Presiding Judge Gerking: "Certainly disappointed by these texts"

Interview on KOBI

     "Our partners were talking. Amazing. So mean, so reckless, thinking that stuff and then actually putting it in writing like that.  She's a judge, for crying out loud."

           Partner in a large Medford law firm

    

 "Unless Lisa has a good explanation for these texts, she should resign."

          Veteran Medford personal injury plaintiff attorney

Judge Greif provides her explanation, in full: 

        "I wrote these texts over two years ago and, obviously, I am embarrassed by their content. I sincerely apologize to Judge Pat Crain, OnTrack, my colleagues on the bench, and to the citizens of Jackson county for using inappropriate language and not living up to the expectations I have of myself.

        I know that respect must be earned, and I hope that my actions since 2017 are a better reflection of who I am and the judge I aspire to be."

This response might work for her. Prior to becoming a judge Greif was a public defender, a lawyer who provides legal defense to people accused of crimes. Defending problematic incidents is a job in her wheelhouse. There is experience, craft, and strategy to her response. 

It was short--get it over with.

Take a contrite tone.

Say it was a long time ago and you are reformed.

And most important: apologize for the least important and most forgivable thing. Try to make her mistake one of bad language.

That is what she did. 

A Rotarian comment to me

I shared with her that I thought her texts revealed something much, much more troubling. This wasn't about writing "shit" and "Fuckers!" and calling other people "bitches" or talking about body slamming them. I said there were bigger issues.

The problem is that she used her office as judge to assist in a legal and media strategy to help litigants who were suing a organization doing the court's work, doing it secretly, doing it in part by using contemptuous language to undermine respect for fellow judges and the court system. Moreover, the texts do not demonstrate a conscientious "roll up ones sleeves" sincere desire to fix problems and make a better community. It does the opposite. It demonstrates malicious joy in personal and institutional destruction of people central to the court's work, in which Judge Greif was an active, gleeful participant.

That is conduct unbecoming a judge. That is what diminishes respect for the legal system and every other judge. That is what will cause every citizen who interacts with the justice system in Jackson County to wonder about the real, underlying motives, goals, and character of any judge sitting in front of them. Judges, as we see, are not necessarily rational, fair, reasonable people, with actions taken in open court. That is what concerns me.

Greif sent me a follow-up to her first explanation:

     "The disagreements, rancor, and underlying litigation are in the past. There were serious issues that were identified in DOJ's investigation of, and lawsuits regarding, OnTrack. My comments and conduct were ill-advised, and I have acknowledged that. As I indicated in may earlier response to you, I have had significant time since I wrote those text messages to reflect on and to address the "bigger issues" to which you refer."

Again, smart strategy.  

Still short. Still contrite. Still asserting that the past is past, that texts written two years ago and a lawsuit resolved this summer were old business, but adding a new element: OnTrack, the organization she worked to destroy, had problems. It is the victim-deserved-to-die defense in a murder case.

I consider this a distraction, an effort to change the subject. It might work in front of some juries, but is less likely to in front of the real body deciding the future for Judge Greif--the legal community of Southern Oregon. 

The issue is Greif herself. Was her response to whatever problems she may have perceived  at OnTrack reasonable and fair? Was it ethical? Do we want judges to address problems--or allegations of problems--by secretly taking sides in a lawsuit, secretly helping to gather evidence, or to use friendly media "moles" to get out "dirt" to drive up potential settlement values for the litigants? Do we want judges who carry out that work to tell court witnesses that the judges they appear in front of are witches, bitches, and evil?

A Facebook comment

This isn't interpretation or commentary. It is the plain and simple direct observation of the content of her texts. No need to trust me. Read them. Decide for yourself.

The question for Jackson County legal community is whether Greif's behavior is OK?  Or is it bad, sure, but still "good enough" by Jackson County standards?

Presiding Judge Timothy Gerking has a comment, in full: 

        "I am certainly disappointed by these texts authored by Judge Greif, as well as the history of reciprocal discord between two valued members of this court. Our court works hard to approach disputes impartially and to treat all people with respect. The language and the thoughts expressed in the texts are inappropriate and fall short of what we expect from a judge.

        I have spoken with Judge Greif. I am convinced she is learning and growing from this experience, and despite this lapse will continue to be a respected and valued member of our court."

Note he does not say her behavior falls far short, just short. He says Greif is learning and behavior in her eighth year of being on the bench was disappointing, but now, in her tenth year she has "grown." It was just a "lapse." She apparently was respected and valued going back while doing this behavior, and still is.

There it is. 

Speaking for myself, it is not good enough. I have a higher respect for the court system than that, and want to keep feeling that way. 

I expect more from judges.

Note: I know lots of lawyers and indeed I am married to one. No one but me decides what goes into this blog. I don't consult with my wife about this blog; in fact, she doesn't even read it. She is busy doing good work.