We all reacted with tremendous sadness and great empathy as Federal Judge Esther Salas publicly called for the long overdue increased privacy for judges.  Our collective prayers continue for Judge Salas and her husband, Mark Anderl, after the horrendous attack on her family and murder of their beautiful son, Daniel.

I respect the privacy of Judge Salas and we let her amazing words speak for themselves.  I hope that Congress takes swift action on her pleas and protects our Federal Judges.  Similarly, it is time to provide our New Jersey Superior Court Judges a similar wall of impenetrable privacy.

As a practicing attorney and former state senator who served on the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee,  I have some insight on the vulnerability of judges and I have seen first-hand when opportunistic politicians, uneducated beat writers, or parties harboring a grudge, have tried to exploit a judge over a presumed slight or adverse decision.  Let us be clear, sometimes judges make mistakes – they are human.  But, that does not mean at the first sign of controversy we bring out the proverbial guillotine and try to destroy their lives, careers and reputations. But sadly, that is the world that we have now devolved into.

By in large, the 465 Superior Court Judges bring their best, day in and day out, often working late, logging long hours dealing with huge backlogs and high-pressure situations.  The days of a judge having a cushy job where you can mail it in and play golf at 4 p.m. are long gone. These dedicated public servants are amazing in their professionalism and commitment. Judges sacrifice much as they help hold up the sometimes burdensome scales of justice.

Before they are bestowed with the honor of sitting on the greatest state court in the country, our judges undergo a diligent review by the Senate, the Governor’s Office and various Bar Associations.  Seven years later, they then go through this process all over again and have every decision they ever made scrutinized, not only by Senators, but also disgruntled litigants and the general public.

The Senate Judiciary Committee interview process is involved and requires nominated judges to provide substantial personal and financial information about them. This information is highly confidential and should always be treated as such.  As far as I have ever seen, the judiciary members and staff have long treated those documents with great care, with one exception.  During a particularly heated and partisan hearing for two nominees for the New Jersey Supreme Court, some confidential materials somehow made it in the hands of some reporters. Very troubling.

We have read too many stories of newspapers and special interest groups “outing” judges for decisions made and often lampooning them with ridicule and often not fully understanding the decision, precedent, or underlying facts. I can tell you that I handled more than one case where the public, a newspaper editor, or some interest group publicly declared a judge’s career as “DOA” and wanted a head on a stick for a past decision. One case in Monmouth County had a judge on the front page of a New York paper declaring the judge a tool of the organized mob (not true). I have also seen blogs posting personal attacks and listing confidential  information on judges. I have seen interested parties write some pretty savage and angry reviews and along with advice about short circuiting a career based on rumor or innuendo.

These attacks must stop.  Judges are human and will sometimes make decisions that we don’t fully understand or accept. We have an appellate process, and this should serve as  the practiced recourse, as oppose to public scorn.  This hatred and anger leads to the horrific events that Judge Salas and her family have endured.  The days of judges serving as punching bags, having pictures taken as they enter their homes or cars needs to stop.  We should no longer tolerate these attacks.

Specifically, we need to wall off all personal information on the internet, no home address, no home or cell numbers, and it should be a crime to publicly release or publish this personal information of sitting judges. We can no longer think it fair game to pull these public servants into a political or hate filled arena.  Removing this personal information and making illegal to promote violence on a judge is the right start. Thanking the judges for their service and sacrifice is the next step. I don’t have all the answers, but this should be a start to properly protecting our judges.

Some advice to current or future members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Point 1 – We need to respect each and every letter on those confidential questionnaires – every detail about a judge’s health, marriage, children, financial liabilities and  assets is listed along with other intensely personal and sensitive information.  You need to spend time with each nominee and you owe it to all to roll up your sleeves and do your homework.

Point 2 – We need to be careful as we cross-examine the judges publicly and understand that this isn’t a political campaign and we can’t encourage a lynch mob mentality. It is easy to incite, and you need to understand that in the instant market of social media and information (and disinformation ) overload, you can ruin a career, and worse a life.

Point 3 — It is very time consuming, but meaningful, to question the applicants BEFORE the public hearing to get to the core of the candidacy or question at hand. I personally found it most helpful and would have countless sit downs (sometimes on the telephone for those South of 95).

Point 4 — You should pass some bills now to make it much harder or illegal to publicly release personal information of judges. We should increase penalties on those who abuse the system and advocate harm against our judges.

Judges need privacy and protection and the time is now to give it to them.

Side Note: As far as reappointment of our state judges, there should be a presumption that a judge deserves reappointment. We sometimes hold a perfect standard to an imperfect world. And yes, those few judges who repeatedly fail the test in their avocation should not be reappointed or left on the bench, but they are the true one percenters. When I worked on a challenging reappointment,  I would often find myself interacting with supervising  judges, particularly working with them when a difficult reappointment seemed doomed on the next committee agenda.   It was during these most difficult cases that the invested and concerned Assignment  Judges would help unpack some of the history and explain some of the nuances.  Let me add that no one was better at that than Monmouth County Assignment Judge Lisa Thornton.  I’m proud to have helped rescue a bushel full of judges on their reappointment hearings.