With SB 60, Rep. Boots has introduced a perennial favorite concerning representation of state court judges in mandate litigation. A mandate case is typically one where the state court judge orders the county fiscal body to appropriate more money for the judge’s court. When these mandates are challenged by the county, the judge can hire a private attorney and the county has to end up footing that expense as well.
Contrast this with cases where, for example, someone sues the judge. In that case, the attorney general provides a defense. Sen. Boots proposed legislation would require the attorney general to represent judges in mandate litigation and would preclude reimbursement for expenses incurred by the judge for hiring a private attorney.
The attorney general’s office would likely be a less expensive alternative, but often the judges can find private attorneys who are more skilled litigators. So, I can see pros and cons of this one.
Leave a Reply