Reality of Courtroom Television Shows: Should the Model Code of Judicial Conduct Apply to T.V. Judges?, The

Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, The, Summer 2007 by Lane, Erika

INTRODUCTION

In the midst of the recent celebrity case involving the burial location of Anna Nicole Smith's body, it was not just the sudden tragic death of this well-known celebrity that had people gossiping. It was, rather, the unusual behavior of the judge hearing the case, Judge Larry Seidlin.1 Seidlin's bizarre comments and mockery of the dispute resembled, in the public's view, behavior common to what has become a major popular phenomenon in daytime television in America-syndicated courtroom television shows.2 Seemingly unprofessional and regarding the courtroom as an entertainment show, Judge Seidlin received significant criticism for his jokes, slang language, and what appeared to be a disregard for the integrity of the courtroom.3 In a society where approximately 8.5 million people watch syndicated courtroom shows daily, the line between what is a real arbitration or litigation proceeding and what is doctored on television and not an accurate portrayal of reality becomes so blurred that even our own judges seem to get confused about their role in the courtroom.4

Given the presence of a television in nearly every household in America5 and the soaring popularity of reality television shows, Americans today are increasingly exposed to televised portrayals of our country's professional sectors as well as to "real" people" with "real" stories. However, while reality shows provide significant entertainment to the public, they do not always accurately present the actual functioning of these sectors or the stories of their "actors." This carries the danger of confusing the public about what "reality" really is. Specifically, programs like syndicated courtroom shows (also referred to as "syndi-court" shows) may mislead the common viewer into believing that the shows accurately represent the American justice system.6 Syndicated courtroom programs take place in what appear to be real courtrooms, but are in fact simply televised arbitration dispute resolutions.7 The parties present their cases to the arbitrator (who looks like a "judge" to the viewer) and, within minutes, the arbitrator decides the outcome, usually with some form of moral reprimand to the parties, thereby providing substantial entertainment to the audience.8

Part I of this Note analyzes the nature of syndicated courtrooms shows and how they differ from trials and typical arbitration proceedings. It will then demonstrate how syndi-court shows misrepresent themselves and discuss the dangers that may arise from this misrepresentation. Part II presents the Arbitrators Ethical Guidelines and examines how they are ineffective at guiding syndi-court judges. Part III examines the Model Code of Judicial Conduct ("Model Judicial Code") and analyzes its efficiency and stringency for judges. Finally, Part IV speculates about the impact of imposing stricter ethical guidehnes on syndi-judges by enforcing the Model Judicial Code on syndi-court judges.

I. THE NATURE OF SYNDICATED COURT SHOWS

While syndicated court shows are arbitration proceedings, they portray themselves to the public as litigation proceedings. By engaging in tiiis inaccurate representation, syndi-court shows are neither typical arbitrations nor trials. Further, they mislead viewers to beheve syndi-shows are accurate reflections of how our judicial system works. Such inaccurate portrayals carry with them the danger of confusing the pubhc about their legal rights, about judges and the justice system, and about arbitration.

Syndicated court shows present themselves as real trials, involving real-life cases.9 The shows air for thirty minutes or an hour and the syndi-judge hears two or four cases.10 In each case, the syndi-judge hears both sides of the dispute directly from the "litigants" (there are no attorneys involved) and, within minutes, decides the outcomes.11 The disputes revolve around family and domestic issues and do not involve large monetary awards.12 Usually, when giving his or her judgment, the syndi-judge will deliver a moral message or reprimand to the parties, expressing his or her personal views regarding their situations.13

Syndi-court shows appear as real courtroom settings. The judges enter the set, dressed in a robe, with a gavel in hand. A bailiff swears in the parties, and they each stand before the judge, who sits at a bench and hears their disputes.14 These props and tactics leave viewers with the impression that the show is a real courtroom trial.15

While the audience of certain televised syndicated courtroom programs may believe that these are real cases brought by "real people," these realistic qualities to the show really do not accurately reflect both typical arbitration proceedings and real trials. In a typical arbitration, an arbitrator who is either chosen by the parties or administered by a private organization privately resolves disputes.16 An arbitrator's decision is final and binding on the parties.17 Arbitration, intended to be an inexpensive and time-sensitive method of dispute resolution, does not require arbitrators to follow the Federal Rules of Evidence when resolving disputes.18 However, there are certain checks on arbitrators; the Arbitrators Ethical Guidelines encourage arbitrators to adhere to their ethical standards by proscribing that "the purpose of [the guidelines] is to provide basic guidance regarding ethical issues that may arise during or related to the arbitration process.19