Cost/Benefit Analysis of Civil Justice Reform Across Multiple Jurisdictions

Excessive cost and delay have been a chronic complaint about the American civil justice system for more than a century.  Recently, some jurisdictions have implemented procedural reforms and improved civil case automation and staffing that show significant improvements in civil case processing.

The NCSC report summarizes the impact of reform efforts in four jurisdictions and estimates the potential impact in terms of litigant costs for attorneys and expert witness fees.  The four reform projects include: a case management system with specially trained court staff implemented in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court (Miami-Dade County) to manage the 2008-2009 mortgage foreclosure crisis; amendments to pleading and discovery requirements implemented on a pilot basis in New Hampshire; amendments to discovery procedures statewide in Utah; and a comprehensive expedited civil case processing track for cases under $100,000 statewide in Texas.

The precise impact of these reforms varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; however, all of them ultimately had some impact on the settlement rate, time to disposition, or other key case processing measures.  As settlement rates increased and settlement occurred earlier in the litigation process, litigants avoided costs associated with expensive court proceedings such as summary judgment hearings and bench or jury trials.

The paper concludes with a brief discussion on whether reduced litigation costs will result in increased litigant satisfaction, and whether litigation tasks undertaken on their behalf are worthwhile.

 

NACM Annual Meeting Content Now Available

With support from SJI, the National Association for Court Management (NACM) live-streamed educational sessions and keynote speeches from the 2016 annual meeting.

In the event you were not able to join your state court colleagues in Pittsburgh, plenary and workshop videos, recorded live from the event, are now available online.  NACM encourages you to share these educational sessions with others using the #NACM2016 hashtag and by forwarding the link.

NACM recorded plenary sessions, workshops, and other proceedings each day of the conference.  Over 500 attendees, vendors, and state court subject matter experts from across the country attended the annual meeting, and are great resources for follow-up.  Hundreds attended keynotes and breakout sessions that were live-streamed.  Where possible, presenter information is also included for your reference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark your calendars—the NACM Midyear Conference will be held in Portland, Oregon, February 5-7, 2017.

 

Pandemic Benchbook Now Available

The Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) Pandemic and Emergency Response Task Force has recently published a new tool for courts titled, Preparing for a Pandemic: An Emergency Response Benchbook and Operational Guidebook for State Court Judges and Administrators.  This project was supported by SJI.

Facilitated with expertise provided by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), the Task Force highlights emergency preparedness as a necessary element of the court planning process. The objective is to prompt state and local court leaders without an existing pandemic benchbook to create one and keep it regularly updated,  and their judicial officers and court staff trained. The benchbook briefly touches on recent natural disaster and public health crises where courts and their partners worked together to ensure continuity of operations.

One of the features of the benchbook is its informed perspective that the Task Force assembled through both and extensive literature review and a visit to the University of Nebraska Medical Center and Nebraska Medicine’s biocontainment unit.  The Guide addresses a cadre of specific legal issues, authority, and notification that must occur.  Content by chapter includes the following:

  • Chapter 1 – Jurisdiction of Public Health Issues
  • Chapter 2 – Executive Branch Authority in a Public Health Emergency
  • Chapter 3 – Searches, Seizures, and Other Government Actions to Ensure Public Health
  • Chapter 4 – Proceedings Regarding Limitations on Individual Liberties and the Rights of Petitioners
  • Chapter 5 – Model Orders and Court Rules

After detailed appendices and references, which provide extensive content regarding the nature of a pandemic caused by biological hazards, examples of quarantine processes, and the order of agencies which should be notified and enlisted for assistance, Part II offers a template  for a benchbook that addresses the legal questions that could arise during a pandemic.  Some of the key issues addressed in the template include: Implications for the Courts; Powers of the Chief Justice or State Court of Last Resort; Appearance of Individuals Posing a Potential Threat to Public Health; Juror Management Considerations; Additional Judicial Personnel; Consolidation of Cases; Emergency Court Closure and Relocation of Court; Limiting Public Access to the Courts; Communication; and, Technology Preparedness

The Guide was dedicated in memory of former Arkansas Chief Justice Jim Hannah, who served as CCJ President when this grant was awarded and whose leadership formed the Pandemic Response Task Force.

 

New Online Curriculum for State Courts on Unaccompanied Immigrant Children

A new online curriculum has been developed to help state courts understand how to process the increasing numbers of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) coming into the United States.

Over the last several years, the number of UACs from Central America has been steadily rising, and this trend is anticipated to lead to an increase in filings in state juvenile courts on behalf of UACs seeking court findings to support applications for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status.  With SJI support, the Center for Public Policy Studies and the National Center for State Courts developed the Unaccompanied Immigrant Children in the State Courts online curriculum.

The online curriculum will increase understanding among state court judges, court administrators, and court stakeholders about: 1) federal immigration law, policy, and practice, and the impact on state courts of cases involving UACs; 2) how the work of the state courts in cases involving UACs intersects with the needs of the federal immigration system; 3) the different types of cases and matters where UACs might appear in state courts; and 4) the potential role of the state courts in providing factual findings in cases involving UACs.  The contents of the curriculum include an inventory of core elements that should be included in educational programs for state court practitioners when working with UACs, along with variations in the core elements that target the needs of state-court-level trial-court-level, and juvenile- and dependency-court-focused programs.  Also available on the site are downloadable PDFs of the Guide for State Courts in Cases Involving Unaccompanied Immigrant Children, and the Unaccompanied Immigrant Children and the State Courts quick reference information card.

 

Courting Justice Listening Tour

On June 10, 2016, judicial leaders from across the country gathered in Los Angeles to record the first edition of “Courting Justice,” a multi-part, televised “listening tour” being produced in cooperation with PBS broadcaster Tavis Smiley and offered during Smiley’s regular programming slot.  Support for “Courting Justice” was provided by SJI, in addition to financial and in-kind resources from the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), Walmart, the California Endowment, and the Public Welfare Foundation.  More information about Courting Justice is available on the NCSC’s website: www.ncsc.org/courtingjustice

Each edition in the series features a town-hall style program inclusive of judges from around the country, who engage in an unprecedented dialogue with the communities they serve in order to provide stakeholders from disenfranchised communities an opportunity to discuss the issues that erode trust in our judicial system.  A recent survey conducted for the NCSC found that only 32 percent of African Americans believe that state courts provide equal justice to all.

Panelists for the June 10th town hall included: Judge Daniel J. Buckley (Superior Court of Los Angeles County); Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Supreme Court of California),; Judge Jimmie Edwards (22nd Judicial District, City of St. Louis); Associate Justice Maria P. Rivera (California, First District Court of Appeals, Division Four); and Chief Judge Eric T. Washington (District of Columbia Court of Appeals).  Audience members were drawn from Los Angeles area social justice, advocacy, faith, and small business communities, in addition to local and national court and bar leaders.

“I am gratified that many of the most influential judges in the country are eager to step down from the bench and engage in a free and open exchange with the people most affected by their decisions,” said Tavis Smiley, who serves on the advisory board of the initiative.  “This frank discussion is unprecedented.  Securing the public’s trust in our judicial system is fundamental to our democracy.”

The first in a series of town hall meetings was recorded at Loyola School of Law.  Future dates and locations for town halls will be announced as schedules are finalized.

 

SJI Awards FY 2016 Third Quarter Grants

The SJI Board of Directors met on June 13, 2016, at SJI Headquarters to make decisions on quarterly grant applications and awarded a total of nineteen (19) new grants.

One Strategic Initiatives Grant was awarded to support the implementation Phase of the Civil Justice Initiative.  Two (2) Project Grants were approved, one to the Center for Court Innovation for a Domestic Violence Risk Factor Guide for Civil Courts Enhancement Project; and one to the New York Unified Court System for development and implementation of an Online Dispute Resolution Platform.

Ten (10) Technical Assistance (TA) Grants were approved, including: the Maricopa County, Arizona, Superior Court for a commercial court evaluation; the Nebraska Judiciary for a review of clerk’s offices statewide; the Colorado Administrative Office of the Courts for a Domestic Relations Triage Project; the Delaware Administrative Office of the Courts for a Criminal Case Scheduling Initiative; and the Greene County, Ohio, Juvenile Court for an Operational Assessment.

Six (6) Curriculum Adaptation & Training (CAT) Grants were approved, including: support to the Judicial Council of California for an Advanced Judicial College; the Washington Administrative Office of the Courts for an online Guardianship Training Course; the Arkansas Judiciary for development of online modules for court security officers; and the American Judges Association for domestic abuse education for judges.

 

SJI BOARD ELECTS NEW CHAIR

crogers

 

During its meeting on June 13, 2016, the SJI Board of Directors elected Chief Justice Chase Rogers as Chair. She is the first female ever to be elected Chair of the SJI Board.

Chase Rogers has been the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court since 2007.  She served as a judge on the Connecticut Appellate Court from 2006 to 2007, and as a judge on the Connecticut Superior Court from 1998 to 2006. Prior to becoming a judge, she was a partner at Cummings & Lockwood in Stamford, Connecticut, where she focused on employment law and commercial litigation. She served on the Board of Directors of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) from 2008 to 2011. She has been a member of the Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction of the Judicial Conference of the United States since 2012; member of the National Center for State Courts Expanding Court Access to Justice Project Advisory Committee since 2012; member of the Conference of Chief Justices Civil Justice Initiative Committee since 2014; member of the Connecticut Bar Foundation Nominating Committee since 2007; Ex Officio Member, American Law Institute; and Ex Officio Director, Connecticut Bar Foundation.

Chief Justice Rogers was appointed to the SJI Board of Directors in 2010. She has been an Adjunct Professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law since 2012. She received an Honorary degree from Quinnipiac University School of Law in 2010, and an Honorary degree from the University of Hartford in 2011. She received her J.D. from Boston University School of Law, and B.A. from Stanford University.

Virtual Courthouse Planning Guide

A new addition to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) website includes the compilation of a near exhaustive list of resources for state courts and their stakeholders when designing new, renovating existing, or significantly updating facilities.

With grant support from SJI, the NCSC was able to create an online portal, titled The Virtual Courthouse: A Guide to Planning and Design.  The NCSC still maintains experts in the field, who assist with these projects; however this site provides the early planning efforts that should be considered regardless of whether the court has engaged outside resources.

Among the processes emphasized as essential to launching the first-stage of courthouse planning efforts are:

  • Needs Assessment – Evaluation of the deficiencies of current facility and quantifying existing conditions.
  • Master Planning – Engage architectural and site selection teams, inclusive of building occupants.
  • Project Budgeting – List and evaluate funding options; obtain realistic expectations for total costs.
  • Facility Planning – Ensure that planning and design standards are set.

Each process is linked to resources that further define the core components required of successful new, or redesigned, court facilities.  Also included is special attention to the uniqueness of the courthouse structure, and its particular needs, including, security, accessibility, compliance, and technology.

 

NCJFCJ Publishes Final Report From National Summit on Courts and the Military

With SJI support, the National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) recently published a report from its first-ever National Summit on Courts and Military.  Convened in March 2015 at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, the goal of the Summit was to create the groundwork for a collaborative relationship between the courts and the many military institutions, civilian agencies, and government departments that assist military families when they access the state courts.

The Summit represented years of planning efforts culminating in the engaged presence of nearly 100 individuals representing all branches of government and the military, specifically including:

  • state court judicial leaders from across the country;
  • armed forces personnel including former commanding officers;
  • federal executive departments of Office of the Secretary of Defense and Veterans Affairs;
  • federal and state legislators;
  • various service organizations for military families, together with academic, research, and policy groups interested in the welfare of the military family.

The summit report covers the following considerations:

  • Education and training in a more comprehensive, consistent, and widespread manner than currently exists.
  • Resources and services for military-connected families.
  • Judicial and Command collaboration.
  • Judicial and Command [co-] leadership.
  • Assessing the needs and risks of the military-connected family members.

 

The NCJFCJ also outlined eight specific ways in which it could leverage national support of military families and courts, based on shared insights from participants, some of which included: increasing membership on its Military Issues Committee; keeping participants connected and engaged in the discussion virtually; fostering support for local and state-level court and command collaborative; and development of training curricula for key stakeholders within the collaborative.  With ongoing information sharing and a demand for more resources to move the discussion forward, the NCJFCJ maintains an active Military Families portal on their website.

The full 10-page final report is available from the NCJFCJ.

 

SJI Support for Language Access in the State Courts

Since the mid-1990s, state courts have implemented various strategies in an effort to ensure access to justice for limited English proficiency (LEP) individuals. Most state courts provide foreign language interpreters in criminal cases, and more are providing interpreters in civil, domestic relations, and other court proceedings.  Several factors have pushed state courts to establish policies and standards for serving LEP individuals, including recognition that there should at least be a common agreement that every court aspire to provide these services as a matter of fairness.

Since FY 2006, SJI has invested approximately $2.7 million in grants on this issue.  These include projects on interpreter training, remote interpreting, and forms translation.  In addition, the SJI Board established Language Access as a Priority Investment Area for grant funding in November 2011.

In FY 2012, SJI awarded a grant to the NCSC, in collaboration with CCJ and COSCA, to host a National Summit on Language Access in the Courts. This Summit, which was held October 2012, enabled state courts to share successful strategies and evidence-based practices, and propose implementation strategies that are consistent among the states.  Each state team that attended the Summit is working to develop or improve statewide plans to address the problem of serving LEP individuals.  A National Call to Action report documenting the Summit’s outcomes and strategies for implementation of language access plans was widely disseminated.

In FY 2013, SJI awarded a grant to the NCSC’s Language Access Services Section that provides direct technical assistance on this critical issue, and in FY 2014 SJI provided support for the National Virtual Remote Interpreting (VRI) Capability. State courts will be able to use the VRI to provide interpreters remotely, thereby increasing access and reducing costs.