Vermont judge in retention hearing addresses criticism about courtroom demeanor, outlines small-claims and incarcerated-litigant practices

Judge Dixon Corbett, a Vermont Superior Court judge assigned to the Windsor unit in Woodstock, addressed the Judicial Retention Committee during his retention hearing, responding to survey feedback and describing specific courtroom practices.

Corbett told the committee he aims to “put people in a position to succeed at sharing information about themselves” and said he values “procedural fairness and empathy for litigants in difficult situations.” He acknowledged critical survey comments alleging a rigid or cold demeanor and said that dynamic can come from the judge’s moderating role: when a judge limits a lawyer’s time or sustains or overrules objections, attorneys may feel unfairly treated. Corbett said he is trying to explain rulings more often and to “slow down” so lawyers understand why he is making decisions.

The committee members read several attorney comments to Corbett, including that a few attorneys perceived gender bias and described his tone as “cold and robotic.” Corbett said he found the criticisms “mortifying” but framed them as actionable feedback he can use to improve courtroom explanations and the impression he makes when ruling from the bench.

Corbett described courtroom practices he has adopted to improve access to justice. For petitions filed by incarcerated people, he said he writes the petitioner a short letter summarizing the petition, schedules an initial status conference within days to a couple of weeks, and uses that conference to confirm the issues, ensure counsel are present and set a plan for how the case will proceed. He said that approach often triggers communications between counsel that resolve issues within weeks.

On small-claims procedure, Corbett told the committee he adopted a local practice roughly a year earlier to send debtors information about exemptions and benefits when they answer a small-claims complaint. He said that after receiving that additional information, roughly 60–70% of respondents change their answers or provide updated information that helps adjudicate the matter more fairly.

Committee members asked about courtroom security in Woodstock. Corbett said staffing shortages for court officers can limit his ability to hold in-person hearings; when a court officer is unavailable, he can conduct a remote hearing but cannot invite the public or parties into the courtroom for an in‑person proceeding. He said that limitation forced prioritization of who receives in-person time and that the recent consolidation of county divisions into a single building had improved access to officers in his location.

Corbett also discussed one area of legal practice he said he monitors: interpreting statutes when the text is silent. Asked about his opinion in Figuereira v. Woodstock Resort and the meaning of “actual injury” in a statutory provision, Corbett told the committee he interprets ambiguous statutory language by examining case law and statutory context; if the Legislature wants a different definition, he said he would follow the statutory definition provided.

On technology and evidence, Corbett noted the judiciary is already grappling with risks from artificial intelligence—particularly the question of whether AI-generated business or other records carry the same reliability as traditionally created records—and he said the evidence committee is studying those questions.

Committee members praised his willingness to receive feedback and asked whether he would advocate for systemic changes he had piloted; Corbett said he had already raised his small-claims procedure with civil oversight and would continue to do so.

Corbett concluded by thanking the committee and the Legislature for support of the judiciary and by repeating that retention is a valuable opportunity for judges to receive performance feedback and to improve.