Letter to Editor | Brandli Explains “Transactional Practice”

— 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 two months old, and nearly all of the cases on the twice-monthly Tuesday criminal calendar are more than six 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.