Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CONFERENCE OF STATECOURT ADMINSTRATORSRESOLUTION 6In Support of AJA White Paper on Procedural FairnessWHEREAS, the perception of unfair or unequal treatment is the single most important sourceof popular dissatisfaction with the American legal system; andWHEREAS, judges can alleviate much of the public dissatisfaction with the judicial branch bypaying critical attention to the key elements of procedural fairness: voice, neutrality,respectful treatment, and engendering trust in authorities; andWHEREAS, judges should pay attention to creating fair outcomes, they should also tailor theiractions, language, and responses to the public’s expectations of procedural fairness;andWHEREAS, procedural fairness lessens the difference in how minority populations perceiveand react to the courts; andWHEREAS, the America Judges Association (AJA) drafted a white paper, Procedural Fairness:A Key Ingredient to Public Satisfaction, to examine research on courts within theUnited States and makes recommendations for the judiciary; andWHEREAS, the AJA white paper identified and advocated for more changes to improve thedaily work of the courts and its judges.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Conference of State Court Administratorsendorses the AJA white paper and encourages state court leaders, trial courtjudges, court administrations, and judicial educators to consider implementationof the recommendations outlined in the white paper.Adopted at the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) 2008 Annual Meeting onJuly 30, 2008. COSCA’s membership consists of the top court administrator in each of the50 states of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Somoa,Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.
speak directly with the courts to gauge their views on the concept.In spring 2007, staff from the Administrative Office of theCourts (AOC) and Dr. David B. Rottman, principal researcherat the National Center for State Courts and author of the 2005Trust and Confidence in the California Courts survey findingsreport, visited various courts, small and large, in urban andrural areas around the state. The goals of these visits were to:• Learn about existing court programs and solicit ideasand suggestions from court leadership regarding strategiesand priorities for California to enhance public trustand confidence by emphasizing procedural fairness;• Briefly discuss enhancing public trust and confidencethrough a procedural fairness focus in the Californiacourts and compare the experiences of other state courts;• Prompt court leaders to express what the concept of proceduralfairness means to them, its benefits and anyreservations they may have; and• Identify potential topic areas and focuses for branchefforts.Visits to the courts revealed a wide array of innovative programsalready in place to help court users understand proceedingsand navigate the court process. These programs showhow courts in California have intuitively and creatively begunto address concerns of procedural fairness even before thelaunch of the initiative. This article concludes with illustrationsof two of these programs—one that assists court users atthe beginning of the court process, and another that helpscourt users at the end of the process.In our visits, we found robust activity within the courts toenhance public trust and confidence and to reach out to localcommunities to improve service delivery. Court leaders do notshare a common approach or opinion regarding what effortsmight help the courts realize the branch’s procedural fairnessgoals. Some courts suggested that educational efforts be targeteddirectly toward new judges or commissioners who oftenare often given family, small claims, or traffic assignmentswhere they will handle a high volume of matters or cases.Other courts suggested that resource allocations affect the successof procedural fairness efforts. For example, having a sufficientnumber of judges allows judges time to focus on proceduralfairness practices, for example, to fully explain a decisionto parties or to ensure that litigants have more of a voice incourt proceedings.Visits to a small sample of courts confirmed that Californiais a large and diverse state, and the complexity is enhanced bya variety of court cultures, constituent needs, judicial staffing,internal communications, and available resources. Californiahas 58 trial courts, one in each county; the California courtsserve nearly 34 million people. During 2005–2006, 9.2 millioncases were filed in these courts. Rather than trying tocome up with a one-size-fits-all approach to procedural fairness,we determined that in order for procedural fairnessefforts to have the most impact, they would best be focusedon:• Information and awareness for judicial officers;• Branch awareness to understand the value and benefitsof procedural fairness for the courts (e.g., order compliance,enhanced trust and confidence by the public);• Highlighting the needfor improved court usersatisfaction in underresourcedcourts (e.g.,family court); and• Ensuring that improvementis measurable anddemonstrating accountabilityto the public."[E]very time youmake a decision asa judge, you makeone permanentenemy and onetemporary friend."The procedural fairness initiative is particularly timely withthe adoption in April 2008 of the Operational Plan forCalifornia’s Judicial Branch, 2008–2011. The operational planrepresents a concerted effort by the council and many otherjudicial branch stakeholders to establish clear objectives andoutcomes for accomplishing the long-term goals and policiesof the branch. For example:• Practices, procedures, and service programs to improvetimeliness, quality of service, customer satisfaction, andprocedural fairness in all courts—particularly high-volumecourts.• Curriculum and associated training programs and otherprofessional development opportunities addressing culturalcompetency, ethics, procedural fairness, publictrust and confidence, and public service for judges andcourt staff.As noted below, realization of the strategic plan goals andoperational plan objectives will necessitate a concerted effortby the branch to create tools for the courts and strong educationalprograms.ANNOUNCING AND IMPLEMENTING THE INITIATIVETaking into account feedback from the court visits andinput from the Judicial Council and Administrative Director ofthe Courts William C. Vickrey, it was determined that a longterm,multifaceted branch initiative was necessary to helpachieve procedural fairness.Presentations at the California Bench Bar BiannualConference. The California Bench Bar Biannual Conferencein September 2007 was an ideal forum to present the effort toan audience of more than 850 judicial branch leaders, judicialofficers, and court professionals. Cohosted by the JudicialCouncil, the California Judges Association, and the State Barof California, the conference explored procedural fairness inthe courts and offered collaborative courses planned by thebench and the bar. The opening plenary session afforded anopportunity for Chief Justice Ronald M. George to announcethe launch of the procedural fairness initiative and to encouragejudicial members to reassess a commonly held view in thecourts:“I often have repeated good advice I was given asa novice judge 35 years ago by an experienced colleague:every time you make a decision as a judge,you make one permanent enemy and one temporaryfriend. That precept may need to beamended—instead of settling for making oneenemy, perhaps we should focus on creating oneCourt Review - Volume 44 49
Page 1 and 2: Court ReviewVolume 44, Issu
Page 3 and 4: Court ReviewT H E J O U R N A L O F
Page 5 and 6: A WHITE PAPER OF THE AMERICAN JUDGE
Page 7: nomenon exists. 6 Thus, procedural
Page 10 and 11: THE PUBLIC EXPANDS THEIR KNOWLEDGE
Page 12 and 13: ception of the courts as long as pe
Page 14 and 15: or also because they are more famil
Page 16 and 17: PERCEPTIONS OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
Page 18 and 19: up to the courtroom, but also the w
Page 20 and 21: 3. Judicial education must include
Page 22 and 23: Society Faculty Working Papers, Pap
Page 24 and 25: ABOUT THE AMERICAN JUDGES ASSOCIATI
Page 26 and 27: from outcomes and toward the proced
Page 28 and 29: courts are based heavily upon evalu
Page 30 and 31: Providing people with information a
Page 32 and 33: compared to traditional court proce
Page 34 and 35: judges, if procedural fairness is e
Page 36 and 37: Commission on Children in Foster Ca
Page 38 and 39: Several of the court attenders expr
Page 40 and 41: prior experience with the legal sys
Page 42 and 43: Vicky Weisz is a Research Professor
Page 44 and 45: emerged as the strongest predictor
Page 48 and 49: The resourceguide... willcontain ef
Page 50 and 51: [T]he AOC willbe better able toiden
Page 52 and 53: Impacts of the ACTION program:• O
Page 54 and 55: The Perceptions ofSelf-Represented
Page 56 and 57: APPEARANCE OUTCOMEStipulation*Stipu
Page 58 and 59: TABLE 8: SATISFACTION WITH COURT EX
Page 60 and 61: Decision Makers andDecision Recipie
Page 62 and 63: [Judges']proceduralfairness andoutc
Page 64 and 65: Study 3 isimportant becauseit demon
Page 66 and 67: [O]ur questions toparticipantsinclu
Page 68 and 69: addition, Fairness Heuristic Theory
Page 70 and 71: dural justice can obscure the equal
Page 72 and 73: economic loss based on a variety of
Page 74 and 75: doubt that aspirations for, and sat
Page 76 and 77: proposed conditions, in the judge c
Page 78 and 79: ole optimally, procedural fairness

Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?