In the coming years, Arizona Supreme Court JusticeCharles Jones may find that sitting on the bench is the only sitting he does.

BY TIM EIGOPHOTOS BY JOHN BECKETT

On January 2, 2002, Jones will be elevated to the postof Chief Justice. In that position, he will be the administra-tive leader of a Court that oversees every court in the state.And the list of tasks that he inherits and that he intends toinitiate is a long one. From the first day of his new post, heknows that time is valuable. “Quite frankly,” he admits, “theend comes a lot sooner than people think.”

Sooner for him than for others, he notes. Because ofrequired retirement at age 70, the new Chief Justice hasabout three and a half years to guide the Court.

Given the speed with which time passes, it is no surprisethat delay—administrative and legal—is the first item dis-cussed by Justice Jones.

“We developed in Maricopa County a serious problem inthe handling of criminal cases at the superior court level,”

recalls Jones. “We were backlogged badly. We saw people whowere charged with crimes in the county jail and they werethere not just for 100 days, but they were there for 200, 300,500, 700, 800, some even 1,000 or more days without everbeing brought to trial. That was a problem.”

But, says Jones with obvious pleasure, that “culture ofdelay” and the backlog have largely been reduced. Jones saysthat credit for that goes to previous Chief Justices and “themain cog in that wheel at Maricopa County Superior Courtseeing that reengineering was taking place was [Judge] RogerKaufman.” That is a success that is good for justice, forlawyers and for the public.

Backsliding is always a possibility, warns the new Chief,especially with increased growth.

Chief Justice Jones at the Helm

STEERING THE SHIP

16 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 2 W W W. A Z B A R . O R G

18 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 2 W W W. A Z B A R . O R G

“We’re now up to 90 divisions of theSuperior Court in Maricopa County,” hesays. “The 91st has been approved by theGovernor.” And that number does notinclude commissioners, city magistrates orjustices of the peace.

“That size poses problems.”But Jones sees the Court as more than

a traffic cop that urges other courts to“keep it moving.” He intends to focus onsystemic challenges that go to the heart ofhow judges do their work.

“Judges traditionally have not beenproblem-solvers. They have been officers

that are trained in the law for the purposeof resolving disputes, both civil and crimi-nal.”

That is good as far as it goes, says Jones,but new problems call for new tactics. Andthose involve the development of judicialforesight.

“Matters come before the court on anexisting record,” he says. “Everything islooked at retrospectively: We look back-wards at things. Now, the question is, arejudges well enough equipped to look for-ward and say, ‘What is needed to help JohnDoe resolve his substance abuse problem,

or does he need anger management? Whatkind of treatment will help this family?What kind of procedures can we put inplace that will help bring this family backtogether?’”

Although all courts would benefitfrom broader vision, Justice Jones expectsto expand services in the family courtarea, rife with its own troubles.

“Well over half the litigants are cominginto domestic relations court without repre-sentation. With emotions and sensitivitiesrunning as high as they do when you dealwith families and children and custody and

W W W. A Z B A R . O R G 19J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 2 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E YW W W. A Z B A R . O R G

property and violence sometimes—it’s insome respects a time bomb waiting toexplode. We’ve got to get a handle on it.”

The tool he would like to use is simplebut would signal a sea change in courtmethods: “There’s a trend in the countryof moving into areas like the family courtwhere we can have a complete range offamily-related problems handled by thesame people. For example, if we have a soninvolved in substance abuse, we have adomestic problem involving a dissolution,we ought to get those families together,rather than trying to piecemeal every littleproblem that comes along.”

Jones is aware that shrinking budgetsare not the only obstacle to this vision.“There are some out there frankly whowould resent it to have courts move intothose areas.” He sees the Court proceedingcarefully: “If we move into this ‘therapeuticjurisprudence,’ we have to be very cautious,because it does bring courts into an area ofgovernment they’ve never occupied.”

Nonetheless, he sees that many judgesare ready for such an approach and aregood at it; he names Judge Tom C. Cole inYuma and Judge Jeffrey Coker in Flagstaffas two examples.

If judicial approaches are to change,must the judiciary change as well? On that,Chief Justice Jones is circumspect, but heindicates that he is willing to examine everyaspect of courts, including personnel.

“The question is, are we getting the bestbang for the buck, are we getting the bestresults from those who know an area of thelaw?”

He thinks that generally, the answer isyes. But in future selections of judges, hetalks of a possible change of approach.

“In the broad sense, we’re looking more

and more at judges with specialty interestswho are willing to focus on things thatthey’ve had some experience in or knowsomething about.”

“Should [we] continue our practice ofrotating superior court judges on a whole-sale basis as regularly as we do.” Such rota-tions occur approximately every threeyears.

“Maybe when we recruit candidateswith applications for superior court judge-ships, do we want to notify people ahead oftime that we have a vacancy in a givendepartment and raise the possibility that wewould like to have applicants who knowsomething about that area of the law? Thatwould include commercial, complex civillitigation. We have lawyers and others thatare very versed in that.”

Jones stresses that “first and foremost,we want on the bench people of quality,just good human beings, people who …have good training, good experience, goodacademic background, and who are soundin their personal lives and otherwise.”

But, says Jones, if the Court can identi-fy specific areas of law that would be betterserved by a targeted selection process, he isopen to change: “We have special needs,and we need to start thinking about findingpeople that can help satisfy some of thoseindividual needs.”

A tougher nut to crack, Jones admits, isthe large number of unrepresented liti-gants who populate courtrooms every day.He is pleased at attempts to help thosewithout lawyers with tools such as kiosksand the Self-Service Center, but they areincomplete fixes.

“The culprit in this whole thing is whatwe call the billable hour,” says Jones. “Allthese law firms are driven by the bottom

line. I think that has done as much as any-thing I can think of to destroy the profes-sional qualities of the legal world.”

Odd words from a former partner atJennings, Strouss & Salmon? After all, hewas at that firm from 1963 until he wasappointed to the Court in 1996 by Gov.Fife Symington. But law firm life haschanged since he strolled large-firm halls:“When lawyers must charge [so much],who can afford a lawyer? I will be the firstto step up and say, ‘I can’t afford a lawyerat those prices.’”

“We’ve got tens of thousands, maybehundreds of thousands of people whowould find it impossible to even access thesystem. … They can’t afford a lawyer.”

“Something has to happen.”The Supreme Court will undergo its

own changes during Jones’ tenure. JusticeFrederick Martone may be confirmed asfederal district court judge in a matter ofmonths. And Justice Tom Zlaket, whosetenure as Chief just ended, may soon moveon, as well (see story, p. 21).

But change is a challenge to Jones, whorecalls his law practice fondly: “I enjoyedthe rough and tumble of law practice for 33years.”

Is he beckoned by the siren song of areturn to practice or, like Martone, of beinga trial court judge? No, says Jones. Heenjoys his work too much.

And those who have worked with himfind Jones a great choice to head the Court.

One who knows the Chief’s job first-hand is Justice Zlaket, who finds Jones wellqualified. “He’s a very competent fellow …a real gentleman and a good human being.Because of that, I expect him to have agreat deal of success with some extremelydifficult problems.” Zlaket recommends

“First and foremost, we want on the bench people of

quality, just good human beings, people who … have

good training, good experience, good academic

background, and who are sound in their personal lives

and otherwise.”

20 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 2 W W W. A Z B A R . O R G

that his successor “needs to do it one stepat a time. The job is kind of like eating anelephant: You do it one bite at a time.”

Doug Dunipace, a former partner ofJones who is still at Jennings, Strouss, says,“He is the consummate gentleman in all ofhis dealings, whether personal or profes-sional. He is a consensus builder. In fact, heis a confidence builder.”

Senator John Kyl also knows Jones well.As partners, they worked on many casestogether. One that Jones recalls well wasArizona Farm Bureau Federation v. UnitedFarm Workers’ National Union, 442 U.S.289 (1979). Representing the agricultureindustry, Jones, Kyl and Rex Lee (later theU.S. Solicitor General, now deceased) chal-lenged the constitutionality of the ArizonaAgricultural Employment Relations Act.Today, Kyl speaks highly of Jones: “I prac-ticed law with Bud for 20 years. My officewas right next to his. I am delighted to seehim elevated to this position, and I am cer-tain he will serve the people of Arizonawith distinction.”

Jones is pleased at what has been fos-tered between the Court and the State Bar.“It’s an excellent relationship. We knowthem well. We are very supportive of theirleadership. Cindy Zwick and NickWallwork—These are the finest of people,and they will do us a good job.”

“I sense from both Cindy and Nick andothers at the Bar that they want to be sup-portive of the Court’s functions as weadminister the needs of the bar.”

In that relationship, Jones thinks it isimperative to perform one core Bar func-tion with increased efficiency: the disciplinesystem. “We’ve had some problems withbacklog in discipline cases. [But] we’vebegun to work through that.”

By “bringing our lawyer discipline func-tion up to speed … and deciding whatwe’re going to do with a certain number oferrant lawyers in the system,” the Bar andthe Court together can foster increasedpublic trust in the system. And that, Jonessays, would be a great accomplishment ofwhich every Arizona lawyer could beproud.

21J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 2 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E YW W W. A Z B A R . O R G

SECOND IN COMMANDRuth McGregor’sEvolving Court

She is on deck, and there may be norunners on base.

Sports metaphors do not immediatelyspring to mind when viewing the ArizonaSupreme Court, but they may apply to theevolving panel on which Justice RuthMcGregor sits.

In January, McGregor will be elevatedto become Vice Chief Justice of the Court.In that position, she will aid Chief JusticeCharles Jones in achieving his goals.

Most important in that position, howev-er, is learning what it takes to run the Courtand to oversee all Arizona courts. Becauseher eventual elevation to Chief Justice isalmost assured, these years as Vice Chief areimportant ones. In fact, they may be moreimportant than ever before.• In three and one-half years, Chief

Justice Jones will have completed histenure and retired from the Court,required due to his reaching 70 years ofage. The same is true of Justice StanleyFeldman, who turns 70 in 2004.

• Justice Frederick Martone’s name hasbeen put forward for consideration as afederal district court judge. His proba-ble confirmation could come withinmonths.

• Finally, Justice Thomas Zlaket, ChiefJustice through 2001, has indicatedthat he will not be on the Court by thetime Jones retires. In fact, whenpressed, he does not deny that hisdeparture could come far earlier, per-haps within the year. Justice Zlaket hasindicated that he looks forward to lifein private practice, and closer to hisTucson home.Thus, the panel on which Justice

McGregor eventually will preside will be “abrand-new court, totally new,” as noted byJustice Zlaket. That may provide her theopportunity to advance ideas and courtchange, but it also may be a disadvantage indrawing on a well of experience. In con-trast, Justice Jones can turn to a deep benchon a daily basis: Justices Zlaket and

Feldman are both former Chiefs.Justice McGregor understands the com-

plex role of Chief is that of facilitator:“We’ve been fortunate over the years tohave people leading the courts who havebeen willing to look at innovative pro-grams, knowing that they won’t all be suc-cessful, being willing to fail, so that we canhave the advantages of those programs thatsucceed.”

In fact, since she joined the Court ofAppeals in 1989 and the Supreme Court in1998, she has been struck by a simple butimportant change: “the willingness to letothers into the process.”

Some of those others include newlawyers, for whom she clearly has an affini-ty. “One of the things I have enjoyed is thework the Young Lawyers Division does,”she says. “When you see people gettinginvolved in professional activities early on,you just know it will carry through. In fiveor 10 or 15 years, they will be on the Boardof Governors, and they’ll be officers intheir county bars and their State Bar.”

This openness pleases her. As she aidsChief Justice Jones, she certainly will beaware of the value of opening courts to rel-ative newcomers—even those who maysoon head the Court itself.

—Tim Eigo