Brandli Explains “Transactional Practice”

In the mailbag there’s a letter from Steve Brandli…

I write to correct some inaccurate information concerning my campaign. I have been very open about my intention, if elected as District Court Judge, to continue a very part-time practice. That practice will be limited to transactional matters, e.g. largely document drafting and advising. Transactional attorneys never see the inside of a courtroom. And my transactional practice will not create significant District Court conflicts.

I ask that voters consider the following facts:

• Our District Court judge is part-time (.77 FTE). Our retiring judge Stewart Andrew has been working part-time. There is no way to make it a full-time position without incurring additional costs for the county, e.g. staff time.
• The law allows part-time judges and commissioners to practice law. This is commonly done around the State.
• Our retired judge Donald Eaton practiced law for around 20 years while a juvenile court commissioner. Our first District Court judge, John Linde, also practiced law during his 20 year tenure.
• My intention is to practice very part-time, on average one day a week. I will only take non-urgent matters that will not create ethical or time conflicts with my District Court service.
• My current practice is 10 to 20% transactional, as it has been for the last 10 years. So I will essentially be discontinuing my litigation practice.
• In the entire 10 years that I have had a small transactional practice, not one of those matters gave rise to a District Court case. If I had been the District Court judge these last 10 years, I would have had no conflicts as a result of these transactional cases.

If conflicts are the concern, my opponent will have many of them due to her current work in District Court. About three-quarters of the weekly Wednesday criminal calendar involves cases that are more than 2 months old, and nearly all of the cases on the twice-monthly Tuesday criminal calendar are more than 6 months old. If elected, my opponent would not be able to hear these calendars for months, and will have significant conflicts for years. The county would have to hire a pro tem judge at considerable county expense to substitute on these cases while my opponent continues to draw her salary.

At least one supporter of my opponent has alleged that I am running for financial reasons. If I am elected, I will receive less, not more income. If money were a motivation, I would not be running.

I invite anyone with questions or concerns on this or any other subject to contact me. I will be happy to discuss my candidacy. Please call (360) 378-5544.

You can support the San Juan Update by doing business with our loyal advertisers, and by making a one-time contribution or a recurring donation.