An Interview with Magistrate Judge Joel B. Rosen

Q: You testified recently before Congress on provisions of H.R. 1752, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1999. How would provisions in this bill affect magistrate judges?

A: There are three components of H.R. 1752 of particular interest to magistrate judges. Section 305 of the bill would give magistrate judges limited contempt authority in both civil and criminal cases. Currently, magistrate judges have no way of dealing with misbehavior in the courtroom. Additionally, in those cases where the parties have consented to the magistrate judge hearing the case, we have no authority to enforce our orders. These pro-visions would vest magistrate judges with limited authority to deal with these problems, subject to the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure and appropriate appellate review. Section 306 of the bill would eliminate the consent requirement for all petty offenses. Magistrate judges already have that authority in regard to most petty offenses, including all motor vehicle offenses. Other offenses require a party to consent, which may lead to a situation where a magistrate judge hears one part of the case and an Article III judge hears another. For example, a party may be charged with drunk driving on a military reservation and trespassing. The magistrate judge can hear the drunk driving case but unless the party consents, an Article III judge will have to hear the trespassing charge. I also testified in support of a provision of the legislation concerning juvenile matters. If the bill passes, magistrate judges could hear cases involving juveniles with the same authority as they hear any other criminal matter. I would add that all of these provisions have been approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Two years ago, the House passed these provisions but they did not make their way through the Senate.

Q: What are some of the concerns and issues of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association?

A: The Federal Magistrate Judges Association has weighed in on various initiatives of concern to the entire Judiciary. We have been very active working with the Federal Judges Association, as well as with various committees of the Judicial Conference on the issue of compensation. We are determined to see some long-term solution to this serious problem. We think that this is an issue of good public policy that should be resolved not only for the Judiciary but for members of the Executive and Legislative Branches as well. We also have supported legislation approved by the Judicial Conference concerning case management and other matters that we believe make the courts more efficient. We also express our views on proposed changes to the federal rules of civil and criminal procedure. We feel that magistrate judges, because of the type of work we do, can make valuable contributions to the rule-making process.

Q: Generally, how are magistrate judges being utilized in district courts nationwide? Are there any particularly effective ways magistrate judges are utilized in the district courts?

A: One of the best aspects of the magistrate judges system is the fact that magistrate judge utilization can be tailored to the needs of a particular court and the legal culture where that court sits. Magistrate judges are used in many different ways. In certain parts of the country, they are involved in case management, settlement, mediation, and dispositive motion practice. In certain districts, magistrate judges are on the “wheel” for direct assignment of civil cases to dispose of with the consent of the parties. Yet in other districts, magistrate judges are heavily involved in the disposition of social security and prisoner matters. All of these ways of utilizing magistrate judges depend on the needs of the particular district. What works, for example, in New Jersey, may or may not work in California. It is good to have that flexibility. Magistrate judges are highly qualified, experienced judicial officers who can con-tribute to the efficient functioning of the district court. From my own experience and knowing my colleagues around the country, magistrate judges are fine, talented men and women who rise to the challenge of anything that we’re asked to do by the court. We view ourselves as judicial officers working in a way that best serves the court and the public. The volume of judicial matters handled by magistrate judges suggests that many courts are using this resource to help move their dockets. According to AO statistics, in 1998 magistrate judges performed over 612,000 judicial duties including 69,500 civil motions, 23,000 settlement conferences, and 40,000 other conferences. On the criminal side, magistrate judges performed over 53,000 felony pretrial duties, including 24,000 motions and almost 2,000 evidentiary hearings. They disposed of over 96,000 misdemeanor matters. Additionally, magistrate judges terminated over 10,000 civil cases with the parties consent. These numbers suggest how magistrate judges, when fully utilized, can be of great assistance to the court and the litigants whom we all serve.

Q: In your experience, is the magistrate judges system functioning the way it was intended? Do you see the duties of magistrate judges evolving or expanding?

A: Frankly, I believe that the magistrate judges system is functioning better than was expected. I think it is a part of government that has worked exceptionally well in terms of the quality and quantity of the work we do. Magistrate judges’ duties have evolved and changed in large part as a function of the changing volume and contours of work in the district courts. I am confident that magistrate judges will continue to make a substantial contribution to the work of the federal Judiciary in the years to come.

Q: It seems that an increasing number of magistrate judges have become district judges. What does this say about the magistrate judges system?

A: Seventy-three magistrate judges have become Article III judges since the beginning of the current magistrate judges system 30 years ago, including 47 in the last 10 years alone. I believe that this speaks well not only about the quality and backgrounds of the men and women who are selected as magistrate judges, but also of the selection panels who recommend us and the courts who appoint us. Magistrate judges have a depth of experience and training that makes them well-suited for Article III positions. We also see more and more state judges—both trial judges and appellate court judges—who have become magistrate judges. It’s a very interesting phenomena. The diversity of experience is rather remarkable, including attorneys from civil and criminal practice, assistant U.S. attorneys, federal defenders, and former academics.

Q: Has magistrate judges’ involvement in the policy-making or administrative aspects of the district courts changed over the years? Are they also involved in court governance activities at the national or circuit levels?

A: Magistrate judges’ involvement in policy-making and administration has indeed changed over the years, particularly I would note, with Chief Justice Rehnquist’s support in placing magistrate judges on approximately 14 Judicial Conference committees. The Chief Justice together with Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham have been strong supporters of magistrate judge involvement in court governance and administration. Through-out the country, magistrate judges now serve on many committees at the district court level and on circuit judicial councils, although at this time as non-voting members. A magistrate judge is a member of the board of the Federal Judicial Center. We are very pleased at the increased opportunities to participate in court governance.

Q: It has been nine years since Congress last created new Article III judgeships. How has the workload of magistrate judges been impacted by this?

A: As a result of the lack of new Article III judgeships, all judicial officers have been asked to do, and are doing, more. There is no question this is an issue that should be addressed by Congress soon, especially if there is going to be a continuing increase in the workload of the federal courts.

Q: How are recalled or retired magistrate judges being incorporated into the system? What is their contribution?

A: Based on the workload of a district, a court may request that a magistrate judge, who may be ready to retire, stay on, on a year-to-year basis. We have had several instances where magistrate judges, who have retired in one district, have been recalled to serve in another district that needs assistance. It’s a way of getting experienced judicial officers to continue to contribute where they are needed. As of now, there are 21 recalled magistrate judges serving the courts.