Category: News

With a new courthouse opening in Indianapolis in 2022, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) is helping court officials unify paternity, domestic relations, probate, and juvenile court proceedings to create a more efficient and effective way to settle family-centered disputes.

Unifying these proceedings, which often leads to better and faster outcomes for families, is one of 36 recommendations NCSC consultants made in a report they recently presented to Marion County (Indianapolis), Indiana circuit and superior court judges and administrators.

The report comes at a time as the NCSC continues its work on the Family Justice Initiative (FJI) – a massive effort to examine ways to improve the administration of justice in family and domestic relations courts nationwide.

The report, while written for Marion County, could serve as a template for courts nationwide, said Alicia Davis, one of two NCSC consultants who presented the report in Indianapolis.

“NCSC has provided a vision for this new model, complete with concrete recommendations and research grounded in evidence-based practices from around the country,” according to a statement from Marion County’s Executive Committee judges.

NCSC recommends the county:

• Apply the “One-Family, One-Judge” concept in order to provide effective coordination of all services;
• Create “One-Family, One-Judge” case management teams, in which the same judge hears all court cases involving a family every time the family comes to court;
• Provide regular training for judges and other court employees; and
• Offer options other than litigation to resolve cases.  These options could include mediation, arbitration, or other methods, such as online dispute resolution.

“NCSC’s recommendations touch upon each necessary aspect of the Family Division,” the judges said, “…with guiding principles that we can implement in light of our goal of ultimately becoming an innovative leader in family justice.”

In response to requests from state court policymakers for guidance, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, published a briefing paper titled, Preventing Whack-a-Mole Management of Consumer Debt Cases.  The paper describes problems associated with consumer debt collection cases and the impact of promising reforms implemented in New York State and elsewhere.  It then proposes that such reforms be expanded to apply to all types of consumer debt collection cases and to prevent problems at each stage of litigation, including post-judgment proceedings.  It is one of several briefing papers, self-assessment tools, and other resources developed under a grant from the State Justice Institute (SJI) (SJI-P-16-231) to implement civil justice reforms endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators.

Americans are drowning in debt – an estimated $4 trillion or roughly $13,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States – large numbers of whom struggle to repay their debts, especially debts incurred to cover routine living expenses, emergency situations, and out-of-pocket medical costs.  Many then find themselves as defendants in consumer debt collection cases filed in state courts.  These cases pose tremendous challenges to state courts due not only to their high volume, but also the distinctive characteristics of defendants, who are overwhelmingly unrepresented, often intimidated by court procedures, and uninformed about their substantive rights or how to assert themselves court.  State and local courts rarely have sufficient resources and expertise to carefully scrutinize claims, and identify and correct errors, before a judgment is entered or post-judgment enforcement proceedings begin.

Over the past decade, state courts have identified key points in the litigation process where problems are likely to occur in consumer debt collection litigation and have begun to take steps to address those problems.  But these solutions have been implemented on a piecemeal basis that focus on discrete types of consumer debt, the litigation posture of the case (contested or uncontested), the stage of litigation, or the court in which the case was filed.  Although preliminary research on these solutions suggests that they can be highly effective, their impact has been limited due to the small number of courts that have implemented reforms, and the limits of the reforms themselves.

The briefing paper and other materials are available at www.ncsc.org/civil.

The National Judicial College (NJC) hosted a free webcast “The Judge’s Role in Responding to a Pandemic,” on March 19^th.

In light of the recent coronavirus outbreak, the NJC’s Question of the Month for March asked NJC alumni: “Do you feel adequately prepared to make judicial decisions involving the coronavirus or a similar public health emergency?”  Of the 316 who responded, almost 6 in 10 said “no.” They said they do not feel adequately prepared to deal with the potential effects of an outbreak and quarantine, such as how to weigh personal rights against public safety, how to ensure continuity of court operations, and whether to relax evidentiary rules and allow video testimony to avoid infection.  Several judges cited the need for reliable information on the virus to make informed decisions.

“Our court has not provided us any information regarding contingency plans for a public health emergency, and there are confirmed cases in our state,” wrote one judge (anonymously), as was most often the case.  “I feel absolutely unprepared and uninformed about what to expect and am concerned about the lack of forward-focused leadership in our state and local courts.”

Another pointed out that the poll question presupposes that there will be a way to test millions of people and have adequate resources to quarantine those who either test positive, or have been in contact with someone who has tested positive.

Other concerns included:

• How to manage time-sensitive hearings.
• Knowing when to issue orders to close a public event or quarantine.
• What to do if jails become infected and how to proceed with convictions, bond release, etc.
• Vulnerable populations without access to health care who come before the court.
• The virus spreading easily among juries and court personnel who come into close contact with the public.
• Staff training.

Among the 41 percent of judges who said that they do feel adequately prepared, the majority said video conferences and telecommunications could easily become the new status quo.

Some judges said that their states are providing education, and are examining legal precedents with respect to quarantines and other related issues.  Judges from Pennsylvania recommended their state’s Public Health Law Bench Book—published during the SARS outbreak—as a resource for judges.

One commenter who self-identified as a Washington state Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals judge wrote, “As in other analogous circumstances (i.e., very severe weather, earthquake, threats and the like), one of the largest challenges is preparing oneself psychologically to get out of our business-as-usual entrenchment to make wise decisions recognizing extraordinary circumstances.  Denial can be as much a fault as panic or overreaction.”

Another anonymous judge expressed the belief that the “proper path forward” should be “discoverable” from “existing law and judicial principles,” given enough good information about the nature and scope of the emergency.

For more information about COVID-19, pandemics generally, and continuity of operations, please visit https://tinyurl.com/Pandemic-Benchbook and https://www.ncsc.org/pandemic.

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has a pandemic website available that is cataloging state court actions to address COVID-19 (Coronavirus), and also provides other important resources.

The website includes a data visualization that provides an at-a-glance look at what state courts are doing, and the NCSC continues to monitor how state courts are dealing with the pandemic. Here’s an overview of how courts are responding:

• Postponing jury trials and non-emergency hearings.
• Using videoconferencing in courts that regularly employ that technology.
• Extending deadlines for litigants who owe fines and fees.
• Encouraging lawyers to use e-filing to submit documents.
• Cleaning courthouses more often and more thoroughly.

Many states have issued directives that allow local court officials to decide how to reduce public traffic in courts. Various courts in those states have responded by postponing jury trials and other proceedings, and barring access to those who show coronavirus symptoms.

 

The Rural Responses to the Opioid Epidemic grant solicitation was designed to leverage the combined resources and expertise of the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the State Justice Institute (SJI), along with other federal partners, to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with opioid overdoses among individuals who come in contact with law enforcement or are involved in the criminal justice system in high-risk rural communities and regions.

Twenty-one rural American communities substantially impacted by the opioid epidemic will receive $14.8 million in grants, up to $750,000 per community, to develop tailored and innovative responses to gaps in prevention, treatment and/or recovery services for individuals involved in the criminal justice system.  Communities awarded 18-month implementation phase grants at the end of 2019 represented sixteen states, including the following sites:

• Arkansas Rural Health Partnership (AR)
• County of Rio Arriba (NM)
• Ellenville Regional Hospital (NY)
• Franklin County Sheriff’s Department (MA)
• Grays Harbor Public Health & Social Services (WA)
• Marcum and Wallace Hospital (KY)
• Marshall University Research Corporation (WV)
• Memorial Regional Health (CO)
• Mohave Substance Treatment Education & Prevention Partnership (AZ)
• Northern Kentucky University (KY)
• Northumberland County (PA)
• Porter-Starke Services Inc. (IN)
• Portsmouth City Health Department (OH)
• Prisma Health–Upstate (SC)
• Project Lazarus (NC)
• Reno County Health Department (KS)
• SMA Healthcare, Inc. (FL)
• Mary’s Regional Health Center (MN)
• Upper Cumberland Human Resources Agency (TN)
• WestCare Tennessee, Inc. (TN)
• Whitley County Health Department (KY)

SJI funding ensures that state courts are a key component in these collaborative efforts to address the opioid epidemic in rural areas.  More information is available on the project website.  Site profiles are being be added to the website, along with new resources as the project moves forward.

The coronavirus may not have been labeled a pandemic yet, but the rapid spread of the virus is a good enough reason for court officials to plan for how they would deal with one. Fortunately, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has updated its public health emergency page, which offers many resources for court administrators and judges.  The page features Preparing for a Pandemic, a blueprint for developing a plan to combat a pandemic, as well as resources from last year’s SJI-funded National Pandemic Summit at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, home to the nation’s largest biocontainment unit.

The information on the page also applies to public health emergencies other than pandemics, which are relatively rare.  It applies, for example, to influenza, which has killed between 12,000 and 61,000 Americans per year since 2010.  The flu pandemic of 1918, which killed about 675,000 Americans and tens of millions worldwide, caused courts to close in the District of Columbia,  Tennessee and Kentucky, among other places, but fortunately public health emergencies rarely lead to court closings.

Despite that, public health emergencies sometimes impact the courts, and court officials need to know how to react to them.  Court administrators need to know how to keep their courts operating efficiently when some of their employees are sick and can’t work.  And judges must know what to do when they are called upon to order quarantines for individuals infected with contagious diseases.  A quarantine order related to a nurse in Maine who was exposed to the Ebola virus in Africa in 2014 made national headlines.

“Preparing for a Pandemic addresses the legal bases for actions the government may take and provides a ready-reference for a judge confronting issues that thankfully are extremely rare as they relate to things like a quarantine,” said William Raftery, senior NCSC Knowledge and Information Services analyst.

If you have questions about this or resources to share, email the NCSC.

Members of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) recently gathered for their midyear meeting where there was discussion on the variety of proposed innovations in the regulation of the delivery of legal services.  State supreme courts, after all, don’t just act as arbiters of legal disputes, but also hold ultimate authority for the regulation of the practice of law in their states.

The assembled members heard from the President of the American Bar Association (ABA), Judy Perry Martinez, who did not mince words about how critical innovation is in the effort to close the nation’s access to justice gap.  She also emphasized the vital role of both the ABA and state judicial leaders in fostering open discussion about potential reforms.

“We need and are beginning to see bold new ideas to address our nation’s unmet legal needs,” said Martinez. “Given the dire circumstances that the public faces when trying to protect their basic rights, doing nothing—having no dialogues and conversations among stakeholders; fearing to ask “what if” or “why not”—may pose an even greater risk.”

At its business meeting, CCJ adopted a policy resolution Urging Consideration of Regulatory Innovations Regarding the Delivery of Legal Services, which was proposed by its committee on Professionalism and Competence of the Bar.  The resolution “urges its members to consider regulatory innovations that have the potential to improve the accessibility, affordability and quality of civil legal services, while ensuring necessary and appropriate protections for the public.”

As ABA President Martinez noted: “The ultimate purpose of regulation is not to protect the livelihood of lawyers but to advance the administration of justice.”

The Justice Programs Office (JPO), a center in the School of Public Affairs at American University, in partnership with Right to Counsel (R2C) National Campaign consortium member the National Association for Court Management (NACM) partnered on a project which recently released its final report titled, Enhancing Caseflow Management to Ensure Effective Assistance of Counsel.

With SJI support, the report and archived webinar available through NACM, explore the tension between ensuring the right to counsel and caseflow management, what causes it and what alleviates it, and what judges and court administrators can do both separately and as a team to ease it.

Caseflow management is defined as the coordination of court processes to ensure court proceedings progress in a timely and efficient manner.  This can sometimes result in courts’ feeling pressure to process cases quickly in order to clear a docket and avoid case delay. This pressure may also result in the scheduling of case events without consideration for whether a defense attorney has been assigned to the case, and if so, whether one has had time to sufficiently prepare for these events.  In some instances, competing interests may emerge—those supporting prompt resolution of cases against those supporting effective assistance of counsel, which at times may slow down case proceedings.  When these interests are not adequately addressed, a tension emerges for judges and court administrators: the right to counsel tension.

The report is the culmination of several activities that involved face-to-face meetings with court professionals, industry expert analysis, and a focus on two courts in Spokane, Washington, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The National Initiative on Mental Illness and the Courts Advisory Committee is committed to improving both court and community responses to those with mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders.

Supported by State Justice Institute (SJI) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), the Committee publishes a bi-monthly Behavioral Health Alert and has compiled a series of selected readings and resources.

With the continued interest and the leadership of the state courts, this effort is well-positioned to address the revolving door of jails, involuntary commitments, court cases, emergency rooms, state hospitals, and homelessness of those with serious mental illness.

Sign up to receive these Behavioral Health Alerts.  The Alerts will include updates from the National Initiative, Research and Resources, and News from around the nation.

Also, remember the Advisory Committee wants to hear from you.  Please send news and developments, and/or concerns and challenges by emailing Patti Tobias, NCSC Project Coordinator, at ptobias@ncsc.org.

With grant support from SJI, technical assistance from the NCSC, and use of the podcast studio at the University of Georgia School of Law in Athens, the Georgia Superior Courts have established a thriving podcast.

Centered on Georgia law and issues relevant statewide, judges J. Wade Padgett (Augusta Circuit) and Tain Kell (Cobb Circuit), enlist guests, experts, and knowledge from their combined judicial careers to provide continuing education and dialogue on matters of interest to Georgia judges and the legal community.

At more than 20 episodes, the Good Judge-ment Podcast has found an audience interested in exploring substantive law and procedure for superior courts.  The show also has had a three-episode foray into the realm of probate courts with special guest Judge Keith Wood of the Cherokee County Probate Court.  First Lady of Georgia, Marty Kemp, even paid a visit to the studio (pictured above) to discuss her initiative to curb human trafficking in Georgia.

The hosts welcome feedback and ideas for future podcasts at goodjudgepod@gmail.com.