ole optimally, procedural fairness literacy shall be joined withTJ literacy, the Canadian TJ manual should be distributedal<strong>on</strong>g with the White Paper, and judges should strive to changethe legal culture in their courts and am<strong>on</strong>g the lawyers practicingthere. 31David B. Wexler is Professor of Law andDirector, Internati<strong>on</strong>al Network <strong>on</strong> TherapeuticJurisprudence (INTJ), University of Puerto Rico;Distinguished Research Professor of Law andProfessor of Psychology, University of Ariz<strong>on</strong>a.He has received a Distinguished Service Awardfrom the Nati<strong>on</strong>al Center for State Courts. Hislatest book is REHABILITATING LAWYERS:PRINCIPLES OF THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE FOR CRIMINAL LAWPRACTICE (Carolina Academic Press 2008). The INTJ website(www.therapeuticjurisprudence.org ) is a major resource with acomprehensive bibliography. He may be c<strong>on</strong>tacted atdavidBwexler@yahoo.com.31. For how courts might set standards of expected lawyering, seeMichael Marcus, Archaic Sentencing Liturgy Sacrifices Public Safety:What’s Wr<strong>on</strong>g and How We Can Fix It, 16 FED. SENT. REP. 76 (2002)(setting out Judge Marcus’ views <strong>on</strong> sentencing, and instructingattorneys <strong>on</strong> how to argue sentencing matters before him).Court Review - Volume 44 81
gThe Resource PageoAN ONLINE COURSE:OPINION WRITINGIN CONTROVERSIAL CASEShttp://www.ncsc<strong>on</strong>line.org/opini<strong>on</strong>writing/One of the keys to procedural fairness ismaking sure that a judge’s order is understoodand the reas<strong>on</strong>s for the decisi<strong>on</strong> areunderstood too. This can be especiallydifficult in a c<strong>on</strong>troversial case in whichemoti<strong>on</strong>s are running high and understandingmay run low.The Nati<strong>on</strong>al Center for State Courts,working with the Missouri Judiciary, hasprepared an <strong>on</strong>line course <strong>on</strong> “Opini<strong>on</strong>Writing in C<strong>on</strong>troversial Cases.” We allknow that trial judges can face high-profilecases that suddenly appear <strong>on</strong> thedocket and explode into the public’s interest.The United States Supreme Court’sdecisi<strong>on</strong> in Kelo v. City of New L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>,545 U.S. 469 (2005) (upholding use ofeminent domain powers for ec<strong>on</strong>omicdevelopment) showed that this is true atthe appellate level as well. There actuallywas a short-term drop in public opini<strong>on</strong>of the Court after the Kelo decisi<strong>on</strong>.This <strong>on</strong>line course discusses Keloas wellas more typical cases. The first part ofthe course is a video discussi<strong>on</strong> betweenMissouri Chief Justice Laura Stith andMissouri Court of Appeals Judge R<strong>on</strong>aldHolliger <strong>on</strong> the changing c<strong>on</strong>text inwhich judicial opini<strong>on</strong>s are beingreported in the media, in which judicialopini<strong>on</strong>s feed into ec<strong>on</strong>omic, political,and social c<strong>on</strong>troversies. The sec<strong>on</strong>dpart of the course is a <strong>on</strong>e-hour videolecture from Professor Nancy Wanderer,a law professor at the University ofMaine. She presents an approach forwriting opini<strong>on</strong>s and orders in c<strong>on</strong>troversial,high-profile cases. The third partof the course is a web-based seminar ledby Professor Wanderer and retiredWashingt<strong>on</strong> Superior Court JudgeRobert H. Alsdorf; they build <strong>on</strong>Professor Wanderer’s lecture and leadparticipants through an interactive critiqueof judicial opini<strong>on</strong>s in selectedcases, including Kelo. The final part ofthe course gives participants an opportunityto practice some of the techniquesand even to receive faculty feedback <strong>on</strong>submitted opini<strong>on</strong>-writing samples.There are lots of <strong>on</strong>line materialsincluded with the course, al<strong>on</strong>g with thevideo discussi<strong>on</strong>s and lectures, the interactiveseminar, and the practice exercises.CALIFORNIA COURTS WEBSITE ONPROCEDURAL FAIRNESShttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/profair/In September 2007, when the <strong>American</strong><strong>Judges</strong> Associati<strong>on</strong> unveiled its WhitePaper <strong>on</strong> procedural fairness, theCalifornia court system simultaneouslylaunched its own procedural-fairness initiative.The AJA and the Californiacourts have shared our work, and we’repleased to note that the California courtshave a permanent website devoted totracking their initiatives in this area andresources that may be helpful to all interestedjudges.Doug Dent<strong>on</strong>’s article in this issue (page44) discusses the work already underwayin California. The effort there is ambitious,creative, and <strong>on</strong>going. Dent<strong>on</strong>described the California court system as“<strong>on</strong>e of the most innovative” in theUnited States; we agree. And certainly nocourt system is more involved at presentin efforts to improve procedural fairness—andthe public’s percepti<strong>on</strong> of fairness—thanthe California court system is.California has prepared tools that can beused in judicial workshops, such as thetemplate found <strong>on</strong> page 46. AJA presentershave used that template in workshopsin other states. We suggest youcheck the California website <strong>on</strong> proceduralfairness periodically to find newresources and updated informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>this topic.RESOURCES ONPROBLEM-SOLVING JUSTICENati<strong>on</strong>al Center for State Courtshttp://www.ncsc<strong>on</strong>line.org/WC/CourTopics/ResourceGuide.asp?topic=ProSolCenter for Court Innovati<strong>on</strong>http://www.courtinnovati<strong>on</strong>.org/index.cfm?fuseacti<strong>on</strong>=page.viewPage&pageID=505&documentTopicID=31Nati<strong>on</strong>al Judicial Institute (of Canada)http://www.nji.ca/nji/Public/documents/Judgingfor21scenturyDe.pdfInternati<strong>on</strong>al Network <strong>on</strong> TherapeuticJurisprudencehttp://www.therapeuticjurisprudence.orgWhatever difference there may bebetween what some call problem-solvingjustice and what others call therapeuticjurisprudence, there is sufficient overlapbetween those c<strong>on</strong>cepts and proceduralfairness that any<strong>on</strong>e interested in any ofthose topics will find in the websites welist here of interest. The Nati<strong>on</strong>al Centerfor State Courts has extensive web-basedresources <strong>on</strong> problem-solving justice,including the Problem-Solving Justicetoolkit, an interactive resource for findingsoluti<strong>on</strong>s to problems your courtmay face. New York’s Center for CourtInnovati<strong>on</strong> also has a useful website, fullof links, fact sheets, and self-assessmenttools.Professor David Wexler points to twoother resources in his article in this issue(page 74). One is a site he updates calledthe Internati<strong>on</strong>al Network <strong>on</strong> TherapeuticJurisprudence. The other is from theNati<strong>on</strong>al Judicial Institute of Canada: a61-page m<strong>on</strong>ograph entitled Judging forthe 21 st Century: A Problem-SolvingApproach. This m<strong>on</strong>ograph combinesmuch of Professor Wexler’s therapeuticjurisprudence material with a discussi<strong>on</strong>of ways in which a judge may improve hisor her skills in procedural fairness in areassuch as empathy, respect, active listening,positive focus, clarity, avoiding coerci<strong>on</strong>,and avoiding paternalism.84 Court Review - Volume 44
Change language