Judging judges who shouldn't be judging

THIS IS the story of three judges who acted so injudiciously that you're forced to wonder why they were ever given the gavel. Two are male, one is female. Two were appointed, one was elected. Two work in the federal system, one for the state. The only common thread that connects these jurists is the one made of arrogance and hubris, one that - if you tug at it ever so slightly - should unravel the robes they are privileged to wear.I tell this tale as someone who has an almost sacramental respect for the judiciary. I spent most of my early years with a man who was voted an inaugural Legend of the Philadelphia Bar and who would quiz me on the names of Supreme Court justices. (I was 8, mind you.) Some of my fondest memories include sitting on the edge of the bathtub and playing "Objection!" with my dad who, taking time out of his shaving and rinsing, would tell me whether I was sustained or, more usually, overruled. Daddy was not a judge, but had he lived beyond his woefully insufficient 43 years, everyone agrees that he would have been.

After law school, I clerked for a judge, James Cavanaugh, who was a superb human being and taught me what it means to be "learned" as opposed to merely "educated." I've worked with men and women who have treated both the profession, their colleagues and, most importantly, their clients with a respect bred from humility. We lawyers are lucky to be doing what we do, and if we are merely lucky, judges have hit the jurisprudential jackpot.

They should be grateful. But as this very grim tale explains, that is hardly the case. Three judges are just a drop in the mediocre bucket, but they're enough to corrode the public's confidence.

The first and most egregious example of mediocrity was exhibited by state Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery, whose penchant for pornography and self pity earned him a suspension from his peers on the court. Some feel that what a man does with his private, um, emails is irrelevant to his ability to act judiciously. That might be the case if the person who is receiving and sending emails that allegedly include girls in uniforms doing what Billy Joel says Catholic girls do "much too late" delivers your pizza, adjusts your heating system or drives the train that gets you to work.

But when he is sitting in judgment over cases that involve sexual harassment and abuse, in addition to all the other cases that require something more than the mind of a frat boy in heat, it is inappropriate (the nicest word I could find in my limited lexicon) for him to be engaging in that hobby. I'm not saying he shouldn't do it. I'm just saying he should make a choice between sitting on the bench and sitting before a flickering computer screen in the dark.

Then we have another judge who works for Uncle Sam on the Bankruptcy Court, a place I hope I never see from the petitioning side. As reported by Ronnie Polaneczky in the Daily News this week, Judge Jean FitzSimon was annoyed at several people who showed up in her courtroom the other day, people who themselves were justifiably annoyed at the way they'd been jerked around by a defunct used-car dealership and its foaming-at-the-mouth creditors. When one of the debtors had the audacity to explain himself in emotional terms, Judge FitzSimon apparently called him an "ape." As Ronnie noted, this was probably not a racial slur, even though the agitated gent was Latino. It was simply a judge losing control of her courtroom and her senses, and acting like an extra in some Spike Lee film.

I remember that when Judge Cavanaugh would get upset, the only sign of displeasure was a bushy raised eyebrow. It was enough to make me take a deep breath and inwardly recite the prayer to St. Michael. That is exactly the type of demeanor that was missing from Judge FitzSimon, a woman who has no business calling other human beings "ape" if she's pulling down a paycheck from the taxpayers.

Finally, we have J. Dan Pelletier Sr., an Atlanta-based immigration judge who earlier this month refused to grant a continuance to a lawyer while she was on maternity leave. Judges do have discretion to decide when a case should go forward, but I can tell you that the matter involved here was nothing more than a case status that generally lasts no more than 10 minutes. The judge ordered the mother to be present, and so she was - with her child strapped to her chest, since she couldn't find a baby sitter.

The baby started doing what babies do: cry. And the judge insulted Mama Lawyer in open court and on the record.

Generally, I'm inclined to give immigration judges the benefit of the doubt. They are overworked, underpaid and misunderstood. But it's chutzpah to tell a woman who has no other option that bringing her baby to court makes her a bad lawyer and mother.

I wish that these three examples were aberrations, but they're not. I think we need to send prospective jurists to ethics school.

Lesson No. 1: Don't diss the robe.