COURT-CLERGY OUTREACH.

• Author: Nicholson, George

APPENDIX A: COURT-CLERGY OUTREACH

During my involvement with Court-Clergy Outreach and Conferences, I have been quietly approached by several trial judges and appellate justices who said they believed we could not as judges ethically or morally involve ourselves in such matters. I explained to them why I believed our involvement was not only acceptable, but essential. But that the work must be done with discretion and a full knowledge and complete understanding of the process, keeping in mind, and abiding by, judicial ethics.

There is also an honest division of opinion among judges who engage in court-clergy outreach--and court-community outreach, for that matter--about the proper content and scope of either form of outreach. Is it ethically proper for judges to educate only about the courts and court functions? Or may judges ethically go further than that and help bring diverse community groups together, even contending ones, in neutral settings and facilitate, directly or indirectly, pro and con instruction on difficult, even controversial issues, by distinguished faculty, and encourage give and take discussions between disputants?

As we ponder these matters, we might keep in mind the judicial reticence, our own and that of others, shown to addressing these matters in any public way. Presiding Judge Vance Raye (1) was similarly reticent. We have been friends and colleagues for almost a half-century. I invited him to address Sacramento's first Court-Clergy Conference in 2014. After considerable thought, he accepted my invitation and decided to address the conference and to introduce our main speaker, Father Rodney Davis.

Justice Raye began:

Let me confess at the outset, when I was first approached... about this conference and my possible role in it, I had decidedly mixed emotions. Judges are naturally cautious about generally everything and, particularly, about anything that suggests governmental involvement in religion. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment stands as both a legal and a psychological barrier to discussions about religion by state officials. But on reflection I realized there is nothing that prevents us as judges from recognizing that religion plays an immense role in the lives of the American people--and so, to the extent that our cases seek to influence their lives for the better, we need to understand the factors that may impinge on our decisions. Values--whether religious or secular--are quite important in shaping behavior. As judges, human behavior is central to our mission. So, our decision-making must take values, including religious values, into account. (2) Following that introduction, Father Rodney spoke. He has a unique voice. His father was a state legislator who died in office, leaving Father Rod's mother and children, including little Rodney, to fend for themselves. His mother was promptly elected to her husband's former office and held it for many years. She was highly respected by both sides of the political aisle. (3) Father Rod became a lawyer and worked for several years in the California Department of Justice, before becoming, in order, a municipal court judge, a superior court judge, and a court of appeal justice. While in the latter role, he attended divinity school at night and, in time, graduated. After he retired, he was ordained as an Episcopal deacon and, later, as a priest.

Nearing the end of his presentation, Father Rod noted wistfully, "Looking back on my judicial career, I now believe I would have been a better judge had I been more informed about my religious tradition, more involved with clergy about the conundrums I faced, more discerning in assessing how my beliefs might be influencing my discretionary decision-making." (4) His talk was infused with the importance of humility for judges and for clergy. He urged clergy to reach out to judges they know and to recognize that judges are conditioned to keep things to themselves. His final words were, "[Judges] need an invitation. When offered, I hope judges will accept the invitation and then begin and continue the conversation." (5)

Judge Kermit V. Lipez, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, now in senior status, wrote at about the same time as Father Rod spoke. (6) Judge Lipez ended his commentary with this:

In closing, and in summary, I must take issue one last time with Justice Frankfurter. He wrote in his Barnette dissent that "as judges we are neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Catholic nor agnostic." He was wrong. Judges do not lose their religious identity when they become judges, any more than Justice Sotomayor lost her identity as a Latina woman when she became a judge. We remain the sum of all our parts. Those parts inescapably influence our work as judges. What matters is our awareness of those influences, how we use them, and, at times, explain them. We should accept the truth that a judge's religion affects judicial decision-making and engage in an ongoing discussion about it. (7) Court-clergy outreach allows judges to address the matters Father Rodney and Judge Lipez touch upon, among others. A description of Court-Clergy Outreach in California, primarily in Sacramento, appears below with links to several related articles. Any judge--state, tribal, or federal--who is interested in a "how-to-do"-related outreach need only read Judge Richard L. Fruin, Jr.'s groundbreaking work, (8) review the following descriptions, and read the short, linked articles posted below to get a practical, working knowledge of how to begin or how to enhance existing court-clergy outreach. From personal experience, I strongly suggest court-clergy outreach is a hands-on matter for judges. I am willing to talk with any interested judge in the country about this and to refer any judge to other judges, lawyers, and scholars who may be helpful.

1. COURT-CLERGY CONFERENCES

   Court-Clergy Conferences were born in North Carolina more than a quarter-century ago. The idea came to Judge Adam Grant during a friend's funeral. Judge Grant was then chief district court judge in North Carolina's Carrabus County. His friend had been killed by a drunk driver. According to Judge Grant, "The preacher, in remembering my friend from the pulpit, criticized the courts for their handling of drunk driver cases and re-vealed--at least to me--just how misinformed he was. But that made me realize that pastors were a particularly influential group in informing the public about the courts." (9)

   Judge Fruin was so impressed with Judge Grant's work that he brought Court-Clergy Conferences to Los Angeles roughly twenty years ago. Since then, he and his Los Angeles Superior Court colleague, Judge Paul A. Bacigalupo, (10) periodically conduct Court-Clergy Conferences. More recently...