Il Pomperoso

Everyone seems to be jumping on the Whitey Bulger publicity bandwagon.

The latest example: yesterday's Boston Globe puff piece on U. S. District Court Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf (the judge presiding over the preliminary proceedings involving Whitey), a story that should not have been published until such time as it is appropriate to nominate Judge Wolf for sainthood:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/06/28/bulger_case_puts_focus_on_judges_record_temperament/
  

On reflection, it is difficult to say what is more disturbing : the non-stop pomposity of the judge himself, or the fawning obsequiousness of those few members of the bar who could be found to say something nice about this most self-regarding of jurists. (The attitude of smugness and contrived dignity evoked by the photo of the oil portrait of the judge that accompanied the story speaks volumes - as does Judge Wolf, whenever he is given the opportunity).

Too young to the bench and lacking in vital trial experience upon his arrival (the only case I associate with Wolf the lawyer was his lead role in the prosecution of Senator Vincent Piro, in which he and Dan Small were thoroughly outgunned by Bob Popeo, with the result that Vinnie got the street), Judge Wolf compensated for his inadequacies and insecurities as a trial lawyer by imposing upon practitioners who appeared before him a daunting regimen of unnecessary, time consuming, and costly pre-trial protocols.

As if that were not enough, he brought to the bench the personality of a damp toilet seat and a propensity, indeed an eagerness, to bludgeon those appearing before him who did not conform to his caprice.

The effect of all this was that it became too expensive, economically and psychologically, to try cases in his courtroom, and as a result a whole class of individual litigants of modest means were effectively denied their right to have their cases heard in federal court. (There are some who contend that this was all by design, so that he wouldn’t have to make rulings that might be tipped on appeal.)

While the article only hints at this, the real truth is that Judge Wolf's reputation for arrogance, bullying, and intergalactic pomposity is so well established that it has become a thing of legend among lawyers who have had the misfortune to practice before him.

What is far less established is his reputation for doing justice.

If the Globe reporter really desired to get at the truth rather than to concoct a formulaic Globe puff piece, he might have spoken to some members of the bar (such as Assistant U.S. Attorneys) whom Judge Wolf has gone out of his way needlessly to humiliate. Or else he might have investigated some of the cases whose records Judge Wolf has unaccountably sealed, or sealed without adequate explanation.

One test of a fair judge is that weak litigants with strong claims are accorded at least as much courtesy and opportunity to have their causes heard fairly as powerful litigants with weak claims. I am not certain that Judge Wolf passes this test.

I don’t as a general rule support the election of judges, but this is one jurist who could serve as the poster child for that initiative.