Democrat incumbent Ravi K. Sandill is currently defending his seat as judge of Harris County’s 127th District Court against Republican challenger Nile Copeland.
Sandill, a 12-year veteran of the bench, has presided over more than 250 trials and has handled more than 15,000 matters since he became a district judge. He’s also a cancer survivor, the first South Asian jurist in Texas and was the first judge in the nation to issue a standing order for continuance for adopting and expectant parents.
Copeland describes himself as a conservative, constitutionalist, Christian and community-builder. In addition to running his own law firm, where he practices business law, civil litigation and mediation, he also works as a realtor. He is a former municipal judge in Harris County and a serial public office candidate — losing as a Democrat in 2012 and 2018 for a spot on the First Court of Appeals and as Harris County Treasurer, respectively, before switching to the Republican Party to run against Sandill in this election cycle.
Members of the Houston legal community overwhelmingly favor Sandill over Copeland, according to a recent poll released by the Houston Bar Association that surveyed its members about their preference of judicial candidates in local and statewide races. Twice as many lawyers want Sandill to win (820) than Copeland (408).
Although Copeland completed a written questionnaire for Texas Lawyer, he declined to complete one for The Texas Lawbook when a reporter reached out introducing The Lawbook as a Dallas-based legal publication. He suggested that his own race was not newsworthy.
“Thank you Natalie but there is nothing interesting about judicial races,” Copeland said to senior litigation writer Natalie Posgate in a Facebook message. “Most especially for the Dallas crowd.”
Sandill’s responses are below.
R.K. Sandill
Q: What led you to practice law?
A: While attending high school overseas in England, I saw the effects public policy had on my father’s career and the effect law and policy had on American interactions with other countries. This began my initial interest in law and policy.
During my time at the University of Texas, I interned at then Senator John Kerry’s office and at the Clinton White House, working with the Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Advance.
After these experiences, I wanted to have the ability to make meaningful change for my community. I naturally gravitated toward public policy and the law. Going to law school and practicing law were natural extensions of those interests.
Q: Tell us a little bit about your career before taking the bench.
A: After graduating from the University of Houston Law Center, I was fortunate to serve as a briefing attorney for Justice Murry Cohen on the First Court of Appeals. After that, I spent several years in private practice focused on commercial, appellate and trade secret litigation. I also represented both plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation and did some criminal defense work.
Soon after my clerkship, I was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma. I went through eight months of chemotherapy as a first line treatment. I relapsed about three months later and had to undergo a stem cell transplant after receiving high dose chemotherapy. Going through treatment had a significant impact on my perspective. I understood that life can be unpredictable and that opportunities must be seized when available.
Q: What are one or two of the most significant cases you handled as a trial lawyer?
A: Prior to joining the bench, I represented a young woman whose home was severely damaged by smoke, fire and water. She engaged a restoration firm to restore the home, but the firm did a poor job and gave her the run-a-round when the confronted about the quality of its work. My firm filed a lawsuit on the woman’s behalf in Montgomery County. She asserted claims for deceptive trade practices and fraud.
I felt particularly passionate about this case because the young woman was in a difficult financial and emotional position, having lost so much. She really needed lawyers who would fight for her and were not afraid to push hard for justice. Our team tried the case to a jury and won a significant verdict. I was moved by my client’s gratitude and faith in a judicial system that does often work for those seeking justice.
Q: What do you wish you’d been taught in law school that you were not?
A: All legal education should include classes and practical instruction on interpersonal relationships and wellness.
Litigators interact with numerous people every day, including their clients, their staff and their opposing counsel. The practice is an adversarial one, and not having the skills to be able to effectively communicate with others can make the practice difficult. Thus, teaching of conflict resolution skills and coping mechanisms would allow lawyers at a young age to deal with each other in a less confrontational way, and it would give lawyers the space to attempt to alleviate mental health issues that are rampant within the practice.
Q: How many jury trials did you work on as a practicing lawyer?
A: My practice was primarily centered on temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions in a noncompete/trade secret context. I prepped for dozens of ancillary court proceedings and took part in multiple temporary injunctions.
As for full-blown jury trials, I participated in two civil jury trials, and I had three criminal jury trials (two felony and one misdemeanor).
Q: What led you to become a judge?
A: As previously mentioned, my interest in public service predates my legal career and has remained a strong driving force in my professional life. My first experience in the law was at an appellate court. It was the first place that I fell in love with the law.
After years in private practice, I concluded that being a trial court judge would give me an opportunity to serve my community. I was fortunate to run and win my district court bench in 2008, and for the last 12 years I have served the people of Harris County.
Q: What’s the most valuable lesson you’ve learned so far as a trial judge? How are you currently using that lesson to run your court in the best manner?
A: Litigation is expensive for all parties involved. I have worked hard to run the 127th Court in the most effective and efficient manner possible, to respect litigants’ time and to move as smoothly as possible through my docket.
Q: What are you the most proud of accomplishing during your time on the bench?
A: Being a judge that looks for equity in the practice of law brings me joy. As the first judge in the nation to issue a standing order for continuance for adopting and expectant parents, I felt proud. Allowing lawyers to acknowledge their personal lives and families gave me great fulfillment.
Q: What has been your most important decision/ruling as a trial court judge and why?
A: After the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, I began speaking to jury panels about community. I talked about how the law has empowered these strangers to come together and decide what is best for their fellow citizens.
The ability to effect change and do what is right is powerful, and although the people on the jury may not be of the same faith, race, political persuasion or sexual orientation, they have come together to decide what is best for Harris County.
I have expanded this talk of community to the issues of bias and prejudice. I explain to every panel that bias and prejudice do not make us good or bad people – those things just make us people. I believe making potential jurors comfortable speaking on the issues of bias and prejudice allows for juries that are fairer and more just.
Q: What are the biggest challenges your courthouse is facing, and what role are you playing to address those challenges?
A: The challenges posed by Hurricane Harvey damage to court facilities, coupled with those from COVID-19, have forced our court to be very nimble. Many courtrooms in Harris County were destroyed by Harvey; as a result, civil judges were sharing facilities for over three years.
In addition, COVID-19 has, in the short term, largely eliminated in-person hearings. These crises have necessitated leveraging technology whenever possible to continue doing the court’s business. I am proud of my court’s efforts in this regard. I was the first judge in Texas to shift to a web-based virtual platform. We tried out numerous products and eventually settled on Zoom.
Virtual hearings work with my philosophy of cost-cutting and efficiency. These types of hearings will remain a significant part of the docket even after we return to an in-person format.
Q: There is a significant problem with (a) jury attendance and (b) jury pool diversity. Less than one in five people summonsed to jury service shows up. Those who do show up do not seem to be a representative cross- section of the community. How is this impacting the administration of justice in Texas and what can be done about it?
A: Juror pay should be raised. For many working people, the loss in income from jury service is simply not an option. Further, we need more outreach to underrepresented communities about the importance of jury service, particularly during our current national reckoning over the justice system.
I have been on the front lines of the effort to raise jury pay in Harris County. Working together with our district clerk and county commissioners, we are in the process of surveying the county to see what obstacles, including pay, keep citizens from participating.
Q: What separates you from your opponent?
A: Twelve years of trial court judicial experience. I have tried more than 250 cases and dealt with over 15,000 matters and have consistently received high ratings from local attorneys.
Also, I am committed to making things better. I want to be more efficient, cost-effective, and I want the civil jury system to be the preferred method for resolving all disputes. This takes time, energy and requires me to think outside the box. I am willing to do all of it because I believe my community benefits from the work and innovation.
Q: According to the Houston Bar Association’s 2019 judicial evaluation poll, nearly 25% of respondents indicated that they’d like to see improvement in your court in various areas — the top three categories being impartiality, being courteous and attentive toward attorneys/witnesses, and following the law. What is your response, and what actions if any have you taken to address those concerns?
A: I am always receptive to constructive suggestions for improvement. I work every day to make the civil justice system in Harris County better and am willing to consider all ways to make the experience better for all those that come to my court.
The court is ever-evolving. I take into consideration all thoughts, concerns and ideas prior to making significant decisions involving process or procedure.
Q: No matter what you say here, some voters will vote against you simply because they’re straight ticket voters and you’re on the wrong side of their ballot. There is another group of voters who are inclined to do the same but could be convinced otherwise. What would you say to them? Why should they vote for you even if your political party doesn’t match their values?
A: Despite our system of electing judges, our courts largely are not and should not be partisan. I would ask Harris County voters to consider my record over 12 years and my high ratings from practicing lawyers here.
Q: Is there anything else you would like voters to know?
It is an honor and privilege to serve the people of Harris County, and I hope to earn another term.
Publisher’s Note: This coverage of the 2020 judicial elections by The Texas Lawbook is being made available outside our paywall courtesy of Thompson Coburn and Carter Arnett.