Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

The resourceguide... willcontain effectivetechniques, toolsfor judges andcourt staff, bestpractices, andmodel courtprograms....individual unhappy withthe outcome, but twowho felt that they weregiven a fair shake by thesystem.” 4The conference alsomarked the release of a publicationfor members of thebranch that describes thegoals of the initiative anddefines procedural fairnesswithin the context of theCalifornia court system:Procedural fairness refers to court users’ perceptionsregarding the fairness and the transparency ofthe processes by which their disputes are consideredand resolved, as distinguished from the outcome oftheir cases. Perceptions of procedural fairness arealso significantly affected by the quality of treatmentthey receive during every interaction with the court.The perceived fairness of court outcomes is alsoimportant but is consistently secondary to howcourt users perceive their cases to have been handledand the quality of treatment they received.Court users’ perceptions of procedural fairness aremost significantly influenced by four key elements:respect, voice, neutrality, and trust. 5The subject of procedural fairness set the tone for the conferencethrough an opening plenary session that featured alively Fred Friendly Seminars © Socratic dialogue on proceduralfairness and its impact on public trust and confidence in theCalifornia courts. In addition to video vignettes that depictedthe complexities of achieving elements of procedural fairnessin a court setting, the Fred Friendly Seminars dialogue alsoemployed fictional judicial characters to represent differentvoices and approaches that exist within the branch. Arthur R.Miller, a professor at the New York University School of Law,moderated and led a diverse panel through a hypothetical scenarioin which three fictional trial judges in a California courtreflected differing views regarding procedural fairness.Both the plenary and a follow-up, targeted course on proceduralfairness designed for court leadership by Professor TomR. Tyler (New York University), focused on how judicial officersand attorneys can foster public understanding and trust inthe courts and also explored how the values associated withprocedural fairness support judicial branch independence andimpartiality.Resource Guide for the Courts on Procedural Fairness.Following the Bench Bar Conference, initiative lead staff determinedthat a resource guide on procedural fairness would bestserve the courts in accomplishing branch goals. Programs andpolicies that explicitly reference procedural fairness conceptsare relatively new for many courts, and a comprehensivetoolkit would provide both a better understanding of proceduralfairness and applicable best practices for the courts.Through a competitive bidding process, the Center for CourtInnovation (New York City) was chosen to work with the AOCon the development of the resource guide. Founded as a public/privatepartnership between the New York State UnifiedCourt System and the Fund for the City of New York, theCenter for Court Innovation is a nonprofit think tank that helpscourts and criminal justice agencies aid victims, reduce crime,and improve public trust in justice. In New York, the centerfunctions as the court system’s independent research and developmentarm, creating demonstration projects that test newideas. The center has collaborated on a number of other projectswith the California judicial branch, and we look forwardto working with their researchers in this endeavor.The resource guide, which is currently in the initial stagesof development, will contain effective techniques, tools forjudges and court staff, best practices, and model court programs—contentsthat are readily adaptable to court, education,and interactive Web environments. Ultimately, the guide willhighlight a variety of strategies and programs that support thebranch policy to achieve procedural fairness in all types ofELEMENTRespectVoiceNeutralityTrustCOMMONCHALLENGECourt users may experiencea lack ofrespect because of culturaldifferencesCourt users may bedisappointed aboutthe length of timethey are able to speakto a judgeCourt users may beconfused regardingdifferent outcomesthat may emerge fromfamily courtCourt users may havea hard time developingtrust if they try toavoid the legal systemaltogetherRECOMMENDATIONEducational programsthat reflect specific culturaldifferences or thatenhance court knowledgeabout cultural miscommunicationsTools for court staff tohelp manage expectationsand to educate thepublic about what toexpect in the courtroomGuides for court staff toexplain what occurs infamily court and whatoptions exist to helpindividuals resolve theirmatterResources to help makecourt less intimidatingand to explain theimpartial role of thecourts and judges4. Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Plenary Address to the Bench BarConference (Sept. 26, 2007).5. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS IN THECALIFORNIA COURTS 2 (2007), available at, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/profair/documents/profair_brochure_092507.pdf.50 Court Review - Volume 44