county his 21 as a and circuit courts, Judge Grady reputation being has earned the a hard-working, fair judge, and honorable that he had *8 heavy assignment during years caseload 1979 through 1982, during salary and that his he earned those example, year 1982, For in calendar in filed were cases Judge Grady’s disposed of; figures court and 1065 were cases these do not During include uncontested traffic or forfeiture cases. year that Judge Grady same presided jury trials, over 38 96 trials court, to the hearings, hearings, arraign 305 motion default plea ments hearings matters; in criminal an additional 223 disposed for prior scheduled trial were In to trial. addi tion, Judge Grady presided conducted or over an unknown number pretrial conferences, conferences, hearings, status status sen tencing hearings, posttrial and hearings. motion Judge Grady is re- that panel also concluded
years. The apologized conduct, publicly for has for his morseful litigants and the hardship caused and inconvenience duties, has perform his official failure by his bar compliance oath under filed affidavits and executed has and 757.025, March of Stats., since with sec. con- cooperation panel in its given complete to the his proceedings. disciplinary duct Judge Grady panel that discipline, recommends As consisting per- of his reprimanded for misconduct making perform official duties. failure to sistent acknowledges having panel that recommendation mitigat- against Judge Grady’s misconduct balanced respondent’s ing panel stated, “Because factors. The beyond explained part his factors misconduct respondent remedied behavior has control and because panel practices control, the has concluded and within his integrity sufficiently preserve reprimand will that a in the judiciary public maintain confidence judiciary.” the first panel also notes that this is
The judge’s charging to com- disciplinary that a failure case 757.025, Stats., consti- ply provisions with the of sec. reprimand sufficient misconduct, it deems a tutes throughout place judges on notice of the state other panel compliance with that statute. the need persistent non- suggests of future the event compliance statute, more severe sanctions with the be warranted. findings we panel’s of fact
From our review erroneous, they clearly we there- find that are not findings only accept the Judicial fore them. The factual findings objects panel’s Commission are the Grady when he executed was not under oath 757.025, Stats., and pursuant filed to sec. “affidavits” purportedly affi- to be therefore the forms he filed *9 argues that, not It davits were affidavits. as a matter law, signing printed stating the of a form the signing “duly making person sworn” and is a state- signing “upon Judge ment oath” renders the under oath. Grady signed reporter, notary and his court who “affidavits,” notary testified that on no occasion did the prior signing administer oath to the to his forms. acknowledges
The Judicial Commission that whether the affidavit forms were executed under oath is irrele- panel’s Judge Grady vant to per- determination that sistently perform duty failed to an official to file accu- pending rate affidavits toas the status of in his pursuant 757.025, Indeed, panel to sec. Stats. Judge Grady concluded that perform duty, failed notwithstanding finding its that he was under oáth signed when he those forms. The Judicial Commission originally alleged Judge Grady’s filing of untruthful affidavit pending forms toas the status of his cases con- “gross personal stituted misconduct,” proscribed our Ethics, 60.13, Code Judicial misconduct, SCR de- 757.91(4) (a), fined aas violation “wilful rule of the code of However, ethics.” for reasons not evident in record, the Judicial Commission sub- sequently stipulated allegations to the withdrawal of its “gross personal misconduct,” any allegation well as of a willful violation of the Code Judicial Ethics. Consequently, Judge issue Grady whether was, aas law, matter of signed under oath he because “affidavit” forms is not before us.
Having accepted panel’s findings including fact, conduct which Grady stipulated had as con- stituting persistent duties, perform failure to official only issue us, before other than our determination of appropriate discipline, Judge Grady is whether en- gaged failing by persistently misconduct *10 provisions
comply 757.025, of sec. Stats. two the with Judge Grady is that the statute unconstitu- contends comply stipulated did he not he that Because has tional. requirements statute, the if of that with either Judge persistently Grady constitutional, has statute is prescribed perform therein; to official duties failed unconstitutional, has not. if it he is argues Grady Judge The Judicial Commission constitutionality standing challenge the not does have to 757.025,Stats., he have filed truth- sec. because could and, receive when he did not ful accurate affidavits brought salary, de- his an action to have statute support contention, clared of its unconstitutional. in- cites several criminal Judicial Commission volving perjury, oath, and made under false statements conspiracy statute, held to circumvent a in which it was challenge that the entitled to defendants were they underlying pursuant to statutes testified they conspired statements under or which made oath apposite are not here to circumvent. Those cases making Judge charged Grady the reason that is not with persist- oath, rather, but, with false statements under duty ently failing pre- perform to an official 757.025, to make statements scribed sec. accurate affidavit. person charged a
A has with a violation of statute challenge right process consti- fundamental due generally, tutionality See, Am. Jur. statute. seq. party has 2d, Law, Constitutional 188 et “A secs. standing challenge statute causes a statute if that personal party injury party has in fact and Olsen, v. stake outcome the action.” Mast charged Grady with 2d Wis. having persistently per- misconduct for failed provisions duty comply form official 757.025, Stats., has admitted his failure he Judge Grady may provisions. comply Because with those discipline for if the misconduct constitu- merit statute judicial duties, tionally personal he has a establishes proceeding. Therefore, this he stake in the outcome of standing. Judge Grady if has Even we were to hold that standing having does not to attack the statute’s consti- tutionality, we could raise and decide the constitutional sponte, alleged issue sua statute is to establish *11 judicial judicial official duties and therefore affects the system Holmes, of the State v. state. 2dWis. (1981). Consequently, 40-41 we address the constitu- tionality of the statute.
Judge Grady 757.025, Stats., contends that sec. is un- during judge’s salary constitutional as of a diminution his term of we office. Because hold the statute uncon- stitutional on ground, another we do not this reach issue. Judge Grady’s argument
turnWe now to that sec. 757.025, Stats., by purporting to establish time limits judicial decision-making, is an unconstitutional exer- by legislature judicial cise power, either as an regulate attempt judge to the conduct of a in his official capacity usurpation or as a supreme ad- court’s upon ministrative over all courts it conferred by Constitution, VII, 3(1) Wisconsin Article Sections (3), April as amended 1977.
On constitutionality ap- issue of the statute’s as plied Grady, to panel judge concluded that the beyond failed meet his burden to establish a reason- by able doubt placed extrinsic evidence that the statute an unconstitutional performance burden on him in the of his Apart Judge Grady’s duties. from testi- mony statutory that deciding time limit for cases was exceptional burdensome in cases and that the statute dictated which cases should be first, decided there no is evidence that the statute establishes unreasonable time judges limits for to decide cases submitted to them substantially the exercise of their interferes with duties. 757.025, Stats., argues
Judge Grady con- also that sec. judiciary barred into the realm of the an intrusion stitutes recently separation powers. We the doctrine follows. described that doctrine as separate co- constitution creates three “The Wisconsin government, no branch subordinate ordinate branches arrogate other, control over to itself to the the other no branch constitution, except provided by the con- no branch committed to exercise Holmes, v. 2d to another.” State Wis. stitution 42 establishing Judge Grady 757.025, by that contends by requir- any judge limit for a decide time ing verify by compliance affidavit requirement salary, in order violates the doc- to receive powers. separation trine of separation powers have
We held the doctrine Holmes, recognized supra, is not absolute. we government required each of the three branches of is not powers other exercise its in total from the isolation two branches. *12 ‘great powers’ ‘twilight “There are borderlands of — ambiguous territory’ stretches of
zone[s]’—‘vast —in which it is difficult to determine where the functions of begin. one branch of end those of another The doctrine separation powers strict, of does not demand a com- plete, absolute, scientific division of functions between government. separation the three of of branches The powers than principle shared, doctrine states of rather completely separated powers. envi- The doctrine government sharing separated sions a of branches cer- powers.” Id., tain 43. govern- power,” these areas of “shared one branch of may only power ment exercise on conferred another substantially an unduly extent that does not burden or power. interfere with the other branch’s exercise of its legislature “Although by prohibited is not enacting separation powers of doctrine of from reason- regulating judges of laws substitution able assure appearance trial, fair trial and the of a fair the doctrine powers separation impose significant of does limita- legislature’s power. on the tions the doctrine of prohibited fering exercise its Under separation powers, legislature unduly burdening substantially from inter- supra, Holmes, with the branch.” 68. However, separation powers doctrine does every power upon gov render conferred one branch of by ernment a which be shared another branch and as to which the undue burden or substantial applicable. interference standard is are There zones authority constitutionally established for each branch government upon any govern other branch of prohibited intruding. ment is from As to these areas of authority, the unreasonable burden or substantial inter apply; any ference authority test does not exercise of by government another branch of is unconstitutional. Chicago Thoe v. Co., M. 456, & St. R. P. Wis. panel not, 757.025, concluded that Stats., does face, unreasonably on substantially its burden or inter- government fere with the branch of nor unrea- sonably Supreme interfere superintend- Court’s ing and administrative courts, over all but it did not address the represents issue whether the statute legislature an intrusion into an area of exclusive judicial authority. This, then, is the issue must de- we cide. 757.025, Stats.,
Section originally was enacted ch. require Laws judges aof court of rec- ord, as receiving a condition of salary, their file stating affidavit that no cause or matter submitted them in final form for decision remained undecided *13 subsequently reduced period was That year or more. one 253, 90-day provided, ch. was extension days, and a to 90 legislature enacted a note that of 1969. We Laws present substantially similar in statute statute, present the 1909 However, unlike the 757.025.5 county county judges, only who were provision concerned not constitu affected were courts employees, and the legislature pur by the created courts courts but tional authority.6 express constitutional suant to county reorganization, By 1978 court virtue of the 449, 1977, abolished, and were Laws were ch. courts Consequently, now the courts replaced courts. circuit system the consti- composing in which the unified judicial power are all reposes of the state tution legislatively created, constitutional, courts. What- regulations legislature imposed ever administrative may not be constitutional on courts of its own creation applied courts. when to constitutional contends that the establish- The Judicial Commission judges are to decide ment of time within which limits exclusively upon power com- cases does not intrude legisla- judiciary for mitted to the the reason county 694(7), Stats., provided: re shall Sec. “No salary, any ceive or be he first take allowed to draw unless shall administer subscribe oath before an officer entitled to oaths, that no cause matter in court remains undecided his ninety days, period been has submitted for for the decision actually exclusive of the time he shall have been disabled sickness, presented affidavit shall he to and filed with county county.” clerk of such subsequently 695, 59.80(2), Stats., It was renumbered sec. ch. 1919, repealed 1945, 344, Laws of ch. Laws of 1945. VII, Const., provided, pertinent Art. sec. Wis. part: judicial power state, “The both as to of law this matters equity, supreme court, courts, shall be vested in circuit courts probate, justices peace. legislature may and in also jurisdiction vest such necessary municipal as shall be deemed courts, and shall have to establish inferior courts in the counties, several jurisdiction. civil limited and criminal . . .” *14 778 having duty may promote public interest,
ture, a fair trial and to assure a effectuate the enact laws maintaining judicial system fair policy a public argues system. in It public that exces- confidence deciding directly delay impairs public of cases sive begs judicial system. ques- in the This confidence question tion. The ultimate decided is to which government reposed branch of has the constitution power that is at issue here.
Judge Grady’s arguments
supporting his contention
setting
judicial
for
time limits
decision-
making
falls within an area of
exclu
conferred
sively
judicial
government
persua
on
branch of
are
century,
sive. For more than a
this court has been called
upon
attempts
govern
to resist
other branches of
authority
exclusively judicial
ment to exercise
in an
area.
These
attempt
have included an
replace
to remove and
employe,
a court
In
Janitor,
(1874);
re
85
410
Wis.
an
attempt
physical
dictate
a
facilities
court
judicial functions,
was to
Room,
exercise its
In re Court
(1912);
legislate
tion degree A congressional omitted.] considerable judicial intervention in constitutionally administration is permissible ‘justified if such intervention is an over- riding promote objectives need to within the constitu- Congress.’ tional [Citation omitted.] “Once rights it is established that trial proper are a subject of legislation, question the becomes whether the Speedy the Trial Act intrude provisions of
particular judicial upon self-administration such the zone of degree ‘prevent [judiciary] from accom- the ] as [ assigned constitutionally functions.’ do plishing not fairly We its impact upon the courts can that the Act’s think Id., terms. . . .” in such extreme be described 697-98. argument exclusivity support more the
This serves argument. con- powers the the It establishes than shared legislative judicial propriety stitutional intervention only justified administration intervention is when such overriding promote objectives “by an within need authority” legislature. constitutional acknowledged gov- The Brainer court in that not all power.” ernmental is “shared It said: present purposes, deciding “For we assume without possess that federal courts some measure administra- independence congressional tive such that intervention would, at *pass[] some point, extreme the limit which separates legislative judicial power.’ from the [Ci- tation follow, It does not however, omitted.] Speedy represents Trial Act such an extreme. [Citation omitted.]” 697. Id., rights The court found subject trial proper were a legislation, requiring application thus of an undue type interference of test.9 burden/substantial Speedy requires, alia, Trial Act inter that a defendant be days tried within 70 from the later the date on which the public indictment is made or the date of the first defendant’s appearance before a officer of the which the charge pending. is noncompliance The sanction for act mandatory dismissal of finding Speedy action. Trial Act upon did so intrude administration prevent judiciary accomplishing from constitutionally its as signed functions, exceptions court noted three to the time *17 limits established: the Act delays excludes certain unavoidable computation from in the deadlines; determination of the trial it excludes statutory from periods the delay resulting from a con granted by tinuance upon the trial finding a that “the ends judi- setting for of time limits rights, the trial Unlike and effective decision-making the efficient concerns cial therefore, and, a mat- is system functioning the court the it within such comes As administration. ter of court the all state courts over administrative court, supreme Art. in the vests Wisconsin Constitution legislature does 3(1), amended in 1977. The VII, sec. promulgate admin- rules of court not have the istration. withholding
However, requiring the a statute judge’s spe salary for a failure to decide cases within beyond goes It cified consti time court administration. attempt by judges legislature tutes an to coerce in case-deciding their of the function of exercise essential judiciary. doing, legislature so violates policy govern well-established that the branch of independent ment must in con fulfillment its responsibilities. policy, part stitutional That a Ameri jurisprudence can founding republic since the of our acknowledged English first in the Act of Settlement 1701, requires independent truly judiciary must be ° by free government.10 from control the other branches of justice outweigh served [the continuance] the best interest public of the speedy permits and the defendant trial”; it suspend counsel of a imposed circuit the time limits the Act when the district court cannot meet the time constraints by the existing efficient use of resources “due to status of its court calendars.” 3161(h), 3161(h)(8)(A), U.S.C. secs. 3174. The court also mandatory noted Act’s dismissal sanction for qualified: untimeliness the court dismiss the action prejudice, without subject specified criteria. 18 U.S.C. 3162(a) The Wisconsin statute period before us establishes a time for the trial of an only action judge’s but decision, it provides exception. no 10 See, Will, United States v. 217-19, U.S. Ct. 101 S. 471, 66 L. Ed 2d (1980), Supreme which the U.S. Court origins traces the Compensation Clause of the U.S. Consti- *18 judges periods time for setting of and enforcement authority exclu- lies area within decide cases government. judicial sively reposed in branch of the legislature by the 757.025, is an intrusion Stats., Section judicial judicial decision- exclusively area the into Consequently, making and, such, is unconstitutional. i.e., comply statute, his Grady’s failure to limits, statutory time within the failure to decide cases certify inability to do the record failure to his so his applicable cases, affi- failure to accurate and his file davits, persistent perform failure to does constitute official duties. question legislature’s promot- do not the wisdom
We prompt ing disposition judicial business, do nor periods decision-making for the time it has established However, seem period unreasonable. a reasonable time judicial only by decision-making for can be established supreme judicial court aas rule of administration adopted pursuant authority to its administrative all over courts conferred VII, 3(1) Art. sec. of the Wisconsin only Constitution. Not grant does constitution ad- authority system ministrative of the supreme court to the court, duty but it also supreme establishes a of the to exercise that promote administrative operation efficient and effective sys- of the state’s court setting tem. A rule judicial time limits decisions is desirable because accomplish it will that end.
Such a require rule judges should report trial status of pending beyond the established time period, reports but such purpose should be for the alerting judicial offices, e.g., administrative the chief justice supreme of court, as the administrative head tution, Ill, Art. prohibiting judge’s the diminution of a compensation during a term in office. of state courts system, the director dis- judicial administrative appropriate judge chief personnel or other for additional trict, a need judicial busi- prompt disposition of steps to ensure *19 of our exercise Therefore, in the courts. in those ness Const., authority, VII, 3(1), Art. sec. Wis. constitutional order,11 the adopt, date of this hereby we effective establishing opinion time within appended a rule to this expected after judge to decide a matter a shall be which judge report requiring to in final form and a submission regular a to administrative authorities on pending beyond cases time basis the status of period.12
Having 757.025, Stats., unconstitutional, held sec. we reject panel’s Judge Grady persis- conclusion that the. tently perform judicial duty failed to to decide cases period within the time set forth therein and to file affi- pursuant davits to it. There remains to the conduct Judge Grady stipulated: failure, which had his in viola- Ethics, tion of the (4), Code of Judicial SCR 60.01 to be prompt performance in the organize of his duties and to supervise his court and personnel court so that the busi- 1 1 copies There is insufficient time to send of rule this to the Legislative chief of the Reference Bureau and Revisor suggestions Statutes for review and drafting style as to and num bering prior adoption to our procedure, of it. That forth set 98.03, SCR upon will be filing followed opinion, and this any necessary modifications of the rule will be made thereafter. adopted We heretofore authorizing a rule the director of require state courts verify each certify vouchers judge, reporter reporters, 70.01(4), assistant SCR but this rule has used, not been used, nor was it intended to monitor dispositional caseloads or the promptness of the judges. state’s Rather, trial it is pro statutory successor to a required vision judges notify payroll the state’s author salary ities that payable was personnel, including the judges. Seei, 20.66, sec. Stats., 20.260, Stats., sec. 256.64(8), 1961 Stats. promptness dispatched with could be court ness law a matter of we determine as This and convenience. judicial misconduct. constitutes Judge Grady’s aspect conduct another Further, affidavit-type filing forms reproof: his merits our pending repeatedly misrepresenting the status during four-year period 1979-82. Re- his gardless Judge Grady when under oath of whether was signed under he those forms and whether statute Judge constitutional, were filed which those forms Grady regularly knowingly misrepresented the status above, As noted his caseload. the Judicial Commis- alleged initially gross doing sion that his so constituted personal allega- misconduct, it later but withdrew Nevertheless, undisputed. tion. the conduct is con- We filing Grady’s clude that of affidavit know- forms *20 ing they misrepresented pending the status of his prejudicial constitutes conduct to the administration of justice brings judicial disrepute. office into totality
On the basis Grady’s mis- conduct, light and in mitigating circumstances, of the we agree panel’s with the reprimand recommendation that a appropriate is discipline. Although we make this deter- mination in a case of impression, first we are aware of discipline imposed in similar jurisdic- cases in other 13 tions.
Upon our findings review of the of fact and conclu- sions of judicial law of the panel conduct judicial in this disciplinary proceeding, order, we discipline for his persistent perform failure to official promptly duties to dispose of cases submitted to him for decision and to 13 Inthe Carstensen, Matter (Iowa 1982), N.W.2d 889 In Weeks, re (Ariz. 1983), P.2d 174 Jensen, and In re (Cal. P.2d 200 1978). judicial prompt disposition organize for the his court Grady, A. circuit business, the Honorable Warren hereby county, reprimanded. judge is for Ozaukee
APPENDIX following judicial IT rule of ORDERED IS opinion adopted, effective the administration is date this further is filed and until order the court. Pending Judges’
SCR of Status of 70.36 Certification Cases.
(1) Every judge (a) of a circuit court shall decide each days matter submitted for decision within 90 of the date on which the judge matter is submitted to the in final form, judge actually exclusive of the time the has been judge disabled sickness. If a so, is unable do with- days expiration five of the 90-day period of the judge certify shall so in the record of the matter and notify writing judge chief admin- istrative district in which the pending, matter is and the period thereupon extended for one period additional days.
(b) judge The chief copy shall send a of a notification par. made (a) under to the office of the director of state courts. director of courts, pursuant state to SCR 70.10, and pursuant the chief judge, 70.19(3) to SCR (a), assign shall judges as needed or take steps other to as- sist a who has made notification par. (a) under timely disposition business. *21 (c) In the exercise of its superintending and admin- istrative authority over all upon courts and written re- quest from a judge, chief supreme may extend period specified par. (a) in specific decision in exigent matters as may require. circumstances every days month of each first ten (a) (2) Within and file judge circuit court shall execute of a courts: of state office of the director stating are no matters (i) there an affidavit by or, beyond 90-day awaiting if extended decision speci- notification, 180-day period certification and (1) (a), fied sub. or pending,
(ii) are so an affidavit set- if there matters ting forth the name and number of those docket each of cases, pending, the court which it is and the date on judge it which was submitted to the in final form. (b) The office the director state shall courts copy listing a pending send of affidavits to the matters judge júdicial chief (s) of the administrative district pending notify which those matters are and shall judge chief of a administrative district of the judge failure aof within the district an affidavit file pursuant to this subsection.
(3) Failure of a requirements to comply with the (1) (a) of sub. (2) (a) may sub. result in one or more following remedial measures: (a) Change judge’s assignment, pursuant 70.19(3) SCR (a),
(b) Referral of the matter the director of state courts supreme to the court for the contempt initiation of proceedings,
(c) Referral of the matter the director of state courts to the investigation commission for possible misconduct. Comment: In addition to possibly constituting judicial misconduct under 757.81(4), Stats., judge’s fail sec.. ure comply with this rule contempt constitute supreme court and result in the imposing court’s fine for noncompliance. See, In re Hon. Charles E. Kading, 74 Wis. 2d *22 I (concurring). ABRAHAMSON, J. S. SHIRLEY disciplined. Judge Grady should be agree that majority it agree that inasmuch as the I also unconstitutional, it 757.025, 1981-82, Stats. declares public encompassing ought adopt the broad a rule Although I in policy reflected sec. 757.025.1 decision preferred of a rule the formulation would have submit Council, public, open to the Judicial where deliberations legislature, representatives public, the bar, of the the appellate may held, and the I am sat trial bench hearing public isfied November after six experience may months’ with the rule be a reasonable join alternative under I these circumstances. therefore majority promulgating appended the the rule the majority opinion.
I separately disagree write because I ma- with the jority’s 757.025, 1981-82, conclusion that sec. Stats. is unconstitutional as a separa- violation of the doctrine of powers.2 tion of join I majority cannot it because significantly has reading altered the historical of the separation powers doctrine in this state. rule, requires like sec. judge to file an affidavit 157.0,25, keeps day periods. same 90 and 180 There no with is holding salary. It not court, is clear legis unlike the lature, has the pay. judge to withhold The chief and the director of state judge are courts reports delay assist a who deciding Although cases. “sanctions,” namely, the chief director of state courts are to assist the “overloaded judge,” judge may contempt by be held in court, this or the director complaint courts file a misconduct with the Judicial Commission, preexisted promulgation rule, of the it perhaps spell useful to out clearly these matters in this rule. 2 The court frequently has said presumed that a statute is constitutional and invalidity its beyond must be established a reasonable doubt. canon This separation is based on the powers doctrine presumption and a good intentions and wisdom of legislative executive and officials who have also sworn uphold the constitutions. I persuaded am briefs, majority opinion, my own research that sec. 757.025 is unconstitutional. regulation like majority that a concludes
While
*23
orderly
designed
promote the
is
757.025, to a
disposition
matters
submitted
expeditious
of
and
exclusively
authority
re
judge,
an area of
“lies within
judicial
government” (emphasis
of
posed in the
branch
regulation
added), supra, p 783,
that the
lies
I conclude
legislature
authority
by
shared
the
within the zone of
Although
judiciary.3
I
and
that this court is
the
believe
legislature
prob
qualified than the
to deal
better
decision-making,
delay in
court
lems of
circuit
this court
advantage
need not claim exclusive
to take full
superior
flexibility
expertise
working
of its
and
problems
delays.3a
toward solutions to
of
majority interprets
setting
periods
The
sec. 757.025 as
“time
judges
Supra, p.
purposes
for
to decide cases.”
783. For
of this
concurring opinion
accept
I
this characterization of sec. 757.025.
interpreted
I conclude that even
soas
sec. 757.025 is constitutional.
interpreted
ways.
Sec. 757.025 can be
in other
A
will
statute
be
preserve
unconstitutionality.
City
construed to
it from
re
of
Beloit,
637, 643,
2d
(1968).
37 Wis.
ration of
doctrine,
proper inquiry
focuses on
following
three issues:
I.
legislature
Since the Wisconsin
plenary legis-
has
power
lative
general
to act for the
except as its
welfare —
separation
powers
doctrine of
of
is not an absolute rule
working principle
but
government.
recognizes
It
that each
government
branch of
has exclusive functions which no other
branch
perform,
can
many governmental
but that
may
duties
or
shared
one more branches.
applied
The doctrine is
to main
tain balance between three
government,
preserve
branches of
to
respective
their
independence
integrity,
prevent
and to
power
concentration of unchecked
any
in the hands of
one branch.
See, e.g.,
E.B.,
In re
175,
181-85,
Wis. 2d
power is addressed first issue to be law—the federal stitution proscription on the any enact- such there is whether stage this not consider at We do ment of sec. 757.025. powers doctrine. separation of the discussion Judge Grady 757.025 violates article asserts that sec. pro- IV, Constitution, which of the Wisconsin section judicial I salaries. conclude that sec. hibits diminution salary. Even does not a diminution of 757.025 constitute does, permitted. if it such diminution is The Wisconsin Constitution, constitutions, empowers unlike other legislature change during salaries the term of change salary applies office if the to all judges complies and the effective date of the law with the constitution. legislature
II. Since expressly prohibited is not adopting from 757.025, the second issue is whether sec. 757.025 falls within an area of within may which the court act. power beyond
Judicial power adjudicate extends particular controversy encompasses power regulate adjudication. matters related to undisputed It is grant constitutional power to this includes the adopt regulating rules time within which decisions are be rendered. I there- fore conclude that sec. 757.025 falls within an area of authority in which the court act.
III. Since sec. 757.025 falls within an area of au- *25 thority in legislature which the expressly is not prohib- ited from acting and in which may the act, third issue is whether sec. 757.025 falls within an area exclusive authority or within an area of legislature shared and court. If a law falls within the court’s authority, exclusive this court has held that such a law is valid if this court accepts it as an aid to the court’s power; it is invalid if this court determines that the law thwarts the court’s 792 193, Reynolds 14 2d Dinger, v. Wis. ex rel.
power. State (1961). N.W.2d 685 109 authority, this shared an area of within
If a law falls it unless constitutional that such a law is court has held judi- substantially with the interferes unduly burdens 42, 68, Holmes, 31, 315 2d cial State v. 106 Wis. branch. (1981). N.W.2d 703 within an area of
I that sec. falls conclude 757.025 recognized authority. This court has that both shared legislature I, duty have a under article and the courts prompt 9, section of the state constitution to ensure justice. proven undue Since has not sec. 757.025 years judiciary burden on since its enact- ment, I conclude it is constitutional. agree majority
Even if I were to with the that sec. authority exclusively 757.025 falls within an area of re- posed judicial branch, accept I would sec. 757.025 power as an aid the court’s because it neither inter- feres with decision-making substantive unrea- nor sets sonable time limits.
I. legislature’s legislative The exercise of is sub ject only to the imposed by limitations restraints state constitution, constitution, federal or federal laws. State ex rel. Frederick v. Zimmerman, 254 Wis. 615, 600, 37 N.W.2d (1949). separation The powers doctrine does necessarily prohibit legisla ture exercising from legislative its policy making powers in areas way some affect the branch government. State Holmes, v. supra, 106 Wis. at 2d 46; John F. Jelke Co. v. Beck, Wis. N.W. legislature adopted sec. 757.025 purpose of ensuring prompt litiga resolution of tion. There express is no federal or state constitutional prohibition or federal statutory prohibition legis- on the *26 enacting prompt resolution of laws to ensure
lature litigation.
Clearly, legislature has to control expressly “judges provides The constitution salaries. legislature may compensation shall receive such VII, 10(2), law. . . .” Art. authorize sec. Wis. Const. challenged Grady pay-withholding provisions violating IV, of article section which 757.025 as sec. provides as follows: any compensation . “Section 26. . . nor shall the during public term officer be increased or diminished his pro- except any of office that when or decrease increase legislature compensation vided in the
justices any supreme judges or court any justice or record shall become effective as to such judge, it shall as to each be effective from such date justices judges. of such . . .” majority vio- does not decide whether 757.025 provision. lates this salary persuaded
I am not diminishes sec. 757.025 meaning IV, within the 26. 757.025 of article section Sec. judge’s salary upon the does not reduce or eliminate a judge’s merely promptly; de- it failure decide a case lays payment. people
I do not the constitu- believe that intended prohibition against salary tional mean diminution of legislature delay payment powerless that a was salary minimum, judge performing up if the was reasonable, objective Any performance dimi- standards. judge’s salary nution in the based on the difference present delayed payment payment is de value of versus salary— delay payment I minimis. conclude the a diminu- can avoid—does not constitute meaning compensation tion of of the state within the constitution. agree
I con- with the Conduct Panel which Judicial face, not, diminish cluded sec. 757.025 “does on its *27 compensation judge during a court of record the judge’s merely places term of office. The statute drawing judge compensation, conditions on a or her his proven which unreasonable.” has [condition] Finally, IV, 26, article section the constitution does legislature diminishing compensa- not bar the from during of a It tion the term of office. allows the legislature compensation or increase diminish long judges during change their terms of office as the as compensation judges (cir- applies to all of that court court, appeals, supreme court) cuit court of and the change any judge of that becomes effective for court who change takes office after has been enacted. Thus even salary, if sec. 757.025 is viewed as a diminution of sec. applies 757.025 is it to all constitutional because circuit judges court been in to circuit has effect as court judges since 1959.
hH agree I majority express, this court’s implied, incidental, judicial powers and inherent include power adopt regulating rules the time within which decisions are rendered. state constitution unified, power vests this state in system, grants superintending this court and administra- authority tive courts, provides over all justice chief authority exercise this administrative as the judicial system pursuant administrative head of the procedures adopted by supreme Const., court. Wis. VII, secs, 4(3). grants 2, 3, art. The constitution adopt necessary court the measures for the due justice administration of in the state. I, 9,
Furthermore, article section of the Wisconsin Constitution, guarantees person justice to each “promptly delay,” imposes obligation and without on fully this court “to possible realize as the constitutional justice ‘promptly guaranty without administered ” delay.’ Corrigan, Lumbermen’s National Bank v. 86, 166 (1918).5 Wis. N.W. I, judiciary article and the
On the basis of section VII), (article I constitution conclude article 757.025 falls within an area of within which the court act.
III. majority opinion the existence of While the discusses *28 legislative power in which the and areas of shared both act, judicial not examine whether it does branches regulate power each to the time in which deci- branch has quantum leap and with no ex- sions are rendered. recognizing planation, it. from that some areas moves exclusively reposed are in branch asserting to that sec. falls within such an area. 757.025
Keeping comity cooperation in mind the need for and government well the need to the branches of as between judiciary, integrity independence maintain and I conclude that falls within the area of shared sec. 757.025 powers power not of the court. and within the exclusive legislative powers overlap to ensure litigation prompt court’s resolution of arises from the power adopt necessary to for the due adminis- measures legislature’s protect justice power tration and the public im- promoting welfare the efficient partial justice. administration of
Sec. 757.025 does not fall within the court’s exclusive power usurp or to decide a case. does not Sec. 757.025 adjudicative dic- interfere with the function. It does not tate the not substantive outcome of the case. It does apply the law the facts of a case. 5 Strange Harwood, 24, 27-28, See v. also 172 Wis. 177 N.W. (1920); State, 286, 294,
862
v.
D.H.
2d
2B1
76 Wis.
N.W.2d
(1977).
recognize
independence of the
I
institutional
only
judiciary
ability not
an
must include the
decide
atmosphere
case but also to decide it
an
free
individual
gov
from coercion or
interference
another branch
requirements
ernment. While the
affidavit
pay
delayed
be filed and that
if
withheld
decisions are
beyond prescribed
encourage judges
time limit
to decide
promptly,
imposition
cases
no one claims that
delay
compensation
reasonable time limits
ability
circuit
affects the
court’s
reach a reasoned
Supra, p.
decision.
more,
783. What
is
if the 90-180
day time limits in sec. 757.025 constitute coercion or inter
ability
independently
ference with the circuit court’s
ably
law,
decide the
under
merits of a case
adopted
today
rule
would be outside the
of this
3,
Fleischman,
court.
Wurtz v.
Wis. 2d
n.
Cf.
N.W.2d
prior
my
support
Our
conclusion that sec. 757.025
powers
falls within the area of shared
and is not a
separation
powers
violation of the
doctrine. Sec.
only
757.025
statute —or the first statute—
establishing
making.
time limits for decision
Sec. 757.025
legal history
early
has
roots
of this
As
state.
legislature
as 1856 the
setting
Wisconsin
enacted statutes
time
within
limits
which the trial
had to make
*29
certain
Eggert,
decisions. See
v.
Anderson
234 Wis.
348,
(1940).
exclusive majority I, article sec- 9, tion of the Wisconsin Constitution and this court’s interpretation provision. I, 9, of that Article section provides every person “ought justice to obtain
797 being obliged purchase it, com- freely, and without denial, promptly and without pletely delay, without and conformably supplied.) (Emphasis to the laws.” recognized I, expressly sec that article
This court has every imposes officer 9, constitution on tion of the state duty per imperative “an which should the state Strange Harwood, 172 v. formed without hesitation.” 24, 27-28, (1920). N.W. 862 The declaration Wis. 177 rhetoric”, Strange v. I, 9, not “mere article section expresses supra Harwood, at It one of the 172 Wis. 27. system jurisprudence” purposes our “fundamental scope of the administration whole and relates “to the 176, 185 College, 168, law.” Racine 176 Ward Wis. v. National Bank (1921). Lumbermen’s 635 See also N.W. (1918). Corrigan, 86, v. 650 N.W. Wis. concluding majority’s only explanation for The exclusively judicial the area of sec. 757.025 falls within setting authority time is that “the limits decision-making and effective concerns the efficient mat- functioning system, is a the court and therefore it within the As comes ter of court administration. such authority all courts which administrative over state Supreme Art. in the Court. Wisconsin Constitution vests legislature does VII, 3(1) The as amended in 1977. court ad- power promulgate a rule of not have the Supra, p. ministration.” 783. legislature’s law- say majority appears that the
The making authority Supreme administra- Court’s and the majority mutually authority Yet the tive are exclusive.6 power to this 3(1) 4(3) new no oí article VII add Secs. added language relating was court. administrative clarify this administrative existence of court’s previously. Martineau it See had claimed and exercised Practice, (1978). Malmgren, Appellate also 225-26 See Wisconsin Rules, (1931); Rules In re Court 204 Wis. N.W. 717 Relating to the the Office Chief Creation of Courts, Wis. Creation of Districts for Trial Administrative 2d xiii *30 798 attempt boundary no
makes delineate line between spheres authority. boundary these two line possible many While it is self-evident. concerning view issues functioning the efficient and effective system labeling matters, as administrative them place administrative should not within them the court’s legislative power. Policy appropriate exclusive issues likely appear might determination are as what be labeled “administrative” areas inas other areas.7 Sec. procedural regulation, 757.025 also labeled Delmady, this court that term. Estate has defined See (1946). 250 Wis. 27 497 389, 391, N.W.2d court has This frequently recognized legislative judiciary and regulate power pleading, practice, pro share the cedure that concern the efficient and issues effective system. E.B., administration of the court See re 111 175, ; (1983) 751.12, 330 181, Wis. 2d N.W.2d 584 Stats. 1981-82. forth,
For the I reasons have I set that sec. conclude powers 757.025 falls within the area of shared legislature judiciary may both the properly act.8 question The next then is whether sec. never- 757.025 is materially theless impairs unconstitutional because it practically defeats the circuit court’s or the proper functioning judicial system. majority opinion
As the acknowledged, from “aside Judge Grady’s testimony statutory limit 7 Administration, See ABA Committee on Standards of Judicial Relating Organization (1974); Standards to Court & Levin Amsterdam, Legislative Rulemaking: Control over A Judicial Revision, Problem in Constitutional 107 U. Pa. L. Rev. reasoning Brainer, For similar see United States v. 691 F.2d (4th 1982) (upholding Speedy Cir. Act), federal Trial People’s State ex Utility rel. Joseph, Emerald Dt. v. 292 Ore. (1982) (upholding legislative P.2d 1011 command to court of appeals to hear and determine case within three months from taking time appeal).
799
exceptional
and
deciding
burdensome
cases was
be
which cases should
decided
dictated
that
statute
un-
statute establishes
that the
first,
is no evidence
there
judges to decide cases sub-
limits for
time
reasonable
substantially
interferes
the exer-
them or
mitted to
(Supra, pp 774, 775.)
judicial duties.”
cise of their
in 1909 as to
757.025, Stats., was enacted first
Sec.
judges.10
judges9
then
county
in 1959
to circuit
change
length
Except
in the
the initial
time
substantially unchanged and
period,11 it
remained
has
length
years.
25
uncontested for almost
While
govern
time
been
the books does not
the statute has
on
longevity
constitutionality,
suggest
does
its
statute’s
regulation
posed
it
onerous
and has not
judges in
difficulties for the circuit
the framework of
routine,
“materially
day-to-day
impairs
that it
their
such
practically
juris-
or
defeats
circuit court’s exercise of
power
proper
functioning
or
diction
system
to constitute a violation of the doc-
so as
separation
powers.”
Holmes,
State v.
106
trine of
69,
31,
(1982).
Wis. 2d
Thus,
majority
“exclusivity”
if
even
the
view as to
is
accepted,
majority
the
must still determine whether sec.
757.025 aids or
the
obstructs
court
the
exercise
its
power.
exclusive
Since it is clear that sec. 757.025 does
impose
not
limits,
unreasonable time
not
does
interfere
with
decision-making,
reasonably
substantive
has worked
well,
tacitly permitted by
and has been
court for
this
long time, I
majority
would
“respect”
think the
should
the
legislature’s
upon
question
“adopt”
declaration
this
the statute since
“not
it does
court or im-
embarrass the
pair
Integration
its constitutional
functions.”
In re
Bar Case,
8,Wis.
tional consequences: (1) leads to several undesirable impedes legislature’s this decision the constitutional ob- ligation public policy to decide issues of related the justice; (2) administration of legislature this relieves the decision obligation from its constitutional to effectuate guarantee the state person constitutional to each justice promptly delay; (3) obtained and without this jeopardizes validity existing decision statutes regulate pleading, practice, procedure and other matters might impinging be viewed as on what this adminis- exclusive court’s now characterized
has authority. trative disagree major- forth, I with
For the reasons set ity’s that sec. is unconstitutional. conclusion 757.025 agree CECI, (concurring). I with J. J.
LOUIS Grady majority reprimand A. Warren that the disciplinary persistent warranted measure for his is a promptly perform failure official duties order and for his dispose of cases to him for decision submitted organize prompt disposition of failure his court for judicial business. agree majority’s hold
I also decision to grounds 757.025, Stats., on the unconstitutional judicial prescription statute’s of time limits for decisions exclusively vested falls within an area of government. branch of however, I I believe that this because separately, write I appropriate feel case attention what is to draw growing facing judiciary problem of this state. opinion, majority conduct As the notes in its *33 reorganization panel in found that of the court because partly Judge Grady’s delay deciding was in cases variety due to the “substantial number and increased judge’s assigned p. Supra, The to him.” at 765. through during years work load of 1979 1982 was by panel “heavy.” panel characterized also The Judge Grady clerks, interns, found had law secre- no tary, clerk, working fulltime or in his commissioners Supra, p court. at 770. majority accepted findings The these of fact. The
n majority also concluded that effective “efficient functioning system” of the ad- court within the falls authority ministrative over that is vested the state courts supreme in the Supra, p. court. at 783. functioning
Because the efficient and effective of the system court is within the administrative court, this I believe that we should be concerned with the heavy judiciary any work load and the lack of system plan guarantees statewide or which circuit court judges secretaries, clerks, etc., pur- access fulltime for organizing poses of their case loads. We should also be spite alarmingly concerned with the fact that in high number filed Grady’s, of cases like courts which 744 for year, was one there is likewise no state- plan provides wide judges circuit as- sistance purposes.1 of law clerks research Yet we expect judges, assistance, our promptly without such dispose cases, simple of all complex, whether submitted to their courts for decision. purpose today’s adoption 70.35, of SCR to alert assign- administrative offices of the need for the personnel steps
ment of additional or that other must be cases, taken in prompt disposition order to ensure the right step only is But it direction. that —a single Although step. problems pointed I have do out Judge Grady’s hand, not excuse I conduct in the at case believe that in the we future, witness instances spite judges where of mammoth efforts circuit promptly dispose of their set cases within the limits court, they down this are do unable to so without the I assistance have mentioned. We take notice of fact federal district
judges provided are with the fulltime services two clerks.