Chancery courts are different from other state courts in Tennessee, and from most courts in other states as well. Tennessee is one of just two states that retains chancery courts. Operating without juries, chancellors question attorneys and witnesses and resolve complex issues of equity and contests over the application of all manner of civil law in an exceedingly broad range of cases.
The nature of the court, which derives from old English courts of equity, calls for chancellors who are nimble thinkers, incisive questioners and tireless legal scholars. Their written, annotated and sometimes lengthy opinions often rival those of appeal court panels.
Next week’s election of a judge in Chancery Court, Division II, which emphasizes an additional specialty in probate and estate issues, features three prominent attorneys in a contest to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Chancellor Howell Peoples earlier this year. Three years of his term remain.
The candidates are Art Grisham, an independent; Valerie Epstein, the Democratic nominee; and Jeffrey Atherton, the Republican nominee. All are widely considered by the legal community as capable, well experienced contenders for the job.
Mr. Grisham may be the best known, both because, at 67, he has been in practice longer, and because he is a past president of the Chattanooga Bar Association. He also won the bar association’s preferential poll for the position earlier this month, with 58 percent of the 309 votes cast by some of the bar’s approximately 800 members.
Mrs. Epstein and Mr. Atherton, though somewhat younger, are seasoned attorneys with more than 20 years of experience in a fairly broad range of civil law. All three, moreover, have admirable records of lengthy community service and leadership in various civic organizations. Indeed, it is that spirit of service and broad public interest that the candidates cite as their motivation to serve on the bench.
Voters are fortunate to have such a group of candidate from which to choose.
We endorse Mrs. Epstein. Her broad experience in private practice, litigation, corporate law, civil and probate cases, conservatorships and her history as an arbitrator in more than 500 dispute-resolution cases suggests an imminently suitable legal resume for Chancery Court.
Mrs. Epstein, a mother of three accomplished students, should be elected to the Chancery Court bench for other reasons, as well. One is her interest in innovation to make the court more open and transparent to the public. She already has discussed with the court’s clerk and master how to incorporate electronic filing of cases and how to make the subsequent case files accessible online.
That would be a useful innovation. It would allow online readers to Google case issues by topical references and follow the written arguments in a case and the chancellor’s decision. That would let more citizens see what facts are considered and how judges rule in a wide range of issues – for example, property boundary disputes, fraudulent conveyances of assets, disputes over estates, wills and trust, business and partnership disputes, living wills, intellectual properties and anti-competition clauses.
Another reason involves the strictly male lineage among chancery court judges: Since these courts were established in 1835, not a single woman has been elected to a chancery court judgeship.
That should be changed. All judges bring an inherent understanding and unique insight into their decision-making process on equity decisions. Yet no male judge could presume to bring a uniquely female view to bear on an equity case.
Mrs. Epstein pledges that she would base her rulings on the law, period, and we believe her. But it also seems sensible that a female equity judge’s application or interpretation of the law – and interpreting subjective circumstance is necessarily a big part of the equity court’s job – would help expand the perceived wisdom of the state’s Chancery Court case-law decisions. It’s past time for Tennessee to have a woman chancellor. Mrs. Epstein merits that honor.