Texpatriate endorses for Civil District Courts

In our last but not least series of judicial endorsements, this board takes a took at Civil District Courts. Typically, these courts deal with disputes over large sums of money, but they also consider general cases regarding the constitutionality of state laws or action at the most local level. Once upon a time, they bustled with activity of individuals trying to seek justice against those who had wronged them. Sadly, since the advent of so-called tort reform, which we believe has mercilessly slammed the courthouse door shut on many, much activity in these courts has ground to a complete halt. Compared to these courts’ brethren across the street in the Criminal District Courts, which are always popping with filled dockets, the load over here is relatively light. It’s not unheard of to only have a few things all day. Our first recommendation, simply put, is to disband many of these courts for inactivity. But it’s not the Judge’s call, so we digress.

Looking at these benches, we need individuals who will be fair, knowledgeable and experienced. Those who will not be afraid of doing what is right, even if it is isn’t popular or helpful to re-election.

Additionally, we need to stipulate a general rule in our endorsement process that we broke repeatedly when coming to these decisions. Generally, we defer to incumbents unless a challenger can prove how they fail. We did not do that in this election, given not only the vast number of relatively new incumbents, but how many uniquely qualified challengers were running for benches. Many of the incumbents we did not endorse are still good Judges — who have definitively not failed at their jobs — nonetheless.

There are 11 Civil District Courts up for election this year. All of them are contested.

Our pick is Judge Jeff Shadwick, running for his second full term after getting elected in 2010. He previously served an appointee from 2007 to 2009. A Republican, he runs with courtroom with a pristine sense of fairness and equity nearly unheard of around the courthouse. Among the plethora of attorneys we contacted in our research for this race, Shadwick’s name repeatedly came up as a fair and just arbiter of the law. He is a good judge who should be rewarded by Harris County voters with another full term in office.

Kay Morgan, the Democratic candidate, is an equally well-qualified and well-tempered opponent. She would also make a good judge, but Shadwick already does his job remarkably well.

Accordingly, this board endorses Jeff Shadwick for the 55th District Court.

Judge Michael Landrum, a Republican appointee of Governor Rick Perry in 2013, has a short record a judge. Thus far, he’s done a pretty good job, but much remains to be seen. We think Harris county should go with the bird in the hand, and return Steven Kirkland to the bench instead.

Kirkland, a Democrat who served as a Civil District Court from 2009 to 2013 and has served as a Municipal Judge in the interim, ran a remarkably just and efficient courtroom throughout his years on the bench. Those who practiced in his court never had an ill-word to say. Most pressing for us, Kirkland even has a record of making rules that were right, even if they were not fair. One such ruling, a $13 Million judgment against prominent attorney George Fleming for gouging his clients, even cost him his job.

Fleming poured millions into an unqualified opponent to run against Kirkland in the Democratic primary in 2012 — as well as another in 2014 — who used homophobic and other caustic tactics in a despicable attempt to knock the noble Kirkland off of the bench. The strategy worked in 2012, but not in this year’s primary. Voters should correct this injustice, and return a great jurist to the bench.

Accordingly, this board endorses Steven Kirkland for the 113th District Court.

Judge Randy Wilson, a Republican who has served in office for three full terms, has in some respects forgot the true meaning of being an impartial adjudicator. In case after case, attorneys who practice in his court tell us that he favors big interests over smaller ones. Nothing against him personally, but that style of Judging just isn’t right for Harris County.

Jim Peacock, his Democratic opponent, is a well-respected civil litigator, who would better understand neutrality on the bench. Attorneys from across the political spectrum note his non-partisanship and objective approach to complicated disputes. He would make an all-around better judge.

Accordingly, this board endorses Jim Peacock for the 157th District Court.

Judge Bill Burke, a twelve year veteran on the court, is a fair and neutral jurist who treats all parties with respect while objectively considering their cases. An active Republican, he notoriously checks his politics at the door and fairly considers all the cases before his court.

Ursula Hall, a longtime Municipal Judge and the Democratic candidate for this bench, is indubitably well-qualified to be a fantastic Judge. Hall also is active in promoting fairness throughout the entire legal system, embodying progressive values in a way that is constructive but not detrimental to her impartiality as a judge. The choice between her and Burke is a tough one.

On the balance, we tend to think that if the court isn’t broken, don’t fix it, so we will stick it out with Burke. But we fully encourage our readers to consider if your priority is a progressive mindset on the bench rather than merely a well-tempered Judge. If that is the type of official you are looking for, Hall is your candidate.

Accordingly, this board endorses Bill Burke for the 189th District Court.

Judge Patricia Kerrigan often makes her courtroom a hostile place for plaintiffs small in size, sometimes playing irresponsible favorites for the corporation or insurance company. However, our misgivings with her do not end just at her service as a jurist.

Kerrigan has been on the bench since 2007, but she had a long career before that in private practice. The attorneys with whom we consulted with to reach these decisions all similarly lamented the cases they worked on involving Kerrigan, deriding her as dishonest in the practice in law. We have some serious concerns that this dishonesty may not have subsided following her transition to the judiciary.

The Democratic candidate, Farrah Martinez, is a well-qualified and tempered attorney. She would honestly and fairly uphold the law if elected. We strongly encourage Harris County to make that a reality.

Accordingly, this board endorses Farrah Martinez for the 190th District Court.

Judge Wesley Ward was first appointed to the bench by Perry in 2012. Much like Judge Landrum before him, we have nothing but nice things to say of Ward, but he is still largely untested as a jurist. In the limited circumstances we can judge so far, though, Ward has demonstrated himself as a force to be reckoned within the Civil Courts. If your priority is the efficient operation of the courts, and for competent judges to serve, Ward is your choice.

But we also like Barbara Gardner, the Democratic candidate. She brings up a few troubling points about the incumbent’s operation of the court, including resetting cases for trial a few too many times and possibly being too reluctant to adjudicate disputes. All in all, though, her strongest points are her long resume and experience as a civil litigator. Gardner makes good points about the courts in general being too anti-consumer, which we absolutely agree with her about. She also points to the surplus of experience she has compared to her competitor. Thus, we think she would be the superior Judge.

Accordingly, we endorse Barbara Gardner for the 234th District Court.

Judge Dan Hinde is arguably known as the most intellectual of any Civil District Judge in Harris County. However, what he possesses in brainpower, he evidently lacks in certain judicial ethics. A few years back, Hinde got in trouble for improperly finding the addresses of candidates in the jury pools, then sending campaign materials to their homes. A columnist at the Houston Chronicle opined that he may have committed a felony. Many around the city may have forgotten, but we surely remember. Hinde, a Republican, also has a reputation, like many other Judges, to improperly favor big defendants over little plaintiffs.

George Arnold, a Democrat, would be a fairer and more ethical judge. With more than two decades of the practice of civil law under his belt, he would be able to capably interpret the law and fulfill his judicial activities. He fully expect him to be a fairer adjudicator, as well one who will not abuse his office for political purposes.

Accordingly, this board endorses George Arnold for the 269th District Court.

Judge Brent Gamble, who has served four terms in office, is ready to retire. A Republican, he regularly rules against the little guy and is just not a good jurist for the people of Harris County.

The Democrat, James Hippard Jr, should sound familiar to every lawyer in Houston. His father, James Hippard Sr, was a hero in the local integration movement and a venerated Professor at the University of Houston School of Law. Like his father, Hippard strives to fight for the everyday Texan throughout his practice of law. Seeking deference for neither rich or poor, Hippard would be a fair and noble Judge if elected. With many decades of experience as both an attorney and law professor, he would also be ready to hit the ground running on day one.

Accordingly, this board endorses James Hippard Jr. for the 270th District Court.

Judge Sylvia Matthews, a Republican who has served for six years, is an adequate Judge. But her Democratic opponent, Tanner Garth, would likely be an even better Judge. With decades of experience, Garth would be both just as qualified as the incumbent but compassionate and open-minded in ways she just would not.

A business-litigator by trade, Matthews has a history of representing the big entities looking to clamp down on activity at the courthouse. A personal injury trial lawyer, Garth seeks the opposite. He has a history of helping people who have been wronged by seeking out justice for those who have been wronged. It is a noble background, one Harris County could simply use more thereof.

Accordingly, this board endorses Tanner Garth for the 281st District Court.

Judge Caroline Baker has a passable record on the bench. On the bench for about six years, she has developed the same reputation for arguably being a little preferential to bigger business interests. Harris County definitely has a good judge with Baker, a Republican, but they could have a great judge if they selected her Democratic opponent, Latosha Lewis.

An environmental lawyer by trade, Lewis has direct experience in litigating torts for those who have been wronged by malice or negligence. She understands that these cases are about more than just numbers and statistics; they are about people. Recognized by Texas Monthly as one of the top lawyers in the State every year for the past seven years, she would — without a doubt — be a fantastic addition to the courts.

Accordingly, this board endorses Latosha Lewis for the 295th District Court.

We find both the Republican incumbent, Grant Dorfman, and the Democratic opponent, Daryl Morre, to be rather well qualified and well versed contenders. Our preference of one over the other one is somewhat hard, as they are both good options. Ultimately, we think that Moore, a plaintiff’s attorney and son of a prominent labor activities, would be the better choice. We recommend a vote for Moore.

The Texpatriate Editorial Board is comprised of Noah M. Horwitz & Olivia Arena of Austin, George Bailey of Boston, Luis Fayad of College Station and Andrew Scott Romo of New Orleans. Editorials represent a majority opinion of the voting board.

Texpatriate’s Questions for Barbara Gardner

Editorial note: This is the twenty-third in our series of electronic interviews with candidates for Statewide and Harris County offices. We have sent questionnaires to every candidate on the ballot, given we could find a working email address. We have printed their answers verbatim as we receive them. If you are or work for such a candidate, and we did not send a questionnaire, please contact us <info@texpate.com>.


Barbara Gardner, Democratic candidate for the 234th District Court

Texpatriate: What is your name?
BG: Barbara Gardner

T: What office are you seeking?
BG: 234th Civil District Court

T: Please list all the elected or appointed POLITICAL (including all Judicial) offices you have previously held, and for what years you held them.
BG: For three years I was elected President of the Harris County chapter of the Texas Democratic Women (“TDWHarris’). In 2009 I single-handedly revived TDWHarris, which had become defunct, and I am still a member of TDWHarris. The mission of TDW is to encourage more women to take leadership roles in society, to provide education on women’s rights, and to encourage women to become involved in the political process, wherever it best fits their personal circumstances. President of TDWHarris is not necessarily a public office, but it is political and therefore relevant to this question.

T: What is your political party?
BG: Democrat

T: What is a specific case in which you disagree with actions undertaken by the incumbent?
BG: There are quite a few cases with which I disagree with actions taken by my opponent, based on my review of the Harris County District Clerk’s records. The most blatant mismanagement of his docket is the continually resetting of trials. This wastes both the parties’ and taxpayers’ money. It is exceedingly time-consuming to prepare for trial. Every time that a case is reset, the lawyers go back to their other cases. When the trial setting again draws near, the lawyers must re-learn and “get under their belt” all of the details of the case that was re-set, which is repetitive, wasteful, but necessary work. One striking example is case number 2011-17650, which has eleven trial settings. That is almost unheard of. Case #2009-79721 was filed in 2009 and will not go to trial until February 2015. There are other cases that have been pending for years in the 234th District Court.

Another problem is that too frequently when requests for action by the court are filed (called “motions”), usually pertaining to interim disputes in the case, my opponent orders the lawyers to “go work it out” in the hallway. My opponent often begins by telling the lawyers that “someone is going to have to get out a checkbook,” a veiled threat of sanctions. One lawyer told me about this practice, and so I sent a paralegal to observe a morning of motion hearings. My opponent did just what I described. Lawyers generally attempt to work out their disputes, based on the rules of procedure. When they cannot, they turn to the judge for assistance. It is then the Court’s responsibility to issue a ruling on the dispute to get the case back on track and moving toward a trial date.

T: What is a contentious issue that you belief the Court will face in the near future? Why is it important? How would you solve it?
BG: Based on the Texas Ethics Commission’s (“TEC”) regulations, I am prohibited from answering this question, as it could indicate how I might rule on an issue which could come before me as a judge.

T: Do you believe that the incumbent has specifically failed at her or his job? If so, why?
BG: I do. As indicated above, my opponent resets trials much too frequently, often with no reason. In one case that I reviewed, one lawyer even filed a motion to transfer to another court (which was denied) in an attempt to get his client’s case set for trial.

I was a law clerk (briefing attorney) after law school for US District Judge Carl Bue. I learned from Judge Bue how to manage a heavy trial docket, at the “knee of the master.” I will not reset trials over and over and over. While a party may need a continuance, I will not arbitrarily reset trials just because, after sufficient time for discovery, the lawyers “are not ready” – or for no reason. One or two continuances, maybe three depending on the circumstances, may be reasonable – but not ten! I learned from Judge Bue that issuing docket control orders and scheduling cases for trial with a definite, predictable trial setting causes the lawyers to get their cases ready for trial. When the cases are ready for trial, frequently the parties will settle – saving everyone money and resolving the dispute amicably.

Also as discussed above, my opponent is unable to deal adequately with interim disputes. A trial judge is something like an umpire in baseball: His/her job is to call the balls and strikes fairly. A trial judge’s job is more difficult, however, because the trial judge must study, read, and be prepared to make rulings on disputes. I will make rulings correctly, fairly – and promptly. Additionally, this removes the “gamesmanship” that frequently accompanies repetitive discovery motions. I will study; I will be prepared on the law and the facts; and I will make rulings quickly on all matters that come before me, from interim discovery disputes to motions for summary judgments. I will not impliedly threaten the parties that “someone is going to be getting out a checkbook” and send the lawyers out into the hall to “work it out.” I will issue docket control orders that are meaningful. I will not permit discovery motions to go on and on for years, wasting the parties’ and the taxpayers’ money. I will resolve the disputes and issue rulings promptly by applying the wisdom gained from my many years of trial experience and my knowledge of the rules of procedure and applicable case law.

Trial judges must spend their days at the courthouse; that is their job. District judges have no one monitoring their whereabouts, no one to account to for their time, no one to question long or frequent vacations. I will be at my desk working diligently, and I will serve the voters who elect me by holding hearings and trials as needed, ruling on motions to move the cases along, doing legal research to remain current on the law, and writing the orders and opinions needed to dispose of issues that come before me. The goal is that each party, even though he or she may lose on an issue, feels that justice has been done.

T: Why you, as opposed to your opponent?
BG: My opponent first applied for appointment to the bench in 2003. He was only a five-year lawyer. For the next ten years, my opponent continued to plead for appointment until he finally obtained Perry’s favor in 2013. This is so even though my opponent had tried very few jury trials as first chair attorney. (I have my opponent’s entire file from the Governor’s office.) As the Houston Chronicle has noted, “[Governor Perry] has grown too accustomed to getting his way when it comes to making sure that virtually every key position in state government is occupied by a Perry loyalist.”[1]

Governor Perry has “staunchly pro-defendant and anti-consumer” ideals. Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett explained that “[Governor Perry] has chosen judges who reflect his judicial philosophy, which Willett described as ‘unabashedly conservative.’ And he said that Perry understands the importance of judicial appointments. “[2]

My opponent has the solid conservative credentials that Governor Perry requires for his judicial appointments. My opponent was a member of and chaired the membership committee for Houston’s “R Club.” The R Club is a political action committee whose members are committed to “taking individual and collective responsibility for promoting a conservative agenda in Houston and the State of Texas.”[3] He was a member of the Maverick PAC, which also “promotes conservative principles.”[4] In 2012 he was a “surrogate speaker” for Governor Perry in Iowa when Perry attempted to run for president. Then – finally my opponent was named judge in November 2012.

Everything I have, I have earned through my own hard work, while my opponent became a Perry loyalist to receive his judicial appointment in return. Governor Perry continues to ignore the constitutional requirement that state judges be elected, thus stacking the bench with Republicans. As a result, our citizens do not have the balanced courts that ensure fairness. We need fair and even-handed judges to achieve justice in Harris County.

Among my opponent’s contributors are the Conservative Republicans of Texas PAC and Texas Conservative View PAC. Support by these conservative PACs further underscores the conservative bent by my opponent – in keeping with Governor Perry’s appointment requirements.

Writers say that this trend of money spent by PACs is being bolstered dramatically by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. “The real takeaway here is that we’ve turned the word bribery into the more respectable word, contribution.” [5] A study in Time magazine reported:

“Much is said abouthow much influence big-money interests have with the White House and Congress. But people are not talking about how big money is also increasingly getting its way with the courts, which is too bad. It’s a scandal that needs more attention. A blistering new report details how big business and corporate lobbyists are pouring money into state judicial elections across the country and packing the courts with judges who put special interests ahead of the public interest.”

Cohen, “Judges Are For Sale – and Special Interests Are Buying,” Time Magazine, October 31, 2011.[6]

All of this further emphasizes the problem with Governor Perry’s system of appointing judges who then become the “incumbents.” Lawyers and law firms tend to support an incumbent, no matter his/her qualifications. Lawyers in Harris County have told me outright that it is their firm’s policy always to support the incumbent. This makes a challenge by an outsider – again, no matter the qualifications – extremely difficult.

Harris County citizens should vote for me because, one, I am considerably more qualified and experienced for the position of civil district judge than my appointed opponent; two, I am more organized and experienced in trial matters and can better manage the caseload than my appointed opponent. (I know this because I have studied my opponent’s docket of cases online in the Harris County District Clerk’s records.) And, three, I have the patience and judicial temperament that it takes to be a good trial judge.

T: What role do you think a Civil District Judge should have individually? What role do you think the Civil District Courts should have as a whole?
BG: As stated above in more detail, the job of a district judge is to preside over the interim disputes while the parties are preparing for trial. This disputes generally involve disagreements between the lawyers as to how the rules of procedure should be applied. Also, the district judge rules on dispositive motions, such as motions for summary judgment, which would prevent the case from going to trial. Those are critical rulings because granting a dispositive motion is inherently denying a party his/her 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury. Those motions should be granted only in exceptional situations.

After the discovery of facts has been accomplished, the case is set for trial. During the trial the judge rules on what evidence is relevant for the jury to hear and what is not. Incorrect rulings on evidence sometimes will prevent the jury from ever hearing true facts of what occurred. Judges can sway the outcome of the case in these rulings. The trial judge also rules on motions by the parties to take certain actions, such as to dismiss the case without the jury ever getting a chance to deliberate. I have seen many incumbent judges dismiss cases in the middle of the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge summarizes the law for the jury to follow in its deliberations in a document called the “Court’s Charge to the Jury.” This is another very critical point at which the judge can sway the jury’s decision by how he/she words the explanation of the law, or even omits important points of law that the jury should know.

Rulings by the Judge of the 234th District Court and other district courts affect all Harris County residents, even those who are never involved in a lawsuit. Decisions by these courts are the beginning of binding precedents that other Texas courts must follow. If a district court case is appealed, the appellate court can affirm or reverse the ruling.   The appellate court’s written opinion, which started in the district court, then becomes binding law throughout the State of Texas. An appellate court often can be influenced by how the decision was written by the district judge. So, the decisions of our district courts form the crucial starting point of the civil justice system for Texas citizens.

Only when a judge applies the law correctly, fairly and equally will the parties receive justice. After 30 years of trying cases, I can say that justice is sorely lacking in our Harris County courts. We need a change. I promise that when I am elected, I will apply the law correctly, fairly, and equally to everyone because – justice matters.

T: What are your thoughts on the partisan election of Judges?
BG: Since our State Constitution requires election of state judges by our citizens (which is one reason why I oppose Governor Perry’s established appointment system), the election of judges likely will continue for the foreseeable future. It would be possible to convert this into a non-partisan election similar to our municipal elections or, similar to other states, place judges’ names on a separate ballot at election time without a “D” or “R” beside the names. This process would encourage voters to research the qualifications of judicial candidates and elect the most qualified. That would have to come from the Texas Legislature, however. Based on past history, the Republican-dominated Legislature likely will not make any changes.

T: What are the three most important issues to you, and what is at least one thing you have done to address each of them?
BG: As above, I cannot give any indication on how I might rule on any issue, based on the TEC regulations. However, I can comment on improvements that are needed in the 234th Civil District Court.

First, Perry’s appointment system has gone “under the radar.” Voters have no idea that Perry is placing his “loyalists” on the bench, many who are not particularly qualified to be judges but who are very difficult to unseat. This system is well planned and thought-out, and it defeats our State’s mandate to elect the most qualified jurists. To the detriment of consumers and small business, we continue to see “Perry loyalists” who are pro-defendant, anti-consumer, and stalwart conservatives. This must change.

Second, as discussed more fully above, my opponent has demonstrated that he does not have the experience in the courtroom to manage a heavy trial docket. Trials should not be reset over and over, especially for no reason, as my opponent does. Delay benefits the large corporations. I know because I have represented corporations, and their mantra generally is to delay any progress of the case. That is because over time critical witnesses, who may testify against the corporation, forget, become disinterested, move – or worse, die. This has happened to me, and so I know of this process firsthand. Also discussed above, the motion practice should be more organized, with reasonable deadlines for filing any discovery or non-dispositive motion. I learned from Judge Bue that issuing docket control orders and scheduling cases for trial with a definite, predictable trial setting causes the lawyers to get their cases ready for trial. A reasonable docket control order will have deadlines for all critical events in the case, including a deadline for any discovery motions. Lawyers and their clients need to work diligently to prepare their cases for trial, which includes gathering the relevant facts through the discovery process. They also must have reasonable time periods and deadlines for completing the discovery process, deadlines that are enforced by the judge. Then when the cases are ready for trial, frequently the parties will settle – saving everyone money and resolving the dispute amicably.

Third, too many Harris County District Judges grant the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, which is documented in the District Clerk’s records. This is to the distinct disadvantage of the consumer and small business person, and benefits the large corporations. Granting summary judgment should be the absolute exception. Every party has a right to his/her “day in court,” which means a trial decided by a jury of their peers. That is our Constitutional right, and it should be held sacred.


[1] http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Abuse-of-power-5692132.php

[2]   http://www.texastribune.org/2011/08/12/supreme-court-elected-bears-perrys-stamp/

[3]   http://www.rclub.us

[4] https://www.facebook.com/MaverickPACHouston/info?ref=page_internal

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roseanne-barr/campaign-finance_b_1860855.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=090612&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

[6] http://ideas.time.com/2011/10/31/judges-are-for-sale-and-special-interests-are-buying/