r  judicial profile
      By Daniel Cox, Photos by Peter Cutts

Going The Second Mile (Cont.)

A UNIQUE STYLE

To look at Maryland Chief Judge Robert Bell, one would be hard pressed to guess his distinguished occupation. Outwardly he is flamboyant, with a flair for the dramatic. He has never felt constrained by convention when assembling his wardrobe. Baltimore Magazine has consistently named the Chief one of the ten best-dressed men in Baltimore City. He wears immaculately tapered, brightly colored suits; dress shirts that perfectly match his silk ties; and Italian designer leather shoes.

In his younger days, Bell could be seen around Baltimore wearing expensive rings and a zodiac medallion. When he was assigned to the Court of Special Appeals in 1984, close friends implored Bell to temper his image; they achieved only modest success. Maryland’s top judicial officer still wears his medium-brimmed straw hat, cocked slightly to one side, in what has become the Bell sartorial trademark. And he refuses to give up his old-school pocket watches or his fancy silk handkerchiefs. “I know I go against the historical image of what a judge is supposed to look like,” says Bell, “but people don’t realize that the individual, not the image, is the judge.”

Yet it is in the courtroom where he truly distinguishes himself. On the bench, Bell is known for his warm, genial demeanor and his assiduous attention to facts. “He always asks very probing questions of witnesses to ensure that he’s getting at the truth,” says Maryland Court of Special Appeals Judge Arrie W. Davis, who befriended Bell shortly after both men passed the Maryland bar exam in 1969, a year in which only three other African-Americans were admitted to the Maryland bar, Davis recalls.

Bell’s reputation as an exemplary jurist stems largely from his provocative, thoughtful dissents, which became legion during his ascent up the Maryland judicial ranks. Judge Holland says that Bell’s consistent application of the law is one reason that he frequently splits off from the majority. “He doesn’t believe in trying to interpret the law to fit the person, the defendant, the plaintiff, or the case,” she says.

Earlier this year, Bell joined two of his colleagues to protest the Court of Appeals’ refusal to address the issue of whether Maryland should extend a right to counsel in certain civil cases. The judges, by a 4-3 vote, dodged the broader question and decided Frase v. Barnhart based on specific factual circumstances of the child-custody case. Maryland thus fell one vote short of becoming the first state to approve a limited “Civil Gideon” (referring to the landmark 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright, which established a defendant’s right to counsel in criminal cases).

“I think we’re all responsible for the quality of justice that people receive,” Bell says. “The way we do it is by making sure that everybody has an opportunity to get the benefit of representation. If we don’t have a wide enough net, then the public’s faith and confidence in the system will be damaged. In very important cases, everybody should be represented. It’s a public responsibility, so why not make the public do it?”

Opponents claim that a Civil Gideon would be prohibitively expensive, but the Chief Judge feels such arguments miss the point. “It strikes me that the issue is not how difficult it’s going to be,” Bell says. “The issue is whether it’s the right thing to do. That’s the decision that we have to make.”

NEXT PAGE: Long-Term Commitment >>


_______________________________________________________________________________________

Fall 2004
Vol. 3 No. 3
| EJM
Home
| LSC
Home