Category: News

On March 20, 2013, the Senate approved the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veteran Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (H.R. 933). The bill provided $5,121,000 for SJI – the same level appropriated in FY 2012. On March 21st, the House approved the bill with no changes. SJI is subject to sequestration per the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), and rescissions included in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, which will result in a reduction of approximately 7 percent ($356,912) in FY 2013.

SJI recently awarded a grant (SJI-13-N-028) to the Maryland Judiciary, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), and the Maryland Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO) to implement the final phases of their policy and program analysis of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the state. The goals of this project are to: 1) conduct a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of ADR in several Maryland settings, including short and long-term costs to the Judiciary, litigants, and other public agencies; 2) assess the effectiveness of various ADR approaches and an understanding of what approaches are more effective in various settings; and 3) develop an understanding of the role of ADR in promoting access to justice. There is currently a lack of comprehensive state level data on the full costs of ADR, including best practices; therefore, this project will fill a major gap by providing a model for ADR assessment. At the end of this project, there will resources available to all state courts seeking to further examine the effectiveness of their ADR programs.

The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, April 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM. The meeting will be held at SJI Headquarters in Reston, Virginia. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 2nd quarter of FY 2013, and other business. All portions of this meeting are open to the public.

In November 2012, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) at the University of Denver released a Rule One Initiative report titled, Measuring Rule 16.1: Colorado’s Simplified Procedure Experiment (SJI-12-N-127). The report is a follow-up to the IAALS 2010 publication of Surveys of the Colorado Bench & Bar on Colorado’s Simplified Pretrial Procedure for Civil Actions, and provides empirical answers to the question: “what has happened with Rule 16.1 in Colorado?”

In 2004, the Colorado Supreme Court issued Rule 16.1, a voluntary pretrial process for smaller dollar-volume civil cases, in an effort to provide timely and efficient resolution of these cases. Rule 16.1 now serves as the default pretrial procedure in Colorado district courts for most civil cases of less than $100,000. Parties may elect to “opt out” and use the standard pretrial process instead of this “simplified” procedure, which replaces discovery with mandated disclosures, along with assurances of a faster route to trial. Recovery under Rule 16.1, including attorney fees but excluding costs, cannot exceed the $100,000 limit.

The latest IAALS report documents the analysis of Rule 16.1, including its role and impact. The value of the project is magnified by the growing interest nationally in streamlining pretrial procedures, case differentiation, and optional processes for both civil and criminal cases, although civil matters have generally been excluded from significant pretrial process improvement.

The IAALS highlighted that the analysis found the highest rate of Rule 16.1 cases occurred in consumer credit collection actions (95 percent) and other straightforward contract actions in which damages are fixed or liquidated. In 70 percent of cases proceeding under Rule 16.1, there is no appearance by any defendant, and more than half resolve by entry of default judgment. Overall, the perception among interviewed attorneys and judges is that the cap on damages and inflexible limits on discovery have discouraged attorneys from using the procedure.

In the 30 percent of Rule 16.1 cases that were contested and therefore invoked the provisions of the procedure, there is mixed evidence on the rule’s impact. Time to disposition and the county in which the case is filed were found to play a larger role than Rule 16.1. In addition, Rule 16.1 cases have not been shown to have a higher trial rate. However, Rule 16.1 is associated with a decrease in the number of motions filed. It is not possible to know whether the results would have been different if the rule was more frequently applied in actively litigated cases.

The report provides interesting insight for state courts who may be considering new methods to ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of civil cases. The full report is available through IAALS Rule One Initiative website or the NCSC Library eCollection.

The National Judicial Education Program (NJEP) course, Intimate Partner Sexual Abuse: Adjudicating This Hidden Dimension of Domestic Violence Cases, is the go-to source for information and training on a crucial, yet overlooked, aspect of domestic violence cases. This course was supported by SJI in FY 2004 and 2011 (SJI-04-N-170 and (SJI-11-E-154).

Designed for judges but useful to a wide variety of justice system professionals, the web course’s 13 modules cover topics such as risk assessment and cultural defenses in domestic violence cases involving intimate partner sexual abuse. Four criminal and four civil case studies, plus interactive elements throughout, provide the learner with opportunities to apply acquired knowledge in the training modules. The course is updated as new research and information becomes available. Most recently, NJEP added data from the Center for Disease Control’s recently-released National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. The Survey provides critical information on the prevalence of intimate partner sexual abuse.

The web course has proved to be highly successful, as over 13,000 learners have taken the course. It i

On November 16, 2012, the National College of Probate Judges (NCPJ) unanimously adopted a set of revised National Probate Court Standards made possible through a Technical Assistance grant provided by SJI(SJI-10-T-180) and matching support from the Borchard Foundation Center on Law and Aging, the ACTEC Foundation, and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC).

This volume is the product of a two-year effort by a Task Force of NCPJ leaders and representatives of the National Association for Court Management (NACM) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section on Real Estate, Probate, Trust and Estates assisted by staff from the NCSC.

Last month, the final document including the revisions to the standards, was endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices. The revision effort was undertaken by NCPJ in recognition that there have been significant technological, legal, policy, procedural, and demographic developments that affect the way probate courts can and should operate since the early 1990s, when the original National Probate Court Standards were developed (also with SJI support). Adding urgency to the need generated by these developments is the impact that the “Baby Boom” population bulge will have on the probate courts.

The revised Standards are intended to be used by individual probate courts and by state court systems as:

• A source of ideas for improving the quality of justice, the effectiveness of operations, and efficient use of resources;
• A basis for requests for needed budgetary support;
• A tool for measuring progress; and
• A template for state standards.

In addition to setting forth the principles for probate court performance, the revised standards address administrative policies, procedures, and practices for probate courts; decedent’s estates; and guardianships and conservatorships for both adults and minors.

Although the Standards focus on the probate court, they are also generally applicable to any judge responsible for a probate matter. An electronic copy of the revised standards may be obtained online through the NCPJ and also on the NCSC’s probate court resource page. To obtain a printed copy, contact Shelley Rockwell at srockwell@ncsc.org.

Effective Fall of 2012, the California Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District (5DCA)began receiving electronic clerk’s transcripts for civil cases from all nine of the trial courts within its jurisdiction. With an SJI grant award (SJI-11-N-151), the Court established the Transcript Assembly Program (TAP) for all trial courts within its jurisdiction. TAP is a software program that automates the trial court’s labor intensive process of compiling a civil clerk’s transcript and produces an electronic record that can be securely transmitted to the appellate court.

TAP started as a pilot project (SJI-09-T-160) between the 5DCA and the Superior Courts of Fresno and Stanislaus Counties. The first grant enabled the 5DCA and these select courts to conduct an assessment and determine how to implement the TAP solution in the remaining seven trial courts. Using TAP, the pilot trial courts reduced their appellate case processing workload by approximately 50 percent, partially offsetting their staffing reductions during this fiscal crisis. “It frees up clerks within our trial court’s appellate division to cross train and to work on other projects,” said Stephanie Kennedy, Operations Manager for the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. “We’ve been able to move some staff around to help other areas of the court that need backup and assistance, especially during these tough fiscal times when we have frozen positions within the court.”

In addition to savings for the trial courts, the 5DCA no longer receives lengthy, printed records that need to be mailed or photocopied. “With the push of a button, any size transcript can be delivered electronically to our court,” said Charlene Ynson, Court Administrator/Clerk for 5DCA. “Electronic records provide the court significant savings. Otherwise we could spend thousands of dollars to store, retrieve, and move large records throughout the review process.”

The results of TAP have been outstanding in the view of 5DCA and Courts. Since completion of the grant in October 2012, many of the trial courts are using this solution to electronically compile and file many other case types other than just civil cases. To date, just under 500 electronic records have been filed throughout the jurisdiction. All trial courts are filing civil appeals electronically; several are filing criminal; in addition to some juvenile and dependency cases. The staff time savings has been significant for the trial courts. The trial courts estimate they save 50 percent of staff time using TAP to compile their civil transcripts. If the record requires correction, they save 100 percent of staff time because they no longer have to manually correct paper and reassemble, copy, and send – they can just make the correction, “re-tap”, and e-transmit the record. This results in a significant savings of time where multiple volumes are involved. Some trial courts have reported over 80 percent time savings on dependency cases.

The 5DCA continues to experience its greatest savings in terms of storage. While there has been some acclimation to working with an electronic record, court staff do not have to create file folders for upwards of 40 or more volumes of a record. Therefore, staff no longer has to send these records to storage at the end of their life cycle and the savings is significant. In a cost study recently completed by the 5DCA, a savings of 50 percent of staff time is realized when they were able to receive and store records electronically.

The 5DCA and the Superior Courts of Fresno and Stanislaus Counties received the 2010-11 Ralph N. Kleps Collaborative Award for Improvement in the Administration of the Courts for the successful deployment of TAP. The SJI grant helped support the deployment of TAP to the remaining seven trial courts within the 5DCA’s jurisdiction: Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Tulare, and Tuolumne. The 5DCA hopes to expand the TAP program to all case types so it can redirect record storage savings into other areas of court operations.

On January 1, 2013, the U.S. Senate confirmed Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman to the SJI Board of Directors. Chief Judge Lippman was nominated by the President on May 24, 2012. He is currently Chief Judge of the State of New York and Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, a position he has held since 2009.

Chief Judge Lippman has spent his entire legal career in the New York State court system, serving for 40 years in a variety of roles. He was Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department from 2007 to 2009; an Associate Justice of the Appellate Term for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts from 2006 to 2007; a Justice of the Supreme Court, Ninth Judicial District from 2006 to 2009; and Chief Administrative Judge of all New York State Courts from 1996 to 2007. Chief Judge Lippman is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Conference of Chief Justices, former President of the Conference of State Court Administrators, and former Vice Chair of the Board of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). He is the recipient of numerous awards and honors, including the William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence, which the NCSC awarded to him in 2008.

He holds a B.A. from New York University in Government and International Relations and a J.D. from the New York University School of Law.

With an SJI Project grant in FY 2008 (SJI-08-N-072), the Texas Administrative Office of the Courts/Indigent Defense Commission examined how mentally-ill offenders entered the judicial system, and to what extent their cases were effectively adjudicated.

The report, titled Representing the Mentally III Offender: An Evaluation of Advocacy Alternatives, explored the use of alternative sanctions for offenders who were identified as having mental health issues. The two-year project showed that criminal offenders with mental impairments who were treated for their illness instead of being jailed were less likely to commit crimes again for up to 18 months. Since this project concluded, the Commission reports that Texas has aligned more resources with this strategy as it continues to prove effective in reducing recidivism. Furthermore, the Texas Discretionary Grant budget now includes more funding for mental health treatment courts and similar intervention-based programs than in prior years. Some of the accomplishments this project and its committed stakeholders were able to advance include:

• By FY 2013, at least 12 counties will provide direct client services through specialized indigent defense programs with a mental health focus;
• In 2009 Lubbock County established the state’s first Managed Assigned Counsel (MAC) program to represent people with mental illness; and,
• Collin County received funding to start its own Managed Assigned Counsel program for FY 2013. In addition to Lubbock and Montgomery Counties, Texas now has three MAC programs in operation.

The project stresses the value of collaboration beyond traditional criminal justice system partners to include expert technical assistance and resources, mental health partners, academia, and individual and family mental health advocates, and support networks. In addition to this summary and its supplemental case study materials, the Commission maintains a robust website, which offers resources on best practices, planning, monitoring, annual reports, and technical assistance. Questions about the study, final report, and the continued work of the Commission can be directed to James Bethke at jim.bethke@txcourts.gov.

During the 1st quarter meeting, the Board approved a $700,000 Strategic Initiatives Grant (SIG) to the Center for Public Policy Studies/The National Judicial College/Center for Court Innovation (CPPS/NJC/CCI) to form a Human Trafficking and the State Courts Collaborative focused on 4 strategic priorities: 1) increasing understanding and awareness about the challenges faced by state courts in dealing with cases involving trafficking victims and their families, and traffickers; 2) developing and testing state and local approaches for assessing and addressing the impact of human trafficking victims and defendants in the state courts; 3) enhancing state and local court capacity to improve court services affected by human trafficking-related cases processing demands; and 4) building effective national, state, and local partnerships for addressing the impacts of human trafficking case processing in the state courts.

The Collaborative will result in a variety of products benefiting the state courts, including:

• A comprehensive resource inventory of background information about the demographics, scope, dynamics, and implications for the courts and justice system of various forms of human trafficking;
• Measurement framework that includes measures and tools for monitoring the impacts of human trafficking case processing in the state courts;
• Summary of changes in federal and state trafficking law, policy, and practice that might better serve the interests of the state courts;
• A human trafficking and the state courts web-based resource network and clearinghouse for judges and court personnel;
• A best practices toolkit for jurisdictions interested in establishing a specialized prostitution/trafficking court;
• A series of bench cards targeting human trafficking-related issues;
• Best practice guidelines;
• Model planning and technical assistance process and supporting materials;
• Training on human trafficking via 12 courses for judges;
• Intensive technical assistance in six jurisdictions, and proven nationally applicable technical assistance approaches; and
• Published articles in various court periodicals about the project and the issue in general.

The three members of the Collaborative each bring specific expertise to these efforts, and will work together to accomplish these goals. CPPS has already developed expertise in delivering statewide technical assistance through its work on the SJI-funded Immigration and the State Courts Initiative. NJC has previously developed training for judges on human trafficking. CCI has experience helping jurisdictions set up specialized prostitution/trafficking courts. In addition to eliminating the “stove-pipe” effect of separate organizations conducting projects with little to no coordination, the Collaborative will also establish what may become a permanent network of courts and court associations and organizations committed to this issue.

The SJI Board established Human Trafficking and the State Courts as a Priority Investment Area on October 1, 2012.