Judge-Elect Andy Gill
Arkansas Circuit Court Candidate
Candidate introduction at February 9th Indivisible Judicial Forum at UALR Bowen School of Law
Age: 44
Law School and Graduation Year: William H. Bowen School of Law Class of 2005
Occupation: Judge/Lawyer
Previous Elected Office: District Judge
Community Service: “Personal Community Service” -- Volunteer youth baseball and soccer coach; Regular volunteer with Partners for Progress (food bank); Lions Club Chapter President; Former Chamber of Commerce Chair; Volunteer Attorney at Center for Arkansas Legal Services expungment clinics; Volunteer with the Story Book Project (I’ve only been once, but will go back as soon as this election is over). “Professional Community Service” -- Counseling Associates Inc., Board of Directors; Arkansas District Judges Council Board of Directors and Education Committee Member; Arkansas Bar Association Criminal Law Section Chair; Arkansas Drug Court Professionals Association Board of Directors
1. What experience, knowledge, and attributes of yours make you believe you will be a good judge?
I believe that I have been a good judge for more than seven years. I was first elected in 2012, and it is hard to overstate how much I have learned during that time. While it is necessary for a judge to have a good understanding of the law, rules of evidence, and rules of procedure, it is not sufficient. Discerning the truth from what are often complex and imperfect facts is extremely difficult.
I have handled a wide range of cases as an attorney and I have considerable jury trial experience, but neither of those things fully prepared me for the types of weighty decisions I often have to make as a judge. When I hear a case, I’m on time, I listen closely, I carefully consider, I rule promptly, and I explain my findings clearly.
2. What are the three most important areas where the administration of justice can be improved at the circuit court level, and how would you implement improvement?
As far as administration goes, we need more “problem solving” courts, we need better docket access, and we need to embrace new technology.
I have worked with drug courts for more than a decade. I have seen the differences they can make for individuals, families, and communities. There are funds available for Veteran’s Courts, Mental Health Courts, Domestic Violence Courts, and similar programs that focus on helping people solve their underlying problems.
I will set aside small blocks of time each week to allow people to get uncontested matters resolved without having to wait months to get on the court’s docket. I will have the court calendar available online so that attorneys can see when cases settle and when additional court time opens up.
In criminal matters, I will find a way to allow for more electronic monitoring, while awaiting trial, when it can be done without a risk to the community. In civil matters, more forms should be made available on smartphones. Many more people have access to smartphones than computers and printer.
3. What changes if any can the court system make to reduce the numbers of juvenile and criminal offenders?
The decision about whether or not a juvenile or criminal offender first enters the court system is a law enforcement and prosecutor’s office decision, but Judges can be supportive of efforts that work to solve problems without involving the courts. There are many community programs and services that can be used in place of court intervention when people are not a danger to society.
If a juvenile or criminal offender is charged, a judge can have an incredible impact by being committed to using evidence based practices and smart sentencing. It can be easy to fall back on standardized sentences, but if judges take the time to consider the unique circumstances of the crime and the individual when crafting conditions or sanctions, they can greatly reduce recidivism.
4. Do you believe in leveling the playing field between pro se parties (parties without lawyers) and parties represented by counsel, and if so, how would your court do this?
No matter what a judge does to level the playing field, there will still be a significant advantage to having a lawyer. One of the best things a judge can do is run a docket in a way that affords more people the opportunity to be represented. Accommodating limited scope representation, allowing testimony by written deposition when appropriate, and having a docket that allows for a prompt resolution of matters once the parties are ready, all allow attorneys to charge less and make their services more affordable.
There will still be many people appearing in court pro se, and while a judge needs to be careful to not practice law from the bench or loosen important evidentiary and procedural rules, judges should avoid legalese, provide clear written orders, and facilitate access to helpful forms and guides.
5. Do you believe that alternate dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration) should play a greater role in disputes that come to the circuit courts, and if so, how should that happen?
Yes. In domestic cases I tell clients that no judge, no matter how experienced, smart, and conscientious, will be able to formulate a better resolution than the parties can. Mediation is often less expensive and the parties are ceding much less control of their lives to the State.
I don’t think mediation is appropriate in every case, so I don’t believe that judges should have policies that require mediation before litigation in every instance. I learned quickly to not set policies that do not allow for discretion. Ridged policies are easier, but they are not better. Each case is different and should be given individual consideration.