Greif, continued: Bad judges are hard to replace

No one wants to get crosswise with a judge.  A bad judge with a reputation may be the hardest kind to replace. 

Judge Greif, from a KOBI TV interview

It is just too risky to speak up. 

Judges have power. Their role gives them the presumption that they are fair, impartial, and exercise good judgement. We rise when they enter the courtroom, respecting the role. 

They represent justice itself.

That's how it is supposed to be.

This blog published a long series of messages written by Judge Lisa Greif. They reveal a pattern of underhanded behavior in support of a litigant in a lawsuit against OnTrack, with Judge Greif assisting both its legal strategy and its media take down of the addiction recovery program. It was done with glee, over many months, reflecting a manipulative cast of mind, and astonishing immaturity and poor judgement, reflected in her text messages. ("Don't worry, those bitches are going down!")

Judge Greif comes up for election in May. This should be easy fix, right? 

Some good local lawyer will run against her, win easily, and take her place. Jackson County citizens would be better served, and the court's reputation will have been cleansed. Meanwhile, Greif will go off and do something she is better suited for than being a judge. Win-win, right?

The problem is that she is a sitting judge. Practicing attorneys have clients to represent and their cases might come up in front of Judge Greif. They have a responsibility to their clients, and to their own careers, not to make trouble. A vindictive, underhanded, immature judge can make trouble. On a basketball court there is gray area over whether a player committed a foul when he bumped another, and on a football field over whether a tackle involved, or didn't involve, the head. The ref makes a call. Judges, too.

Click: Refs and judges have power

A rule in sports and in the courtroom: don't anger the ref.

A dozen or so attorneys have contacted me in the past two days and shared how appalled they are at Judge Greif's behavior. I ask if they want to say anything publicly. "Oh, God no!," they say. "She's a judge. Too dangerous."

I ask them if they expect Presiding Judge Tim Gerking will do anything. "No," they all say. "He will keep his head down. He has to work with her. He's probably hoping someone else will do something, but he won't."

I see a pattern: Someone should do something, someone else. It is just too dangerous to upset a judge, especially a bad judge, someone with hidden agendas, an underhanded manner, media contacts and savvy, and a vindictive streak.

So it is a strange situation. Greif's text messages demonstrate her unfitness, but simultaneously show how dangerous it could be for someone to file to run against her. Remember the rule: don't anger the ref. 

If she runs unopposed, even if 90% of the voters leave her ballot unmarked, she wins.

I suspect nearly anyone who runs against her would win, but she serves for another 14 months so a challenger has to deal with that fact, and nothing is certain in politics. Still, there is a good opportunity for a challenger, if one emerges. Greif will be watched closely now for signs of bias. Plus, he or she has a ready-made Voters Pamphlet slogan. "I don't want to kill or body slam anyone."

That is a promise the challenger can make and Greif could not.


Note: For the reasons mentioned above I need to say the following: I know lots of lawyers in town. No one but me decides what goes into this blog. I am married to a lawyer. She doesn't consult with me on this blog, and indeed doesn't read it. She has important work to do.