Q&A: Judge Richard S. Brown

Listen to this article

Judgee Richard S. Brown has seen many changes since joining the newly created Wisconsin Court of Appeals in 1978. Personally, he has dealt with the challenges of diminished hearing. Deaf in his right ear since age 5, Brown lost the majority of his hearing in his left ear due to a brain tumor after less than six years on the bench.

Brown has shown that the loss is not a disability for the man, who was appointed chief judge of the Court of Appeals last year. In early March, he will undergo a complex surgery to help restore some hearing in his right ear.

On Feb. 21, Wisconsin Law Journal reporter Jack Zemlicka sat down with Brown at his Waukesha office. Brown candidly spoke about budget challenges facing the appellate courts and how technology has helped him in the courtroom.

Wisconsin Law Journal: You assumed the role of chief judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals last August. What is the biggest challenge facing the system today?

Hon. Richard S. Brown: I think right now the biggest challenge is the budget crunch, which has just come up now in the last month or so. The Court of Appeals has historically had the tightest budget of the three branches of the courts. Specifically, when we have oral argument we are supposed to sit in satellite courts, but it costs money to travel.

To the extent we have oral arguments, we’re not traveling as much [to Racine and Fond du Lac]. There’s no written policy that says “Thou shalt not have oral argument during the budget crunch.” But candidly speaking, it does become a factor in how we’re going to decide a case.

WLJ: How do you manage and facilitate appellate functions in four geographic areas of the state?

Brown: I think it was Gilda Radner who said, “It’s always something.” Every day I spend a minimum of an hour and most times more than that on administrative matters. For example, one of the questions I’ve had is about protocol when a motion is made for a three-judge appeal by a party.

We do have a statewide, court-wide protocol when the districts want to make a one-judge case a three-judge case. But we don’t have an established statewide protocol when there’s a motion by an attorney. Those are the kinds of things I never see coming, but they’re on the plate because someone needs to know.

WLJ: Your colleagues have said you are an efficient judge. Are there things that can be done to make the appellate court system more efficient overall?

Brown: We’re thinking about the possibility of videoconferencing and maybe that will allow us to have more oral arguments, without having to take up quite as much time. My sense is things would be a little more informal and we’d get through things a little quicker.

One of the things we hear constantly from the bar is that the Court of Appeals doesn’t have enough oral arguments. When you have 3,500 appeals coming through the court every year, and only 16 judges and not enough staff, what are you going to do?

WLJ: How did your hearing loss initially impact your ability to serve on the court?

Brown: When I came to the court, I could still hear pretty well. It didn’t impact me at all coming to the court. I had the brain tumor in 1983 and my hearing loss has changed how I do my work, simply because I can’t just pick up the phone and call somebody. I use a . In the courtroom, I didn’t envision having to have a real time reporter there to catch what I didn’t get from lip reading and hearing with my implant, but now I do.

WLJ: Have technological improvements made things easier?

Brown: Things have progressed infinitely. At first it was very challenging because in 1983 the computer-assisted real-time machines had just been invented. It took seven seconds for the computer to translate a court reporter’s key stroke to English — seven seconds per word.

Now, anyone who has ever viewed closed-captioned television can appreciate the advancements. That is real time and that’s a court reporter who is relaying what people are saying. When I have oral arguments now and have someone soft spoken in the court,

I look on the screen and there it is.

WLJ: Have you ever presided over cases where attorneys thought they could take advantage of your hearing impairment during proceedings?

Brown: Never. It’s never been an issue. I think that if the lawyer is uncomfortable with what’s going on, it’s because of the questions and not because of my hearing. I don’t go out of my way to make someone uncomfortable.

WLJ: You have been a member of numerous committees pertaining to disabilities in the legal profession. Do you consider yourself a role model?

Brown: The obvious answer is yes, to the extent I feel a responsibility to represent persons with disabilities so that people understand they can do a given job as well as anyone else. I don’t set out to be an advocate. I don’t set out to be Rick Brown, the deaf judge. I set out to be Rick Brown, a judge who happens to be deaf. I’ve mentored people who have gone through law school with questions or problems. The thing that really bothers me is some people think disabilities make someone less than normal or less than whole and that this includes their intellect to be a good lawyer. That’s a perception I’ve been trying to fight for many years.

WLJ: You have been involved in promoting the need for court interpreters. How important are they today, given not only the number of litigants with disabilities, but also the increasing number of pro se litigants who do not speak English as their primary language?

Brown: On a scale of 1 to 10, it’s a 10. A person who doesn’t understand what’s going on in the courtroom is not able to participate and justice can’t be meted out.

Our world is becoming more and more global every day and our state reflects that. The courts have to be sensitive to that. Not just the person who is deaf, but any person who has a language barrier.

WLJ: As an appellate judge, you have the potential for decisions to be overturned. How difficult is it having a case reversed?

Brown: That’s part of the job. I don’t know how many times an opinion I’ve written has been reversed by the Supreme Court. Thankfully, it’s not a huge number, but I think it would be fair to say that all Court of Appeals judges have been reversed several times. It’s the Supreme Court’s job to review cases and they aren’t going to affirm everyone.

Yeah, it feels good when I dissent in a case and it goes to the Supreme Court and they reverse it. It always feels good when someone says you’re right. But when we’re reversed, it just doesn’t bother me at all.

WLJ: Along with Judge Charles P. Dykeman, you have been on the appellate court judge since it was created in 1978. After 30 years, any thoughts of retirement?

Brown: My term ends in 2012. Before I became chief judge I thought I would serve out my t
erm and retire at 66. But now that I am chief judge, there are so many irons in the fire. I want to see things through, so that 2012 date is very iffy right now. I may run for re-election and I can tell you right now, I have no plans to retire. That’s a big change from where I was a few years ago.

WLJ: One of your fellow judges wished there was a 12-step program to wean you off of the game of golf. How serious of an addiction do you have?

Brown: A judge said that? That’s funny. I have to confess I am addicted and I play as often as I can, which with this job of chief judge is not as often as I’d like. You get out there and you really don’t think about work at all. I hate to say it’s a stress reliever because that’s not true. It’s a different kind of stress, but I don’t think that the 12-step program is going to work for me.