Hugh Finkelstein
Circuit Court District 6.2 Division 2 Candidate
Candidate introduction at February 9th Indivisible Judicial Forum at UALR Bowen School of Law
Age: 55
Law School and Graduation Year: William H. Bowen School of Law 1991
Occupation: Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District of Arkansas
Previous Elected Office: Appointed Little Rock District Judge, 2017- 2018
Community Service: Little Rock Air Force Base Community Council; Pulaski County Bar Association Past President; President of the William Overton Inn of Court; Leadership Greater Little Rock Class XX; Arkansas Bar Foundation Fellow; teaches about the justice system in local high schools; attends and co-leads the hospitality team at New Life Church; volunteer trial judge at State High School Mock Trial Competition; former Downtown Little Rock Rotary Club member; coached baseball at Junior Deputy; served the Arkansas Bar Association as Section Chairman for both the Government Practice Section and the Criminal Law Section
1. What experience, knowledge, and attributes of yours make you believe you will be a good judge?
I am uniquely qualified for this position because I am the only candidate in this race who has served as a judge. I understand what is required to make decisions that have a profound effect on people’s lives. I’ve made those decisions fairly and treated everyone with respect, and for those reasons, I was chosen as Judge of the Year by the Pulaski County Bar Association both years I served as district judge. As a district judge, I have also presided over a circuit court docket, handling the same types of cases that would be in Second Division. As an attorney, I’ve handled thousands of cases and fought for justice for families of murder victims, survivors of sexual assaults and many other victims of crime. I have held people responsible for their actions and helped people get back on the right track by allowing them to have a second chance.
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?
Justice delayed is justice denied. One of the biggest problems we see is that it takes entirely too long to get into court and even longer to resolve cases. We need to streamline the process to allow cases to be heard sooner. As a judge, I have handled large dockets and made sure that everyone got their day in court as soon as possible. Another improvement is to stagger the times cases are set. This would mean that litigants and witnesses would not have to wait all day for their cases to be called. Time is important to everyone, and this is more respectful of people’s time. Finally, we need encourage more limited scope representation. This allows for low income litigants to have representation when they otherwise would not be able to afford it. I encouraged this as a district judge, and I would encourage it as a circuit judge.
3. What changes if any can the court system make to reduce the numbers of juvenile and criminal offenders?
Juvenile courts have the unique opportunity to focus more on rehabilitation than adult courts. What has proven to be the most effective means to achieve this are programs that refocus juveniles to more positive activities. Simply putting juveniles on probation is not as effective as getting them involved in other programs. Partnering with community and faith-based organizations is a good way to help provide services that the State cannot provide on its own. For adult offenders, we need to expand specialty courts such as drug court, veterans court and mental health court. As district judge, I set up a mental health diversion program which got treatment to defendants who had mental illnesses but were still responsible for their actions. We also need to put an emphasis on education and encourage people to be mentors to both juveniles and adult defendants.
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?
I believe that judges need to level the playing field between pro se parties and parties represented by counsel. As district judge, I presided over many cases with unrepresented people. Because they are not trained in the law, it is rare that they are sufficiently qualified to represent themselves, and their cause often suffers because of that. Limited scope representation is a positive development for many people who could not otherwise afford legal help, and it results in better pleadings, improved productivity in hearings and more just results. Also, judges should encourage lawyers to do more pro bono cases and volunteer through Legal Services. People should have quality representation regardless of their ability to pay. When parties do represent themselves, judges should make sure they take time to explain what is happening so the pro se litigants can have a better chance to understand the significance and respond accordingly.
5. Do you believe that alternative dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration) should play a greater role in disputes that come to circuit courts, and if so, how should this happen?
I believe that alternative dispute resolution is a good way to help resolve cases, and as circuit judge, I would encourage parties to use mediation. Mediation allows for the parties to talk to neutral third party to see if there is any middle ground where a case can be settled. In cases where a judge’s decision may be all or nothing, mediation can provide a win-win situation for the parties. Many judges already require parties to engage in mediation prior to requesting a full day hearing in domestic cases. The Administrative Office of the Courts also has a program that provides mediators in domestic relations cases where the mediators are paid on a sliding scale based on the parties’ income. In the end, this helps parties avoid financially and emotionally costly litigation. We need to look at expanding this program to other types of civil cases.