This loose coalition of women’s rights activists, divorcees, and judicial reformers filled the gallery at the trial. They picketed outside the courthouse and held an informal celebration when Garson was convicted on April 19.
 
They had the support of a number of activist organizations, including the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Alliance for Family Court Justice, and the Protective Mothers Alliance for Justice.

On the eve of Garson’s conviction, 57 of activists filed a formal complaint with the state Commission on Judicial Conduct alleging that his wife, Brooklyn Civil Court Judge Robin Garson, was “exploiting her official status” by photographing activists at the trial, breaking courtroom boundaries, and using the courthouse staff entrance.

More than anything, they used the letter as a wedge to explain their platform calling for reform of judicial treatment of women, generally, and mothers, particularly, in divorce cases.

While these varied groups have a wide spectrum of issues included under the rubric of “judicial reform,” they have a few common demands: more accountability for matrimonial judges, heightened transparency in divorce proceedings, and reform of the lucrative law guardianship system. Robin Garson seemed to be more of a touchstone than the only object of their ire.

“I know she was there to support her husband,” said Tessa Abrams Mason, one of the more well-known members of the unofficial group. Abrams Mason is the ex-wife of another disgraced jurist, disrobed state Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason. “She [Robin Garson] should have been treated just like we were. Judges abuse their authority.”

Abrams Mason joined this informal crew in 2003 during a messy divorce with her ex-husband, who was removed from the bench for misappropriating funds in his escrow account as an attorney and as a judge. Currently, she has a warrant out for Mason’s arrest, as the former judge, now selling real estate in Georgia, allegedly owes more than $200,000 in child support.

But is this small, dedicated clutch of activists presenting a coherent front? Or are they merely annoying the jurists they criticize?

The group has succeeded in generating some publicity from Garson’s conviction on three felony counts of bribery and official misconduct in manipulating divorce matters — a conviction that could yield up to 15-years in prison. Among other things, Abrams Mason has organized a “March Against Deadbeat Parents” on May 9 — a protest calling for judicial reform and new regulations for child support.

USING THE BROOKLYN SCANDAL

“The Brooklyn bench is corrupt, seats have been bought in Brooklyn. This has been going on for so long, and it will continue to go on,” Abrams Mason said in an interview.

While the activists interviewed for this article couldn’t offer specific statistics or quantifiable proof of the extent of courthouse abuses, they all agreed that complaints against matrimonial judges and court-appointed guardians have increased over the last few years.

“Do I have a count? No. You just know instinctively after taking these calls year after year,” said Marcia A. Pappas, the president of National Organization for Women-NYS, when asked about the increase in complaints.

Pappas helped draft the letter against Judge Robin Garson. “Much of the complaints have to do with the abusive behavior of judges and the attitudes of law guardians,” she said.

Although not involved in the Gason matters, matrimonial attorney David Aronson thought the recent spate of protests didn’t illustrate a systemic flaw. “There are people who wanted to use the Garson trial as an illustration of everything that’s bad with the system. That case was really an exception,” he concluded.

The Sheresky Aronson & Mayefsky partner also sits on the Committee on Matrimonial Practice, an advisory body chaired by Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Matrimonial Matters, Jacqueline W. Silbermann.

Aronson only remembered two occasions in his 30-year career in which activists sat in a courtroom when he was trying a case, and they did not interact with him in any way. “I have read about it or heard about it a couple of times, but it’s certainly not a routine or common occurrence,” he said.

“In terms of an individual case, their influence is nonexistent. [However,] I think that social activists over time have an influence on the law, in many cases, a good influence.”

Judge Silbermann did not return calls for comments. (But former Supreme Court Justice and Matrimonial Commission chair Sondra M. Miller joined Judicial Reports for an exclusive interview.)

The groups hope to channel this growing, if unmeasured, disenchantment into political action. The complaint against Judge Robin Garson was sent to Governor Eliot Spitzer, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in hopes that a little violation will generate more intense scrutiny.

While the activists admit that Judge Robin Garson’s alleged unethical behaviors are “minor,” they first and foremost are pushing for a strict standard of accountability for judges.

 
ZERO TOLERANCE FOR MISCONDUCT

“Demonstrating a ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy towards minor, unethical Judicial Code of Conduct violations will benefit our society as a whole. The nipping in the bud of the professional misconduct of judges shall send a loud and clear message to the entire judiciary and citizenry of New York State,” the letter explains.

Oscar G. Chase, a law professor at New York University School of Law who specializes in judicial administration, doesn’t think that this kind of advocacy is the best use of activist energy.

“With an elective judiciary, to the extent that groups attract attention to Judge X or Judge Y, presumably that will reflect itself in the election,” he said, urging activists to focus on election politics, rather than dragging politics into the courtroom.  

“If you are unhappy with all the judges, then you should approach the administrative judge. Administrative judges must be careful to protect judicial independence, but they should be responsive,” he concluded.

One high profile reformer disagreed, calling for tougher monitoring standards for both judges and law guardians.

“There isn’t any governmental group that would remain healthy without someone monitoring,” said Patricia Duff, founder of Families for Justice, another group actively engaged in the push for judicial reform. “If you look at the rules and regulations for how law guardians bill clients, there are no standards. There’s no review of what they do.”

Duff became an activist after her highly publicized divorce from cosmetics magnate Ronald Perelman. Duff testified about her experiences with law guardians in front of the court system’s Matrimonial Commission. This  court-appointed body is distinct from the Committee on Matrimonial Practice.

In 2006, that commission (led by former Supreme Court Justice Sondra M. Miller, and dubbed the “Miller Commission” by some experts) released a laundry list of matrimonial reforms that left Duff cold.

Duff felt that her fellow activists did help initiate the commission, but criticized the result:

“I think we helped get the matrimonial reform commission going. We hoped they would include litigant groups on the panel — the results unfortunately show that omission. The commission was unresponsive to the litigants, [and they] didn’t make it more consumer-friendly, rather than lawyer-friendly,” she said in an interview.

Currently, Families for Justice is lobbying the legislature for law guardianship reform, frustrated by the court system’s response.

One prominent matrimonial lawyer begged to differ about law guardians. “I’ve found them to be very instrumental for settling cases in matrimonial court,” said Kathleen Donelli, a partner at the White Plains firm, McCarthy Fingar.

After twenty years of matrimonial work, the attorney emphasized the peacemaking role of law guardians. “Since the Miller Commission there has been an emphasis on the law guardian’s duty to interview the child and communicate the child’s situation to the court."

Former Supreme Court Justice Miller now works as Chief Counsel at Donelli’s firm.
 
The New York chapter of NOW says it receives on average two or three phone calls a day from women seeking help. According to the group’s president, Marcia Pappas, 90 percent of those calls revolve around problems with matrimonial and family courts.   

“We’ve noticed a rise in the interest in court watches over the last three or four years,” she said, explaining how her members monitor judges’ and lawyers’ courtroom behavior in select divorce and custody cases.  

“It’s been a dirty little secret what goes on in courts. Women weren’t talking about it. Suddenly there’s been this burst of interest.”

She sends her chapter members into court with a six-page “Court Watch Evaluation for Family Advocates” questionnaire that documents every inch of the case with pointed questions such as, “Did the Judge appear to show favoritism toward any of the parties?” and “Was the Judge respectful to the litigants?”

Pappas couldn’t say how many court watches her organization has carried out over the last few years, but said she had attended nearly a half-dozen over the last six months.

“When the judge knows we’re there, they treat the women very differently,” she added. Pappas claimed that in the trials she has observed, judges treat litigants with more respect and understanding afterwards.

One member of the Committee on Matrimonial Practice thought that the results of these amateur evaluations hadn’t ranked high on the menu of problems discussed by his group.

“I’ve never seen that issue come up. My impression was that it wasn’t an issue,” said Richard B. Alderman, a partner at Alderman and Alderman, a matrimonial firm in Syracuse.

The attorney added that he hadn’t seen this kind of action in Syracuse during the last few years, and didn’t think it could affect an individual case. “I think judges were mainly viewing these people as disgruntled individuals or a vocal fringe group. I don’t think it would have any impact on the judge’s decision,” he said.

Earlier this week, a few activists joined a divorcee in an especially tricky custody proceeding in the Manhattan matrimonial part. The proceeding was a microcosm of both the bigger issues that the Garson conviction raised and the day-to-day tactical support that these matrimonial activists can provide during a hearing.

Eight court watchers attended a custody hearing with divorcee Esther Yang as she faced down her ex-husband in these divorce proceedings that have dragged on for five years in Manhattan.

Yang's supporters filled the middle section of the gallery, a crew that included a few divorced mothers, a community activist, and Yang’s own parents. They copied down virtually every word state Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis uttered in the courtroom, scribbling notes in legal pads and shaking their heads when the justice cut Yang’s speeches short.

The hearing was a legal showdown for Yang, who has argued without an attorney that she is unable to pay child support for her daughter that she shares custody of with her husband. Over the course of the convoluted trial, Yang has made headlines by mounting an insurgent Democratic campaign for state Assembly and (as reported by the Daily News) filing federal papers papers requesting that the openly gay Justice Lobis should recuse herself because she couldn’t understand Yang “as a heterosexual woman.”

Justice Lobis had ordered Yang to provide proof that she has sought employment. Yang produced stacks of printed web applications and automated internet responses from employers, but the justice was unmoved.

After a few exchanges between Yang and Lobis escalated to shouting matches, Lobis ruled that the activist would be jailed for five days if she doesn’t pay $5,000 by early next month. “This is very serious. I have a duty to enforce child support. I am very saddened by this event, but I have no alternative,” she said gravely, massaging her temples as she delivered the sentence.

Outside the courtroom, Yang’s supporters hugged her and offered encouragement about finding the money. By not being dragged off to Riker’s Island that morning, Yang counted the day a minor victory. She was quick to assign blame, alleging that the entire New York City bench contains corrupt justices.

“I think Manhattan should have the same scrutiny as Brooklyn. The Brooklyn prosecution should be a template,” she said.