Judge Samuel Hoar. Photo courtesy The Other Paper
A significant portion of the legal professionals who surveyed the work of Judge Samuel Hoar recommended he not be given another six-year term on the bench.
Fourteen of the 96 who filled out the anonymous surveys — about 15 percent — said Hoar should not be retained. That percentage was much higher than the other eight judges up for review this year; on average, just 5 percent of those surveyed about the other judges recommended against retention.
Between 19 to 123 surveys were submitted on the nine judges.
In February, two female lawyers testified against Hoar for sexist, aggressive and condescending behavior in the courtroom during a public hearing that is part of the Legislative review process. In addition to that testimony, legislators see individual interviews and survey results on each candidate.
The Legislature will vote on March 21 whether Hoar and the other judges up for review will retain their posts.
Beyond the numbers, Hoar’s results don’t get better. While several coworkers wrote about Hoar being smart, approachable, and pleasant, a large number who responded took issue with Hoar for his arrogance, temper and bias.
The surveys are split into a variety of categories on which the judges are scored: impartiality, judicial temperament, judicial management, legal ability and preparation, integrity, and overall judicial performance. On the impartiality portion of the survey, Hoar scored worst in terms of bias toward women. Seven of the 48 attorneys who rated his impartiality toward women gave Hoar a “fair” or “poor” rating. The rest gave him “good,” “very good” or “excellent.”
“Judge Hoar was a pleasure to work with in the Civil Division,” one legal professional wrote. “While I did observe what I perceived to be some bias toward female attorneys, his overall demeanor and professionalism is appropriate for his role. He cares deeply about the justice system and takes his position as a judge very seriously.”
“The Judge does not take victim or community safety into consideration when ruling on cases,” wrote another. “He is very soft in regards to domestic violence cases and most always allows offenders to be released on conditions.”
On the question of judicial temperament, nine attorneys rated Hoar “fair” or “poor” for behaving in a manner that inspires respect for the court and the judicial system, while 49 rated him “good” or better. For acting with compassion, sensitivity, courtesy and without arrogance, 10 attorneys gave Hoar “fair” or “poor” rankings.
“Judge Hoar loses his temper in court, and does not exhibit appropriate judicial restraint. He cannot admit he is wrong,” one attorney wrote. “If asked about an inconsistency, he raises his voice and shouts down counsel.”
Hoar got similarly mixed reviews on the questions of allowing fair opportunity for presentation of a case in light of existing time constraints, making bench rulings and other oral and written communications clearly and logically, integrity, and demonstrating a knowledge of substantive law.
“He is not prepared, and will not reconsider a decision that he made in ignorance of the contents of pleadings. He does not review statutes or procedural rules before issuing decisions. He pre-judges and offers advice to counsel for one party,” an attorney wrote. “He ‘doubleteams’ the litigant and counsel he determines should lose, by assisting the other side with strategy. He does not maintain the appearance of neutrality. He cares more about justifying previous errors, than providing a fair and impartial hearing or trial to all parties. He should not be reappointed.”
One incident in particular, involving a man convicted of sexual assault of a child, was seared into the minds of several different legal professionals.
“He said to one criminal defendant that if it were up to him, that defendant would not spend a single night in jail,” an attorney wrote. “That person has just been convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, which had a mandatory minimum prison sentence.”
“After several years of appearing before Judge Hoar in criminal court, I have serious concerns about his abilities,” another attorney wrote. “He has apologized for holding offenders in a correctional facility after being convicted of sexually assaulting children in a jury trial, and promises families and children things in juvenile court that are not responsible or practical. He does not understand the ways his own privilege influences the way he sees and understands the world and how that clouds his judicial decision making, and seems to lack practical insight into the real-life, everyday challenges many criminal court litigants face.”
Hoar’s privilege, and the ways it blinded him, was another place that many people took issue.
“I know this has not been a good review of Judge Hoar,” one lawyer wrote, “but I have witnessed several incidents of his behavior while in Court being less than judicial … I once saw him tell an attorney (in front of his client) who was simply arguing for his client that ‘any competent attorney would agree with his ruling.’ His arrogance also skews his basic understanding of criminal law. While I understand the need for a judge to portray authority while in Court it should never be done at the expense of civility. No one likes a bully.”
Several lawyers suggested that Hoar might not need to be taken off the bench, so long as he was counseled about his behavior inside the courtroom.
“I would recommend that Judge Hoar be retained, but with guidance and education,” wrote an attorney. “Judge Hoar thought it was funny to joke about Dartmouth frat parties from the bench at the time of the Kavanaugh hearings. I don’t think he means harm. But, he seems unaware of why that might not be funny to survivors in the courtroom. He is a very nice man who can be incredibly tone deaf about how significant these cases are to defendants and victims.”
“He is, in my experience, insensitive to the complexity of victim issues and the impact of not only the offense but also the judicial process on the victims and their families,” wrote a legal professional. “More training in this area would be of great value.”
But there were also many categories in which Hoar excelled, things like issuing rulings and decisions promptly, encouraging settlements where appropriate, and demonstrating a knowledge of legal procedure and evidence.
“A pleasure to work with during jury trial,” one lawyer wrote. “He’s very smart, keeps excellent track of detail, is concise in rulings on motions and objections, and controls the courtroom without being heavy handed. Judge Hoar’s actions and behavior instill faith into the judiciary, a much needed contribution.”
“Judge Hoar is always willing to help out in both family and district court,” wrote a legal professional. “He presides at civil division and when he knows of a trial going off, he is very good about offering his services to help out if needed in both the family and criminal division. He is very approachable and pleasant to work with and never questions what he is getting involved in. It has truly been a great experience working with Judge Hoar.”
For some their interactions with Hoar were memorable, but not in a positive way.
“I’ll never forget the last time I made a suggestion to Judge Hoar,” wrote Irene Pool, a former assistant judge who agreed to be identified. “The litigants needed help figuring out a good place to meet between their respective houses, so that the child could have some time with Dad, supervised by Mom. I quietly spoke to Judge Hoar suggesting the public library, with its family friendly children’s area in the basement. It’s a popular place for young families. He responded to me ‘They’re not library people.’ That attitude sums up Judge Hoar.”
Read the story on VTDigger here: Legal professionals recommend against Judge Hoar retention.