Judiciary Committee advances slate of judicial nominations; members press nominees on temperament, evaluations and court outreach

Hartford — The Judiciary Committee on Friday, Jan. 24, 2025, held public hearings on more than a dozen judicial and quasi‑judicial nominations and advanced a multi‑item consent calendar to the full legislature, while members pressed several nominees about judicial temperament, systems for feedback and performance evaluations.

The committee, co‑chaired by Sen. Douglas Winfield and Rep. David Staffstrom, heard testimony from nominees for associate and appellate judgeships, senior judge and referee roles, and administrative law and board posts. Nominees described their careers, outreach work and how they seek external checks on conduct; legislators repeatedly asked how judges avoid what one member called “robitis” — an apparent shorthand in the hearing for ossified or insensitive courtroom behavior.

Why this matters: The nominees include people who would sit on high‑profile appellate panels and handle sensitive family and juvenile dockets. Committee members said they want assurance that appointees will stay responsive to litigants, lawyers and court staff and that the branch has systems to detect and correct problems with temper and courtroom demeanor.

Most noteworthy actions - The committee moved a package of nominations to a consent calendar and recorded roll‑call votes on several individual nominations. Among nominees advanced were Associate Judge Gregory T. Doria (reappointment), Appellate Court Judges Bethany J. Albert and Nina F. Elgo (reappointments), and a slate of state referees and judicial trial referees. The committee also advanced a nomination for a Board of Pardons and Paroles member, Robert Ciesauskas.

Key exchanges - Gregory (Greg) Doria, nominated to continue as an associate judge on the Supreme Court, told the committee: “I give the cases all my attention,” and described teaching law students and attending oral arguments as ways he seeks outside feedback. He said the appellate court’s work is “challenging” and credited his wife and clerks for helping him balance responsibilities.

- Multiple appellate nominees said they use colleagues and law clerks for candid feedback and rely on public access (arguments on CTN) and written opinions as accountability tools. Bethany J. Albert described the appellate court’s “on the road” sessions at high schools and colleges as a high point, saying the sessions are “extremely well received” and require marshals and technology staff to participate.

- Committee members pressed nominees about handling critical evaluations. Judge Mary Margaret D. Bergdorf, a longtime juvenile and child‑protection session judge, acknowledged a drop in a past judicial performance rating and said she re‑examined her practice and sought feedback from clerks and colleagues to adjust courtroom demeanor.

- Senator Winfield and others repeatedly asked nominees how they would avoid “robitis.” Across nominees, answers ranged from informal systems (asking clerks and colleagues for direct feedback) to formal tools (listening to recorded hearings or reviewing written evaluations). Several nominees noted the chief justice’s authority to designate a state referee as a judge trial referee and that such designation provides an institutional check: without it a referee lacks authority to preside.

Public comment - Several members of the public used the hearing’s public‑comment segment to air longstanding complaints about family court practice. Karen Reardon and other speakers described traumatic experiences in family court and criticized reliance on particular experts and court orders they called harmful. Committee members did not act on the individual complaints at the hearing but allowed the comments on the record.

Votes at a glance - The committee advanced a consent calendar that included a number of nominees; individual roll calls were recorded for several nominations and were taken into the committee record. (The committee clerk recorded roll‑call votes and indicated ballots would remain open until the published cutoff time and that all tallies and recorded votes are in the committee minutes.)

What members asked the branch to consider - Stronger, more formalized feedback channels beyond ad hoc clerk or colleague conversations, including whether litigant perspectives should be captured differently in evaluation systems. - Clearer public explanation of the role and expected time commitment of state referees and judge trial referees versus full‑time judges, after several nominees said they worked intermittently or at the branch’s request. - Whether the judicial branch can expand and clarify processes for evaluating expert witnesses and handling complaints tied to experts used repeatedly in family dockets.

The hearing record - The committee recessed to allow members to gather and later returned to hold roll calls on nominations. After multiple motions, seconds and discussion, the committee clerk recorded votes and reported a consent calendar to the legislature.

Looking ahead - The committee chair said the list would move forward to the legislature. Several members asked the Judicial Branch to consider systemic responses to concerns raised in the hearing, including more consistent mechanisms for protecting litigants and for monitoring judge comportment in long‑running or highly emotional dockets.

Ending - The committee closed the public hearing after several public speakers and completed votes on nominations; committee staff said recorded tallies and the consent calendar will appear in the committee minutes sent to the clerk of the house and senate.