Bench & Bar January/February 2025

Q&A WITH CHIEF JUSTICE Q

& A WITH CHIEF JUSTICE LAURANCE B. VANMETER

BY JAMES P. DADY AND JOHN GHAELIAN

As you leave the bench and the post of chief justice what is your biggest concern about the judiciary and the legal profession? One comment that I consistently hear from trial judges is a decline in professionalism among members of the bar. The incidents include casual dress to court while representing clients; apparent inattentiveness to showing up timely for court; apparent lack of prepa ration and readiness to proceed for motions, hearings, or even trial. Too often, lawyers seem to consider pre-trial orders as mere guidelines and not as binding directions from the court. In the appellate courts, we also see that but more often in the form of failure to abide by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Whether declining professionalism is due to inadequate educational training, a lack of mentoring, or symptomatic of 21 st Century America is difficult to say. But if enough clients lose cases due to sloppy lawyering, that will merely fuel the belief of some that our judicial system is broken. And, unfortunately, I hear and observe the same about some members of our judiciary. The age of social media, I think, has contributed to this. Some judges appear to believe that social media postings are not subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct. SCR 4.300. The Preamble to those rules states that judges should be dignified and, in addition, accept constraints on their personal lives that are not imposed on the public at large. While we have attempted to bring this point home to our judges, it seems that the “offenders” do not consider their actions are over the line. Conversely, what gives you the most confidence and hope about the judiciary and the legal profession?

During your career what was the most challenging case that you worked on?

In 2003, the Lexington-Fayette County Urban County Government passed the first county wide smoking ban in Kentucky. Unfortunately for me, I drew the case in the midst of my running for the Court of Appeals. I disclosed to all counsel that I was a non-smoker, but that our family farm, at the time, grew tobacco. I also knew that opinions on the propriety of the ordinance, i.e., “the proper role of government,” were polarizing, not only in Fayette County but also in the other ten counties of my appellate court district. My law clerk at the time questioned whether this case was one in which we needed to issue a ruling before the November election. My response was, “Emily, if I can’t make a difficult decision, not only do I not need to be on the Court of Appeals, I don’t need to be a judge at all.” In a sense, this case encapsulated one of our Rules of Judicial Conduct, that “[a] judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.” SCR 4.300, Rule 2.4(A). When our research disclosed the authority of local governments to enact ordinances related to public health, the legal decision, which was affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme shortly thereafter, was not especially difficult. Lexington Fayette Cnty. Food & Beverage Ass’n v. Lexington-Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t , 131 S.W.3d 745 (Ky. 2004). But the decision stands out in my mind since it was the first really high-profile case I had.

Notwithstanding almost 31 years in the judiciary in which I have presided over hor rific criminal cases, heart-wrenching family cases, and cases in which judges and lawyers have violated the trust reposed in them, I still believe that most people are good and want to do the right thing. Sometimes, they just need to think through some bad options before getting to the right one(s). With that thought, almost all our judges, clerks and lawyers are good people and ded icated public servants. This knowledge gives me hope and confidence.

4 january/february 2025