Everybody gets busy from time to time. Everyone makes errors in the day-to-day. There are implications and impacts of those mistakes. It is unavoidable. How you respond and react is truly up to you alone.
We have each had that moment when we realize that we have done something that really should have enjoyed more thought and consideration. We regret having acted in haste during some moment. Unfortunately, in the real world, we often have no path to recover from such mistakes. That is real recently for a constitutional judge in Maryland that committed the offense of simply not reading what was in front of him. It is an important reminder for the judge but also for lawyers and more.
This judge is retired after serving "20 years on the Circuit Court Bench in Prince George's County." He is now a senior judge and "sits the bench in the Upper Marlboro courthouse part-time." He fills in on "the so-called rocket docket, in which the judge quickly hears dozens of cases involving lower-level offenses."
The mix-up, in this case, came from assumptions and failing to read a file. He was discussing "case one" with an attorney and was told "a bench warrant had been placed on his client by mistake." The case was a non-violent offense, and the accused "was free on his own recognizance." The attorney asked that the judge "rescind the bench warrant," and the judge committed to correct the error. The accused in that case "had a Latino name."
Four days later, the judge was presiding, and the file of Pedro Guifarro came across his desk. This defendant, "case two" was accused of a "gang-related killing." But, without reading Guifarro's file, the judge ordered the defendant in case two released. He essentially assumed that one name sounded like another name, did not review the file in front of him, and released the accused felon. The Washington Post reported in 2005 that officials had then "been looking for Guifarro since shortly after his release."
Confronted with the mistake, the judge is of course without any path to personally rectify the situation. He was quoted:
"Like a damn dummy, I didn't even look at the file," Femia said. "I screwed up."
This error came down to making an assumption because of the heritage presumed by the judge, that is that "the defendant had a Latino name." On the premise of that conclusion, and without any further inquiry, the judge "assumed it was the case involving the erroneous bench warrant" (case one). That is curious.
What compounded the error, or enabled it, is that when the judge "read the case number and Guifarro's name out loud," neither that defendant's counsel "nor the prosecutor . . . was present." The judge then ruled in the moment: "Please note the bench warrant has been recalled and the recognizance is reinstated."
There is a lesson here. Perhaps primary is the old adage "haste makes waste." Rocket docket or not, there is always a minute to read a file, confirm a name, and assure comprehension. Particularly so when the downside or risk is significant, but always so nonetheless. That, in the end, is the judge's job. Anyone can shuffle papers, make assumptions, and be decisive. The issue is one of being both focused and intellectually decisive. Read the documents!
There is a second lesson here. That is the "crying over spilled milk." The process reported here does not involve a great deal of recrimination or hand-wringing. There is acknowledgment that an accused gang-related killer had been set free and as yet was evading arrest. Regret is healthy, but what is done is done.
A third important lesson is to be conscious of bias and prejudice. That is an unfortunate conclusion but it is real. The assumptions in this instance were based on culture and name. There is a real problem with "they all sound the same." It is base, unfortunate, and wrong. The mistake evidenced bias and that should be recognized, comprehended, and addressed.
Finally, there is some inclination perhaps to blame the judge. That may be well-founded or not. The fact is, however, we all make mistakes. What is more important than such an error is how we individually respond to it in our own lives. The judge there has (1) admitted the error and (2) accepted responsibility for it. That is becoming increasingly rare in our world.
We see this in the world of workers' compensation daily. We see documents filed that are incomplete, inherently inconsistent, and at times patently false. I am proud that our judges read the pleadings and the file. We sit and wonder at the inadvertence or impropriety that has led to such documents. We notify, admonish, and correct. It is a labor-intensive process necessitated largely by lawyers who are either delegating too much to staff or who are neglecting to spend the time to read the file. As a result, we get simple, repetitive, and frustrating errors. Everyone makes mistakes periodically, but some of you might be troubled by the reputations you are building.
Sure, no felon has ever been mistakenly freed by a workers' compensation judge because a lawyer failed to document the details and/or read the file. But, there are repercussions from such failure nonetheless. Unlike the judge in this story, many times the lawyer's response when such an error is noted is incredulous, impatient, imperious, and inappropriate. The stories I hear of abusive and unprofessional lawyers in such settings are too often and too much.
We have paralegals lecture us on their perspectives, their desires, and their conclusions. We have lawyers that hurl insults, vent sarcasm, and spew vitriol. I am astounded by their childish and inappropriate behavior. I am disappointed in instances of laziness and incompetence.
Certainly, we all make mistakes. At the end of the day, the Maryland judge could have blamed staff, blamed volume, blamed anything. But, instead, he admitted his error. Whether we like a process or not, it is. Whether we think we have complied, that is up to the judge. Whether we respond with hate and hyperbole or with supplementation reflects on us. Whether we learn from such errors or keep making them is entirely up to us.
