Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

gThe Resource PageoAN ONLINE COURSE:OPINION WRITINGIN CONTROVERSIAL CASEShttp://www.ncsconline.org/opinionwriting/One of the keys to procedural fairness ismaking sure that a judge’s order is understoodand the reasons for the decision areunderstood too. This can be especiallydifficult in a controversial case in whichemotions are running high and understandingmay run low.The National Center for State Courts,working with the Missouri Judiciary, hasprepared an online course on “OpinionWriting in Controversial Cases.” We allknow that trial judges can face high-profilecases that suddenly appear on thedocket and explode into the public’s interest.The United States Supreme Court’sdecision in Kelo v. City of New London,545 U.S. 469 (2005) (upholding use ofeminent domain powers for economicdevelopment) showed that this is true atthe appellate level as well. There actuallywas a short-term drop in public opinionof the Court after the Kelo decision.This online course discusses Keloas wellas more typical cases. The first part ofthe course is a video discussion betweenMissouri Chief Justice Laura Stith andMissouri Court of Appeals Judge RonaldHolliger on the changing context inwhich judicial opinions are beingreported in the media, in which judicialopinions feed into economic, political,and social controversies. The secondpart of the course is a one-hour videolecture from Professor Nancy Wanderer,a law professor at the University ofMaine. She presents an approach forwriting opinions and orders in controversial,high-profile cases. The third partof the course is a web-based seminar ledby Professor Wanderer and retiredWashington Superior Court JudgeRobert H. Alsdorf; they build onProfessor Wanderer’s lecture and leadparticipants through an interactive critiqueof judicial opinions in selectedcases, including Kelo. The final part ofthe course gives participants an opportunityto practice some of the techniquesand even to receive faculty feedback onsubmitted opinion-writing samples.There are lots of online materialsincluded with the course, along with thevideo discussions and lectures, the interactiveseminar, and the practice exercises.CALIFORNIA COURTS WEBSITE ONPROCEDURAL FAIRNESShttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/profair/In September 2007, when the AmericanJudges Association unveiled its WhitePaper on 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 Denton’s article in this issue (page44) discusses the work already underwayin California. The effort there is ambitious,creative, and ongoing. Dentondescribed the California court system as“one 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 perception of fairness—thanthe California court system is.California has prepared tools that can beused in judicial workshops, such as thetemplate found on page 46. AJA presentershave used that template in workshopsin other states. We suggest youcheck the California website on proceduralfairness periodically to find newresources and updated information onthis topic.RESOURCES ONPROBLEM-SOLVING JUSTICENational Center for State Courtshttp://www.ncsconline.org/WC/CourTopics/ResourceGuide.asp?topic=ProSolCenter for Court Innovationhttp://www.courtinnovation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=505&documentTopicID=31National Judicial Institute (of Canada)http://www.nji.ca/nji/Public/documents/Judgingfor21scenturyDe.pdfInternational Network on TherapeuticJurisprudencehttp://www.therapeuticjurisprudence.orgWhatever difference there may bebetween what some call problem-solvingjustice and what others call therapeuticjurisprudence, there is sufficient overlapbetween those concepts and proceduralfairness that anyone interested in any ofthose topics will find in the websites welist here of interest. The National Centerfor State Courts has extensive web-basedresources on problem-solving justice,including the Problem-Solving Justicetoolkit, an interactive resource for findingsolutions to problems your courtmay face. New York’s Center for CourtInnovation 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 International Network on TherapeuticJurisprudence. The other is from theNational Judicial Institute of Canada: a61-page monograph entitled Judging forthe 21 st Century: A Problem-SolvingApproach. This monograph combinesmuch of Professor Wexler’s therapeuticjurisprudence material with a discussionof ways in which a judge may improve hisor her skills in procedural fairness in areassuch as empathy, respect, active listening,positive focus, clarity, avoiding coercion,and avoiding paternalism.84 Court Review - Volume 44