Race and Ethnic Fairness
State:
Committee/Report
Name: The Commission to Study Racial
and Ethnic Bias in the Courts was established
Number of Members: 34 task force members
Number of Subcommittees: No Subcommittees
Chair/Co-Chair: One Chair: Hon. Neil L. Lynch, Associate Justice, Supreme Judicial Court.
Methods Used: The Commission undertook a number of research projects designed by Commission members, staff and consultants specifically for the courts of the Commonwealth. The projects are listed below:
Public Outreach
a. Public Hearings
b. Focus Group discussions
c. Meetings with individuals
Surveys
a. Attorneys
b. Judges
Sentencing Study
Jury Project
a. Identifying Source Lists
b. Notifying Prospective Jurors
c. Jury Pool Surveys
Employment and Appointment
Topics and Recommendations
Perception
Attorneys, Judges, and Court Staff
Findings
1. 58.1% of responding attorneys had observed or experienced at least on of the eleven forms of bias indicated on the survey “sometimes,” “usually,” or “always.” Almost 57% of white attorneys and 87.3% of minority attorneys reported these observations.
2. A substantial number of non-minority attorneys fail to perceive racial and ethnic bias, and there is a disturbing lack of judicial intervention to prevent or correct such bias. (See also Courtroom Environment: Lawyers/Others, Finding #2)
Recommendations
1. The Supreme Judicial Court should mandate diversity training for all court employees. (See also Courtroom Environment: Lawyers/Others, Recommendation #1; Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #1)
Access
Findings
1. The Commission found that the most pressing need of the court system is to find ways to serve the increasingly large number of people whose primary language is other than English.
2. There are few or no bilingual staff in most clerks’ offices.
3. Judges occasionally appoint unqualified interpreters because of the limited availability of qualified interpreters, the absence of a uniform system for training and assigning interpreters, and the lack of training and understanding of the need for specifically trained, qualified interpreters to protect legal rights.
4. County bar advocate programs, which administer lists of attorneys qualified as defense counsel in criminal cases, do not give preference to bilingual attorneys when compiling their lists, resulting in an underrepresentation of bilingual attorneys for non-English speaking defendants.
5. Useful information about law and justice is not accessible to non-English speaking persons.
6. Foreign
language interpretation by interpreters qualified to interpret in court is not
available when needed during court proceedings and for other court business in
all the languages spoken by the residents of
7. The administrative structures which currently provide interpreter services to the Trial Court departments fail to act in concert creating a less effective system for delivering the level and quality of services needed.
8. Contrary
to
9. The outcome of a case is more likely to be less favorable for non-English speaking parties than for English language speakers.
Recommendations
1. Interpreter services should be unified under one service. The Chief Justice for Administration and Management (CJAM) should assume responsibility for unifying the system.
2. The Trial Court should use only “qualified” or “certified” interpreters.
3. The Trial Court should create and fund a coordinated statewide system for the provision of available and qualified interpreters and interpreter services in all civil and criminal proceedings of any nature before a judge or clerk magistrate.
4. The courts should make an effort to hire more bilingual staff members, especially for positions where there is a great deal of public contact.
5. Bilingual staff members should be used when necessary, but appropriate reductions in workload should be made when these staff members are away from their everyday duties.
6. A means for communicating with non-English speakers, such as the AT&T Language Line, should be implemented to ensure effective and non-biased access to all court services, including the clerks’ offices.
7. Forms should be made available in many languages so that non-English speakers will not need the assistance of an interpreter to complete them. This is particularly important for people seeking restraining orders in domestic violence cases.
8. Attorneys must learn to use interpreters effectively and should press for qualified interpreters at all stages of case preparation, trial, and post-trial.
9. The Committee for the Administration of Interpreters should be reconstituted and should immediately assume its statutory oversight functions of enforcement of the standards for interpreters.
10. Interpreter services should be arranged or provided to make dispositions effective (e.g. interprets provided for non-English speaking individuals who are required to attend alcohol or other education and counseling programs).
11. Every court should have a contact person who is responsible for filing requests and coordinating interpreter services.
12. The courts and other interested groups should encourage colleges, high schools, and vocational schools to offer training for court interprets.
13. The courts, faculty, and alumni should support the efforts of law schools to encourage students to continue language studies.
14. The Chief Justice for Administration and Management should provide educational training that alerts judges and other court personnel to interpreter issues and that increases their awareness of the need of non-English speakers for interpreters.
Findings
1. Cultural, as well as linguistic barriers, contribute to a misunderstanding of non-English speakers, thereby increasing the likelihood of negative out-comes.
Juries
Findings
1. Minorities are underrepresented on juries even where the Office of Jury Commissioner selects the jury pools from communities with large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities. This underrepresentation has two principle causes: the failure of municipalities to provide accurate, complete, and verified resident lists, and the low response rate of minority residents properly served for jury duty.
2. When
the Commission member analyzed the actual makeup of the Suffolk County jury
pool, which serves the City of Boston, they found that the highest percentage
of prospective jurors who failed to respond to a summons to jury duty live in
areas with high percentages of racial and ethnic minority residents. This
problem is not confined to
3. The failure of municipalities to comply with state law requirements to provide the Office of Jury Commissioner with accurate, complete, and verified resident lists contributes to minority underrepresentation in jury pools.
4. Minority defendants are often tried before all-white juries.
Recommendations
1. The composition of a jury should reflect the racial diversity of the community.
2. When taking the annual census, it is important the municipalities aggressively attempt to contact non-responsive residents by follow-up reminders such as telephone calls, bilingual notices, and neighborhood canvasses by multicultural and/or bilingual workers.
3. An effort should be made by municipalities to gather mailing addresses when different from residential addresses. Census forms should request information on race, ethnicity, and native language to assist the Office of Jury Commissioner to create divers racial and ethnic jury pools.
4. Communities with significant numbers of non-English speakers should recruit bilingual staff from the community, especially as census takers, to canvass non-responsive or otherwise uncounted residents for the annual census.
5. The Office of Jury Commissioner should continue its efforts to press for the enforcement of the law that requires each city and town to provide an accurate resident list for the compilation of jury pools.
6. The Office of Jury Commissioner should recommend to the Massachusetts Legislature that it amend G.L. c. 243 A. §10 to require that towns and cities request mailing addresses.
7. The Office of Jury Commissioner should establish specific policies and procedures for collecting and maintaining statistical data on the race, ethnicity, gender and age of those who report for jury duty and those who actually serve on panels. An annual report of these findings should be issued.
8. The Office of Jury Commissioner should contact those individuals who fail to report for jury duty and inform them of their legal obligation to serve and press for enforcement of the law against those who refuse.
9. The courts, in conjunction with bar associations and law schools, should develop a community education program, including school curricula at all levels, to educate the public about the jury system and the obligation to serve. Community education should stress the importance of participation by a diverse section of the community and the effect of jury bias on participants in the court system.
10. The Attorney General should bring suit against municipalities that fail or refuse to comply with requirements to compile accurate resident lists.
Findings
1. Racial and ethnic biases among jurors have an adverse effect on deliberations of guilt or innocence in criminal cases and on the calculations of damages in civil cases.
2. A significant percentage of minority judges believe that jurors respond more favorably to white judges than to minority judges.
3. A perception exists that jurors, most of whom are white, tend to favor attorneys and litigants of their own race.
4. There is an overall impression among attorneys that white jurors respond more favorably to white victims than to minority victims.
5. There is some evidence that jurors tend to give more credibility to white than to minority expert and lay witnesses.
Recommendations
1. The Trial Court should review the need for trial judges to conduct an individual voir dire to determine the racial or ethnic bias of prospective jurors.
2. Each department of the Trial Court should educate juror pools on cultural and racial bias, perhaps through films or other training devices, when the jury pool reports for service.
3. The Trial Court should encourage participation in jury duty by offering childcare to those who respond to a summons.
Courtroom Environment
Lawyers/Others
Findings
1. Minority attorneys often receive poor treatment from other attorneys, courtroom personnel and some judges because of their race and ethnicity. Such conduct ranges form a negative perception of the attorneys’ professionalism to discourteous and discriminatory comments and actions.
2. A substantial number of non-minority attorneys fail to perceive racial and ethnic bias, and there is a disturbing lack of judicial intervention to prevent or correct such bias. (See also Perception: Attorneys, Judges, and Court Staff, Finding #2)
Recommendations
1. The Supreme Judicial Court should mandate diversity training for all court employees. (See also Perception: Attorneys, Judges, and Court Staff, Recommendation #1; Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #1)
2. The Trial Court should establish a specific process whereby complaints about racially biased treatment of attorneys by court personnel can be filed and investigated. (See also Complaints and Discipline, Recommendation #1)
Quality
of Legal Representation
Findings
1. Minority defendants who testified at the public hearings believed that their appointed counsel (who were not minorities) were often insensitive to issues related to the client’s race, culture and/or language.
2. A majority of minority defendants who testified at the public hearings believe they received incompetent or inadequate representation from their appointed attorneys.
Recommendations
1. The Committee for Public Counsel Services should monitor carefully the quality of services provided by bar advocates.
2. CPCS should revise their requirements for bar advocate programs to include a complaint mechanism to provide consumers an opportunity to report dissatisfaction with the services provided by assigned counsel.
Legal Profession
Hiring and
Promotion
Findings
1. Minority attorneys are underrepresented in the legal profession.
2. Minority judges, on average, have served the
same amount of time on the bench in the
Recommendations
1. The
Supreme Judicial Court should appoint members to the Board of Bar Examiners who
reflect the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of the general population of
2. The Board of Bar Examiners should request takers of the bar examination to identify their race, ethnicity and gender.
3. The Supreme Judicial Court and the Board of Bar Examiners should analyze the respective passage rates by racial and ethnic background of prospective attorneys to determine whether the examination is culturally biased.
4. The Board of Bar Overseers should collect, by
voluntary self-identification, information on the race, ethnicity, and gender
of the attorneys who are licensed to practice in
Education
Judges
Findings
1. Members of the bar, law enforcement agency personnel and others could benefit from cultural awareness education as well. (See also Education: Lawyers, Finding #1; Education: Public, Finding #1)
Recommendations
1. Educational reference guides, such as a cultural desk book, should be developed to provide judges, attorneys, and court personnel with information that will improve the court system’s ability to deliver bias free justice. This material should describe the needs of non-English speaking persons and the effective use of interpreters. Other important information that should be included are facts about countries and/or cultures, such as family structure and customs, which may have relevance to the matter pending in the court and/or may have an impact upon the ability of a litigant to receive bias free justice. (See also Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #6; Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #4)
Findings
1. A lack of awareness among court employees to the effects of cultural, racial and language differences has contributed to poor communication and discriminatory behavior in the court system.
2. The
Recommendations
1. The Supreme Judicial Court should mandate diversity training for all court employees. (See also Perception: Attorneys, Judges, and Court Staff, Recommendation #1; Courtroom Environment: Lawyers/Others, Recommendation #1)
2. The
3. The Trial Court should require, as part of general staff orientation and development, that employees participate in diversity training that includes the effect of racial and ethnic bias on relationships with co-workers and with the public. This mandatory training should include follow-up sessions.
4. The presiding judge of each court should have authority and funding to require training for all staff members.
5. Everyone who works within the courts, including district attorneys, victim witness advocates, attorneys, police and social service workers should be encouraged to seek cultural diversity education and training. (See also Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #1)
6. Educational reference guides, such as a cultural desk book, should be developed to provide judges, attorneys, and court personnel with information that will improve the court system’s ability to deliver bias free justice. This material should describe the needs of non-English speaking persons and the effective use of interpreters. Other important information that should be included are facts about countries and/or cultures, such as family structure and customs, which may have relevance to the matter pending in the court and/or may have an impact upon the ability of a litigant to receive bias free justice. (See also Education: Judges, Recommendation #1; Education: Lawyers, Recommendation #4)
Findings
1. Members of the bar, law enforcement agency personnel and others could benefit from cultural awareness education as well. (See also Education: Judges, Finding #1; Education: Public, Finding #1)
Recommendations
1. Everyone who works within the courts, including district attorneys, victim witness advocates, attorneys, police and social service workers should be encouraged to seek cultural diversity education and training. (See also Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #6)
2. Bar Associations, Legal Services programs, the Committee for Public Counsel Services, Bar Advocates, District Attorney’s Offices and other agencies should be urged to sponsor education and training programs for their staff and constituents.
3. The Supreme Judicial Court and the Trial Court should encourage law schools to add diversity training to their curricula.
4. Educational reference guides, such as a cultural desk book, should be developed to provide judges, attorneys, and court personnel with information that will improve the court system’s ability to deliver bias free justice. This material should describe the needs of non-English speaking persons and the effective use of interpreters. Other important information that should be included are facts about countries and/or cultures, such as family structure and customs, which may have relevance to the matter pending in the court and/or may have an impact upon the ability of a litigant to receive bias free justice. (See also Education: Judges, Recommendation #1; Education: Court Staff, Recommendation #6)
Public
Findings
1. Members of the bar, law enforcement agency personnel and others could benefit from cultural awareness education as well. (Education: Judges, Finding #1; Education: Lawyers, Finding #1)
Recommendations
1. The Trial Courts and bar associations should offer public education programs about court procedures.
Civil and Family
Family
Findings
1. Unfamiliarity with cultural norms or reliance upon racial and ethnic stereotypes may contribute to a growing tendency to place black/ African American and Hispanic children in foster homes at a rate that far exceeds that of other racial groups.
2. Non-English speakers or those from different cultures may lack access to state services such as mental health facilities, alcohol programs, abuse programs and other therapy programs because many support programs have limited or no staff competent to serve a multi-linguistic and/or multicultural clientele.
3. When interpretive services are unavailable or ineffective in the early stages of a care and protection proceeding, non-English speaking defendants are more likely than English-speaking defendants to lose the custody of their children.
4. The Department of Social Services or the courts may conclude that families from a culture with an historic distrust of governmental intervention are unwilling to work with DSS with in reality these families have not received adequate information about the roles of DSS and the courts.
5. Minority families often perceive that court appointed attorneys in care and protection cases are indifferent to their cases.
Recommendations
1. The Trial Court should assume responsibility for the training of all judges and court personnel in how to work with families from different cultures and how to access resources to provide support for families in trouble.
2. The Trial Court should study the type and effectiveness of interpreter services and make recommendations on their use. Judges, court personnel and attorneys must be trained on how to use interpreters
3. The Trial Court should seek the means to create or support the creation of a central multicultural resource center that would offer a directory of culturally appropriate resources, including multilingual advocates, expert witnesses, and mentors.
4. Any judge assigned to a care and protection case involving a non-English speaking party should decline to proceed with the case until each non-English speaking party has an assigned counsel who has the immediate ability, whether through personal language skill or court-certified interpreter, to communicate with the client.
5. In a care and protection proceeding, the court should inquire about the need for interpreters and make arrangements for assigning interpreters as needed for the 72 hour hearing as soon as the Department of Social Services files the initial petition.
6. The Trial Court should undertake a statistical study on the racial and ethnic characteristics of all DSS court-related cases and the disposition by each court of every case. In addition, it is important that the Trial Court encourage culturally appropriate placement decisions.
7. The Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), the Department of Social Services, and other groups responsible for training lawyers and other care and protection professionals should incorporate in all mandatory training packages cultural awareness training, both as a separate session and as an integral part of each substantive session.
8. The Committee for Public Counsel Services should develop a centralized data bank of all attorneys and investigators who speak a language other than English and provide such data to the court.
Criminal Justice
Outcomes
Findings
1. Racial and ethnic bias may influence sentencing decisions by judges. The Commission’s attempt to test this hypothesis by an empirical study of sentencing patterns in the Superior Courts failed because most of the available data was incomplete or not computerized.
Recommendations
1. The Supreme Judicial Court should undertake, on its own or through the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, a comprehensive study of sentencing patterns to determine whether there is any disparity related to racial/ethnic bias. A sentencing study should include a detailed analysis of the sentencing patterns of young mal offenders. This analysis should be conducted on serious crimes committed by white, black/African American, Hispanic and Asian American males by comparing the rates of incarceration and sentence lengths across these groups. (See also Criminal Justice: Incarceration, Recommendation #1)
2. The Trial Court should produce and distribute regular reports of sentencing patterns by race and ethnicity.
3. The Office of the Commissioner of Probation, the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the District Attorneys’ offices, the Trial Court and local police departments should develop coordinated information systems which will allow comparison of the data each has collected. The District Attorney’s office for each county should be the primary agency responsible for collecting the data on case processing. As agencies develop new criminal justice information systems or update existing systems, information should be collected, using the Bureau of the Census categories on the race, ethnicity, and national origin of defendants and victims. Criminal justice information systems should collect the data needed to make comparisons between similar cases that differ by race of the defendant. This information should include the defendant’s prior criminal history, substance abuse history, employment history, and family situation.
4. The courts should establish a universal case numbering system to permit cases to be studied with consistency as they move from one criminal justice agency to another. The Office of the Commissioner of Probation and the Criminal History System Board should be involved in any planning for the development of such system-wide identifiers.
Incarceration
Findings
1. A review of the sentencing patterns for young black/African American males convicted of robbery compared with young white males convicted of the same crime, suggests that black/ African American males are more likely to receive terms of incarceration than their white counterparts.
Recommendations
1. The Supreme Judicial Court should undertake, on its own or through the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, a comprehensive study of sentencing patterns to determine whether there is any disparity related to racial/ethnic bias. A sentencing study should include a detailed analysis of the sentencing patterns of young mal offenders. This analysis should be conducted on serious crimes committed by white, black/African American, Hispanic and Asian American males by comparing the rates of incarceration and sentence lengths across these groups. (See also Criminal Justice: Outcomes, Recommendation #1)
Court as
Employers/Appointer
Hiring/Promotion
Findings
1. Minority employees comprise approximately fourteen percent of the Trial Court’s total work force.
2. Because of the stability of the court’s workforce, aggressive efforts to recruit and hire minorities must be implemented. This is particularly important for managerial and supervisory positions to avoid concentration of minorities in lower-level or entry-level positions.
3. There is a widespread perception that political patronage-- “who you know” rather than qualifications and merit-- limits employment opportunities for minorities.
4. Managers, supervisors, and employees need to be educated about the role of the Affirmative Action Office and encouraged to seek information and assistance from this resource throughout the employment process.
5. Minorities are underrepresented in clerk and clerk-magistrate positions, which is particularly important because of their quasi-judicial role and public visibility.
6. Most minority employees who testified at focus group meetings and those members of the public who testified at the Commission’s public hearings believe that the Massachusetts Judiciary does not offer minority job applicants an equal opportunity for employment.
7. There is a strong need for a greater minority presence in the courtroom and the clerks’ offices.
8. Racial minorities are not represented in any of the upper management positions in the court system, and there are few career opportunities available for those individuals at entry-level positions.
10. The Commission found that hiring lists are often outdated or not comprehensive although the creation and implementation of an affirmative action plan has haled the Trial Court to increase its hiring of minority job applicants. There remains a perception, however, that minority employees are either recent hires stacked in entry level positions or frozen in lower level positions.
11. The Commission found significant discrepancies from county to county in the hiring of minority personnel which are not justifiable and which create artificial barriers to the hiring of minorities in contiguous counties and/or communities.
Recommendations
1. The Trial Court should adopt a system wide affirmative action plan and uniform hiring policy; and immediately hire a regular, not “acting,” Affirmative Action Officer who reports directly to the Chief Justice for Administration and Management (CJAM).
2. The Trial Court also should provide training for all hiring authorities to make them familiar with the affirmative action plan and hiring policy.
3. The CJAM and the Affirmative Action Office should educate all employees on the specific components of the affirmative action plan as well as on the role and responsibilities of the Affirmative Action Office. Employees should be informed of progress towards meeting the objectives of the affirmative action plan.
4. The Annual Report of the Trial Court should include a report of the affirmative action efforts undertaken during the reporting period.
5. All employees of the Trial Court should receive diversity training.
6. The Trial Court should review all collective bargaining agreements to assure that all hiring, promotion and other personnel provisions in the agreements support the Trial Court’s commitment to affirmative action. If they do not, the Trial Court should propose and negotiate such language.
7. The CJAM should insure that minorities are adequately represented at all levels and in al job categories by working directly with the Affirmative Action Office to 1) monitor the utilization of minorities at the individual court level, and 2) review career ladders. The Trial Court should inform all employees about the various mechanisms available to address discriminatory conduct. All employees must also be informed of the consequences of discriminatory conduct.
8. The Trial Court should review and update all job descriptions to require linguistic skills and mulit0culutral knowledge where such capabilities would serve the public better.
9. The Trial Court should review employee assignments to assure that minority employees are assigned, without geographic restriction, to all positions, particularly those where there is public contact.
10. The Trial Court should share data gathered on the utilization of minorities with the Executive Branch to assure the appointment of adequate numbers of minority court clerks.
Appointer
Findings
1. The procedures for fee-generating appointments utilized by the Trial Court departments do not provide equal opportunities for minority appointments.
2. A majority of attorneys have not applied for fee-generating appointments because they are unaware of the process for appointments and/or the qualifications for the appointment.
3. No standards, including minimum qualifications, have been established for fee-generating appointments. For example, the selection of a guardian ad litem is a subjective process left to the discretion of an individual judge.
4. Most minority attorneys believe that the bar advocate programs exclude minority attorneys from receiving appointments. Specifically:
a. Most bar advocate programs have “closed” their list to newly qualified attorneys.
b. Bar advocate programs fail to actively recruit minority attorneys.
c. When compiling their lists of attorneys available for appointment, bar advocate programs fail to give preference to bilingual attorneys, resulting in underrepresentation of bilingual attorneys for non-English speaking defendants.
d. Bar advocacy programs lack racially diverse staff.
5. A majority of minority attorneys have not received any appointments as a receiver/ trustee, guardian ad limit or master within the past 5 years. The selection and appointment of counsel in these cases is often a subjective process controlled by the discretion of the court generally without benefit of objective standards, including required training courses.
Recommendations
1. The Supreme Judicial Court should adopt a comprehensive rule governing fee-generating appointments for all departments of the Trial Court. This rule should:
a. Require each court to maintain lists of attorneys qualified for fee-generating appointments. The lists should be compiled periodically, after public notice of the availability of appointments with the minimum qualifications for such appointments.
b. Indicate whether the attorney or other professional has specialized skills, such as bilingual skills. Lists should not be limited geographically, but every effort should be made to permit those who qualify to apply to as many locations as the individual believes he or she can serve.
2. Each court department should be required to have a utilization plan to insure that all individuals on its lists of attorneys qualified for fee-generation appointments have the same opportunity for being appointed.
3. The Chief Justice for Administration and Management should monitor compliance with the SJC rule and report annually to the justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the Trial Court departments. In addition, the Trial Court should examine the pattern of appointments by selected courts in state intervention cases.
4. The Committee for Public Council Services (CPCS) should revise their requirements for bar advocate programs to include the following:
a. All attorneys who provide services should be required to attend training in cultural diversity.
b. A complaint mechanism should be established to provide consumers an opportunity to report dissatisfaction with the services provided by assigned counsel.
c. Bar advocate programs, at a minimum, should adopt and frequently publicize uniform standards for appointment to bar advocate lists. These standards should require, at a minimum, a fair utilization plan, including the ability for individuals from other counties to register.
5. CPCS should continue its affirmative efforts to recruit minorities and bilingual attorneys as well as require strict adherence to the affirmative action contact provision as a condition for contract renewal.
6. CPCS should monitor carefully the quality of services provided by bar advocates. Judges, court personnel, and anyone appointed as a guardian ad litem for a child should be required to attend continuing education programs on development psychological, cultural diversity and evidentiary issues pertaining to children.
Judicial Selection
Findings
1. The perception that the judicial selection process is biased against them is the reason given by minority attorneys for their decision not to apply for a judgeship. Specifically this perception of bias is related to the following:
a. Minorities have been underrepresented on the gubernatorial screening panels.
b. Many minority members of the judicial screening panels believed that they had little power to advocate for minority candidates.
c. Minority applicants believe that they are held to a higher standard than non-minorities.
d. Minority applicants believe that they are treated more harshly in the screening process.
e. Minority applicants are nearly always limited to consideration for appointment to courts with jurisdictions that serve primarily minority populations.
2. A
majority of judges surveyed believe that minority judges are underrepresented on
the bench in the sense that there are only a scattering of judges sitting in
communities outside of
3. Minority judges are underrepresented in administrative positions such as presiding justice and regional administrative judge.
4. Many minority judges believe that they are given less respect by non-minority judges and other court personnel.
Recommendations
1. Both the Judicial Nominating Council and the bar associations should undertake outreach efforts to describe the procedures and process for judicial appointments. The application package should include a list of qualifications for each vacancy, the outline of the process for appointment, and an estimated timetable.
2. The composition of each of the gubernatorially established screening panels should reflect the diversity of the greater population. All individuals who serve on a screening panel should attend cultural awareness training.
3. Applicant information data should be maintained by the Governor to guard against inappropriate screening-out of minority candidates.
4. Applications should be acknowledged in writing and applicants kept informed of the status of their applications.
5. Efforts should be made to ensure that minority applicants are considered for all appropriate vacancies, not just those in communities with large minority populations.
Complaints and
Discipline
Recommendations
1. The Trial Court should establish a specific process whereby complaints about racially biased treatment of attorneys can be filed and investigated. (See also Courtroom Environment: Lawyers/Others, Recommendation #2)
2. The Trial Court should inform all employees about the various mechanisms available to address discriminatory conduct. All employees must also be informed of the consequences of discriminatory conduct.
National Center for
State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Phone (800)616-6109 Fax (757)564-2022
Questions or Comments - email research@ncsc.dni.us
Copyright © 2004 The National
Center for State Courts. All Rights Reserved.