Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Alan Bernstein's Article Today

Today, for our four week anniversary, Alan Bernstein wrote me a fair article on the candidates and their personnel files. Alan, I just feel terrible, because I didn't get you anything. Please forgive me. The article is on the front page of the Chronicle, but I had a little bit of a harder time finding it on the website, so above is the link.

Here's the summary, it's a look into the personnel files of Jim Leitner, Pat Lykos, Doug Perry and Kelly Siegler (in that order).

Jim's file is the shortest, but probably the most glowing. It describes him as "an excellent trial lawyer who works long, productive hours", and it was written in the 1970s. I think its probably fair to describe Jim in the same way today.

Next is Lykos, who Bernstein notes received "subpar ratings" in her judicial bar poll ratings.

Um, yeah, that's one way of describing them. She attempts to justify that because she "didn't let the lawyers run the courtroom". Yeah, no judge does. It should be noted that at the same time period where Lykos was getting low bar poll ratings for refusing to "let the lawyers run the courtroom", Judge Ted Poe was on the bench. Judge Poe never let any lawyer run his courtroom, and he always got excellent judicial bar poll ratings.

Bernstein then lists some snippets from Lykos' evaluation in 2005 from her supervisor:

"A wise choice of language will go a long way toward winning staff and directors to her projects".

A below standard rating on her ability relating to team members and other county staff.

(NOTE: the supervisor hopefully notes that Lykos was "improving her manner of showing professional courtesy, teamwork and respect of support staff and peers").

Are you kidding me? This evaluation was written in 2005, and Lykos still hasn't learned how to play nice with others?!?! A 60-something-year-old woman who is still having to be told the childhood rule of "being nice to others"?!?!?

That's pathetic.

Anyway, on to Doug Perry, who was described as a "bumbler" when he first joined the force in 1981, and ultimately resigned and had to re-apply with the force.

I don't really know what else to add to that.

And then you have Kelly's.

Excellent evaluations. Letters from victims, law enforcement officers, and jurors commending her. There's an evaluation from former judge Joan Huffman (who was at the time Kelly's supervisor) commending Kelly for researching a Defendant's story and ultimately establishing his innocence.

She gets a few dings for making quick "value judgments" on people and speaking about it in "strong terms".

And in 1989, her supervisor, then-Division Chief Chuck Rosenthal listed Kelly could "use some improvements" when it came to her "legal knowledge".

Wow. Talk about irony, Chuck.

16 comments:

Ron in Houston said...

So, Pat doesn't play well with others and Perry is a boob. Nothing overly newsworthy there.

J said...

You're being generous, AHCL. I like how the good stuff about Kelly was buried at the end of a long article on the continuation page. Yes, yes, they'll say they covered the candidates in alphabetical order. Whatever. And you're right, AHCL, it was practically hidden on the website. Let's face it, the people at the Daily Pravda--from the editorial board to Falkenberg to Bernstein to Turner--have decided to do nothing to help Kelly's campaign and to do everything in their power to hurt it.

Ron in Houston said...

Yes J

It must be an evil liberal conspiracy. Hillary Clinton has sent the people that whacked Vince Foster to do the same to Kelley Seigler. Barack Obama had brought Ann Richards back from the grave to smear Kelley.

Meanwhile the liberal media has been running pictures of her chewing tobacco in East Texas.

I'm sorry J, I've yet to see a "hit" piece on Kelly Seigler.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Come on, Ron. You gotta admit that there is no love lost between Kelly and the Chronicle.

Don't you remember how Bernstein and I started our tumultuous relationship? The "candidate profiles" where they did puff pieces on the three other candidates, and the hatchet job on Kelly? I detailed it in WTF? Parts 1 and 2.

anonymous c said...

It’s more of a sin of omission, Ron.

hcresident said...

I guess it all goes back to the start of your relationship with Bernstein. He brings up a statement from 1989 (I guess that leads us to believe that there has been nothing negative in the last 18 years) about Kelly, but still nothing about the yarmulka. And I would think that if the only thing that could be construed as negative about Kelly ( when she was just out of law school) was from Chuck, then maybe that is really a positive.

jigmeister said...

I don't think Bernstein's got it in for Kelly. (obviously the editoral staff does). He could have been a lot less charitable and seems to have reported the positive and negatives.

Not much negative about Jim in those files though.

I think the comments attributed to Johnny are probably true. He really likes Leitner and only had reservations about him because he left prosecution.

Based on the few comments on the piece, not many people found it. I had to look hard even after it was pointed out to me.

pro.victims said...

Why hasn't Alan responded to this post? Has he stopped reading? I find that hard to believe. He was so dedicated in the past . . . .

A Harris County Lawyer said...

I think he broke up with me because I didn't get him anything for our four week anniversary.

pro.victims said...

I'm sorry. I'm wasn't really sure he loved you anyway, but I think he tried. And I truly believe he meant well.

Anonymous said...

A Harris County Lawyer said...
I think he broke up with me because I didn't get him anything for our four week anniversary.

He said your ass was too big, even in black pants.

Anonymous said...

A Harris County Lawyer said...
I think he broke up with me because I didn't get him anything for our four week anniversary.

He said your ass was too big, even in black pants.

anonymous c said...

Well, I heard that he left you for PJ...

:-)

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 6:21,
Dammit, you've figured out who I am!

Anon C,
First you and Ron and now Alan and PJ. I'm left out in the cold.

Ron in Houston said...

I don't think the Chronicle has it in for Kelley.

I do think they have it in for Rosenthal and still aren't convinced that Kelley isn't the female equivalent of Chuck. (Which is one of the things I hear from a lot of people.)

If you look at it, in a way it's very similar to racist thinking. All those Johnny-Chuck DA's are alike.

jigmeister said...

Believe me, there is a big difference between Johnny and Chuck.