State Information

New Mexico - South Carolina
Back----------NM-NY-NC-ND-OH-OK-OR-PA-RI-SC----------More

MAP

NEW MEXICO

Activities Resulting from Public Trust and Confidence Conference 

Jury initiatives - Over the last several years, recommendations have been made to improve the jury system from: 1) The Joint Supreme Court/ State Bar Committee on Improving Public Confidence in the Legal System; 2) The New Mexico Team attending the Public Trust and Confidence Conference in Washington, D.C. (Team); 3) The 1999 Judicial Conclave; and 4) The New Mexico Supreme Court Committee to Study Racial and Ethnic Fairness and Equality in the Courts.  The committees’ recommendations address various concerns: lack of jury “representativeness” in an increasingly diverse society; enforced juror passivity during trials; and unacceptably low levels of juror comprehension of the evidence and of the court’s instructions.  Recommendations on the whole call for a more democratic juror experience, and one that is more educational.  Judges and trial attorneys are asked to be open to doing old things in new ways.  The main thrust is to be more receptive to the juror’s needs to learn better and to actively participate to a greater degree in the fact-finding process.  The Supreme Court’s 25-member Jury Initiative Steering Committee, charged with developing a plan to implement the recommendations, has produced a major report with recommendations.  The New Mexico Supreme Court has entered two orders implementing those recommendations.  The Court has followed the Committee’s recommendation to make the Committee a permanent one.  The major recommendations include:

• reducing the maximum term of jury service from 6 months to 1 month, as soon as funding becomes available to increase the number of jury clerks in the courts

• ensuring greater privacy for jurors by informing all jurors of their right not to discuss his or her jury service with anyone and by destroying all juror questionnaires ninety days after the end of the jurors term of service

• simplifying the language of the jury summons and developing a generic jury orientation video for use by all courts

• amending uniform jury instructions to inform jurors of their right to take notes and ask questions

• providing guidelines for courts in the use of interpreters for non-English speaking jurors, including the amendment of the jury summons to advise potential jurors of the availability of interpreting assistance

• investigating the advisability of adding additional juror source lists to enhance the representativeness of jury panels

• requiring the payment of jurors every two weeks

• exploring the use of jury notebooks and preliminary juror instructions immediately after the jury is sworn to improve juror comprehension

• better meeting the needs of jurors with hearing and other physical impairments

• instituting juror ombudsman programs

• developing uniform guidelines for the use of technology in the courtroom and

• educating the public about jury service

Investigating the routine gathering of data on the race and ethnicity of litigants in order to be able to determine whether the judicial system treats all persons equally – Through a grant from the State Justice Institute, the Administrative Office of the Courts has retained the services of an expert to advise the Supreme Court on methods the courts could use to gather information on the race and ethnicity of litigants in all cases.  The purpose of such data gathering would be to produce routine reports on the relationship between the outcomes of court cases and the race or ethnicity of the litigants to ensure that members of minority groups are not being treated differently from other litigants by court processes.  The consultant has identified alternative means by which such data could be collected.  He has also identified additional socio-economic data that the courts would need to gather to be able to make valid conclusions about the importance of race or ethnicity in court outcomes.  The Supreme Court has authorized an experiment with data gathering forms in the state’s two largest trial courts to determine the reaction of the bar, litigants and the public to such data gathering efforts.

Initiatives to better serve self-represented litigants - New Mexico sent a dozen representatives to the American Judicature Society Conference on Pro Se Litigation in Scottsdale in 1999.  That team’s report led the Supreme Court to create a Self-Represented Litigants Working Group to examine the impact that self-representation is having on our legal system and to develop recommendations for responding to this new challenge.  In an effort to get a wide range of perspectives, the Working Group was composed of judges, lawyers, court staff, and members of the public from around the state.  The Working Group sought to identify the scope of the challenge presented by self-representation in New Mexico by conducting a limited, unscientific survey of pro se litigants.  Perhaps the most significant data from the survey showed that about 74% of the survey respondents reported that they earned less than $30,000 annually, and about 79% reported that they decided to represent themselves because they could not afford an attorney.  The majority of the respondents were between the ages of 22 and 40, were female, had children, and lived in an urban area.

The Working Group also organized a statewide conference composed of teams of lawyers, judges, court staff, and community leaders from each judicial district in New Mexico.  In addition to educating those in attendance about the growing phenomenon of self-representation, the goal of the conference was for each team to develop an action plan for addressing self-representation issues at the local level.  Several teams are now in the process of implementing some of the plans and ideas developed at the conference.

The Working Group’s efforts culminated in the submission of a Final Report to the Supreme Court of New Mexico outlining a number of recommendations for meeting the challenges posed by self-represented litigants.  Some of the Working Group’s recommendations that are already under development or consideration by other Supreme Court agencies and local bar associations include (1) amending the Rules of Professional Conduct to encourage attorneys to satisfy part of their pro bono obligation by devoting time to court-sponsored pro se assistance programs; (2) amending the Rules of Professional Conduct to encourage attorneys to provide litigants with limited legal representation, also known as “unbundled legal services”; (3) encouraging local courts and bar associations to collaborate in the creation attorney- sponsored clinics to educate citizens who are considering whether to represent themselves; (4) designating specific court employees who would be responsible for working with litigants who come to court without a lawyer; and (5) developing specialized training for the annual court clerks conferences and judicial conclave to educate judges and court staff about methods for effectively dealing with self-represented litigants. 

The Working Group also recommends some long range efforts to (1) encourage courts to cooperate with local bar associations to increase the use of lawyers by developing systems for providing litigants with referrals to lawyers who are willing to provide unbundled, low cost, or free legal services;  (2) evaluate the feasability of implementing a pro se hearing officer system; (3) evaluate the feasability of developing a comprehensive system for managing cases in which a litigant appears in court without a lawyer; and (4) compile reliable data on the scope of self-representation in the courts.

Because the Working Group was only intended to operate for a limited period of time, the Working Group’s final recommendation is to create a standing commission on self-represented litigants that would be responsible for building on the recommendations of the Working Group and  developing long term plans for dealing with self-represented litigants in our legal system.

Public opinion surveys - The AOC has completed an analysis of its statewide public opinion polls, comparing their results to the results of the national public opinion poll prepared for the National Conference on Public Trust and Confidence.  John Greacen prepared an article on New Mexico’s litigant survey data which was published in Judicature

Data Access and Electronic Filing - New Mexico’s statewide automation program was the first in the nation to provide free public access to all court case management data through the Internet.  Because all district and magistrate courts use the same hardware and case management information system software, all data can be aggregated into a statewide data repository.  Public access is provided on a case by case basis through the Internet.

In March 1999, the Eleventh Judicial District in Farmington and Aztec implemented a pilot electronic filing system for all new criminal and juvenile cases.  The system allows attorneys to file all pleadings from their offices and to access all pleadings electronically from their offices as well.  All documents in these cases are available at no cost to the public through the judiciary’s Internet case look up 

Initiatives to Reduce Time Required to Dispose of Courts Cases - Courts in Albuquerque, Las Vegas, and Taos have implemented experimental case management improvement processes in juvenile cases.  The processes provide case schedules for all events at the beginning of the case, require “meet and confer” sessions between the parties outside the courtroom, and provide all participants with clear expectations for the progress of the case.  The program in Albuquerque has reduced by 49% the time required to dispose of juvenile cases.  Courts in Alamogordo, Las Vegas, and Taos are implementing similar experimental programs for criminal cases.  Judges in Albuquerque and Las Cruces are planning similar programs for civil cases.

Contact: Gina Maestas, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, 237 Don Gaspar, Room 25, Santa Fe, NM 87501-2178, 505/827-4800, Fax: 505/827-4824, aocgmm@nmcourts.com.

• New Mexico State Judiciary (http://www.nmcourts.com/)  

• New Mexico Bar Association

NEW YORK

Back to Top

The New York State Committee to Promote Public Trust and Confidence in the Legal System, appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye in November 1998, continues to identify and implement initiatives to enhance public trust and confidence in the State’s legal system.  Six local committees have been established to assist in implementation of the State Committee’s recommendations and to help make the courts more responsive to individual community needs.  For example, the 8^th Judicial District (comprising Buffalo and surrounding counties in Western New York) Committee has developed a program to educate minority communities about the importance of jury service participation, with the goal to make the juries in that district more representative of the general population.  

Contact: Wendy Deer, Esq., Counsel to the Deputy Chief, Administrative Judge, Office of Court Administration, 25 Beaver Street, New York, New York 10004, 212/428-2148, wsdeer@courts.state.ny.us.

An important finding of the State Committee was the public’s need for greater understanding and knowledge of the legal system.  To address this concern, the New York State Unified Court System has developed education and outreach programs aimed at informing the public about the role and functioning of the judiciary.  In 2001, the court system’s Office of Public Affairs launched its Community Outreach Initiative Web site (click on title), which includes interactive educational materials for teachers and students on the courts and the judiciary.  Other Initiatives of the Office of Public Affairs include Senior Law Days, Bring Your Children to Work Days, and court tours and visits.

Contact:  Gregory Murray, Director, Office of Public Affairs, Office of Court Administration, 25 Beaver Street, New York, New York 10004, (212) 428-2116, gmurray@courts.state.ny.us.

Another significant finding of the Committee was the need for improved and adequate legal assistance and access to justice for people of low income.  To address this finding, in July 1999, the Office of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Justice Initiatives (“Office of Justice Initiatives”) was created within the New York State Court System and mandated to improve and increase access to the legal system for all citizens by eliminating real and perceived barriers to justice.  Since its inception, the Office has focused its work in four areas: strengthening the delivery of civil legal services for the poor; increasing the provision of pro bono services; addressing the needs of self-represented litigants; and public education and outreach.  Key initiatives of the Office of Justice Initiatives include:

• Creation of the Access to Justice Center to address the crisis in the provision of civil legal services for the poor.

• Hosting Pro Bono Convocations throughout the state to generate recommendations for a statewide pro bono system for New York.

• Survey of Trial Court Programs and Services & Survey of the Self-Represented to determine the extent to which courts are providing assistance to self-represented litigants and to ensure that programs being developed meet their needs.

• Establishment of Court Assistance Centers in the courts to serve the needs of the self-represented.  Following this model, the court system is designing a virtual Court Assistance Center which will provide simple, easy-to-understand information about the law, courts, and legal referrals on the web.

• Opening of Community Resource Centers outside the courts to bring information about the law, courts and legal referrals into the community.

• Development of Judicial and Non-Judicial Education Programs to ensure that judges and court staff are aware of their obligations to assist the self-represented and the manner in which they can fulfill these obligations.

• Development of a Volunteer Program to provide numerous opportunities for the public to learn about the courts while serving the public interest.

• Development of Community Education and Outreach Initiatives such as Media Days, Clergy Days, Town Hall Meetings and Open Court Days which have been held  throughout the entire state.

• Promoting Increases in Assigned Counsel Fees to ensure that New York  continues to meet its constitutional and statutory obligation to provide assigned counsel to indigent litigants in the Criminal and Family Courts.

Contact:  Hon. Juanita Bing Newton, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Justice Initiatives, Office of Court Administration, 25 Beaver Street, New York, New York 10004, (212) 428-2130, jbnewton@courts.state.ny.us.

To ensure that court users have ready access to information to assist them in navigating the courts, the court system has developed an information network called justiceworks.  In addition to a written informational brochure which outlines the various resources and services available to court users, justiceworks operates a toll-free help line to respond to questions about court policies, procedures and services.  

Contact: Alice M. Chapman, Workforce Diversity Office, Office of Court Administration, 25 Beaver Street, New York, New York 10004, (212) 428-2540, achapman@courts.state.ny.us.

The court system also has developed a Quality Service program whose mission is to ensure that court personnel serve the public in a professional and courteous manner.  The program includes the Quality Service Award which is presented to court employees who strive for the highest level of customer satisfaction.  

Contact: James Imperatrice, Chief Clerk, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, (718) 643-7086, jimperat@courts.state.ny.us.

As an alternative to the litigation process, the court system continues to develop Alternative Dispute Resolution initiatives that are responsive to the needs of the communities and court environments in which they operate.  Key projects include:

• Oversight of the Community Dispute Resolution Centers Program,  New York’s statewide network of 62 community-based not-for-profit community dispute resolution centers. These centers provide a forum where citizens can seek resolution of their disputes, including minor criminal, civil and family matters.

• Development of an Attorney-Client Fee Dispute Resolution Program for clients who seek to arbitrate fee dispute matters. Under the program, participation by the attorney is mandatory upon the client's election. Arbitration awards become final and binding by operation of law if neither party seeks a trial de novo within 30 days.

• Establishment of Family Court Mediation Projects which focus on parenting issues such as child custody and visitation in Family Court. Several centers also have begun offering mediation for PINS (Persons in Need of Supervision) and child permanency cases.

Contact: Dan Weitz, Esq., State ADR Coordinator, Office of Court Administration, 25 Beaver Street, New York, New York 10004, (212) 428-2863, dweitz@courts.state.ny.us.

Links:

• New York State Unified Court System

• Public Trust and Confidence Committees

• Public Affairs

• Office of Justice Initiatives

• Pro Bono

• justice works

• Quality Service

• Alternative Dispute Resolution

NORTH CAROLINA

Contact: Jennifer Green, Esq., North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, P.O. Box 2448, Raleigh, NC 27602, 919/715-4722, Fax: 919/733-1845, jennifer.l.green@nccourts.org.

• North Carolina Court System

NORTH DAKOTA

The North Dakota Supreme Court’s Committee on Public Trust and Confidence was established to provide a mechanism for assessing the public’s perception of North Dakota courts and identifying issues affecting the public’s trust and confidence in those courts. Part of a national project concerning public trust and confidence, the Committee will form the basis for a long-term effort by North Dakota’s judiciary to evaluate the needs of state citizens and court users in the area of court services and determine how to most effectively meet those needs. The Committee initiated a survey of ND citizens about their perception and knowledge of state courts (North Dakota Survey of Public Trust and Confidence) and has prepared a Final Report for the ND Supreme Court which identified issues concerning PT&C in state courts and possible methods for addressing those issues. The PT&C Implementation Committee began work in November 2000 to oversee follow-up on the strategies identified in the Report.

Contact: Jim Ganje, Counsel on Public Trust and Confidence Committee, North Dakota Supreme Court, 600 East Blvd., Dept. 180, Bismarck, ND 58505-0530, 701/328-2221, Fax: 701/328-4480, jganje@ndcourts.com.

• North Dakota Supreme Court

• Committee on Public Trust and Confidence

• News Release

• Survey on Public Trust and Confidence

• Summary of Survey Results

OHIO

Back to Top

Ohio citizens will soon be able to use the Internet to file documents with some courts.  The Supreme Court of Ohio is set to adopt an electronic signature rule that will take affect July 1^st.  It is the first recommendation of the Ohio Courts Futures Commission to be adopted.  Several trial courts have already announced they will accept electronic filings as soon as the new rule takes affect. 

Contact: Joe Smith, Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice, Ohio Supreme Court, 30 East Broad St., Columbus, OH 43266, 614/466-9700, Fax: 614/728-8064, smithj@sconet.state.oh.us.

The Racial Fairness Implementation Task Force will issue its recommendations later this year to Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer.  The Task Force, chaired by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley, is charged with developing an action plan for implementation of the Ohio Commission on Racial Fairness.  Topics under consideration include the perceptions of judges and attorneys, criminal sentencing, and interpreter services.

The Supreme Court already is moving forward with two recommendations of the Racial Fairness Commission: the establishment of an Ohio Commission for Legal Education Opportunity (CLEO) for disadvantaged students entering law school and the development of a diversity training curriculum by the Ohio Judicial College.  The Supreme Court has submitted an $685,000 budget request to the Ohio General Assembly to fund CLEO beginning in July 2002. 

Contact:  Keith Bartlett, Assistant Director, Supreme Court of Ohio, 30 E. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43226-0419, 614/466-1551, Fax: 614/752-8736.

The Supreme Court Office of Communications is upgrading the design and content of its Web page to make it more accessible to the general public.  Summaries of upcoming and decided cases are posted on the site and special attention is given to ensure that brief summaries do not contain legalese language. Last year the court hired its first full time Web editor, which has improved the timeliness of posting decisions, announcements, and results of the bar exam.  The Communications Office also is developing plans for a digital video system that will allow the court to stream oral arguments onto the Internet when the Supreme Court moves into its new home in 2004. 

Contact:  Jay Wuebbold, Director of Communications, Supreme Court of Ohio, 30 E. Broad St., Columbus, OH 43266-0419, 614/466-0674, Fax: 614/644-8854.

Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler is holding pre-trial hearings over Internet chat rooms.  Some experts believe it is the first court in the country to hold cyberspace hearings.  Judge Kimbler began the practice last fall to accommodate the increasing number of out-of-town lawyers in his court.  Cleveland-area attorney Steven Beranek has participated in two of the hearings and says it saves his clients the cost of a 90-minute drive to the court for a 15-minute hearing.

Courts in Union and Wood counties are holding evening sessions in an attempt  to improve public access.  Wood County Juvenile Judge David Woessner holds session at night twice a month.  In Union County, Common Pleas Judge Richard Parrott conducts night court once a month twenty miles from his courtroom so that citizens do not have to make the drive.  A magistrate hears cases in another part of the county on a different night.  Judge Parrott told the Columbus Dispatch  “It’s the people who are paying our salary.  I should make it as easy on them as I can.”

The Ohio State Bar Foundation has launched its Key Initiative Focus, a collection of pilot programs in one urban and one rural Ohio county.  The intention is to develop a model for bringing together local judges, attorneys, and community leaders to discuss court-community issues. One issue is the relationship of the courts vis a vis other local institutions, and the other is to assess and improve the experience of citizens who make use of the courts.  Citizens, community leaders, judges and attorneys also will identify local needs and challenges and select initiatives to be researched, developed, and implemented over the next five to seven years.

The Ohio State Bar Foundation is creating the online Ohio Legal Information Source directory of resources (programs, publications, Web sites, etc.) that promote public understand of the law and improvements in the justice system.  The Ohio Legal Information Source is intended as a resource for teachers, librarians, local bar associations, civic organizations and others who provide this type of programming for the public.  A workshop is being planned to bring together individuals and organizations that successfully provide such programming with those in areas without established programs. 

Contact:  Linda Thompson, OSBF Executive Director, 614/487-2050, Fax: 614/487-8494.

In coordination with the Ohio Jury Management Association, the Ohio State Bar Foundation continues to sponsor the annual Ohio Jury Management Conference, which the Foundation began in 1999.  In 2000, the Foundation helped Ohio jury managers create their first professional organization and begin to take over the annual conference.  The Foundation continues to support OJMA, through an annual grant to host the conference and through minimal staffing and in-kind contributions.

Contact: Tom Shields, President of the Board of Trustees of the OJMA, Franklin County Municipal Court, 614/645-7652.

The strategic plan adopted by judges of the Ohio Judicial Conference identified public confidence in the judiciary as a significant part of their mission.  To that end, the Conference has hired an Assistant Director for Community Outreach and instituted projects such as a Web site for children, an outreach handbook for judges, and developed a collaborative relationship with the Ohio Jury Managers Association.  The Conference also published a voter education guide for the 2000 election that was well received by civic groups and citizens. 

Contact:  Karen Frees, Assistant Director for Community Outreach, Ohio Judicial Conference, 10 West Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215, 614/466-4150, Fax: 614/644-1296.

• The Supreme Court of Ohio

• Ohio State Bar Association

OKLAHOMA

2001 Data not available.  For past activities, see the information listed on the Office of Justice Initiatives web site.

• The Oklahoma State Courts Network

OREGON

A strong external evaluation of the May 6, 2000 Citizen's Justice Conference “Building Trust and Confidence in the Justice System Through Citizen Involvement” concluded that the conference was a success.  The author summarized his evaluation by noting: “The short term goals and objectives were met by assembling a meaningful representation of community members from diverse backgrounds and creating an opportunity to identify, prioritize, discuss, and recommend solutions to the myriad of issues facing the judicial system today. The true challenge is to ensure the energy generated and the recommendations to improve the system are disseminated to policy makers and are acknowledged in the future planning process."  The Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) has guaranteed the results of the Conference will be used in planning through presentations by members of the Conference planning committee to Trial Court Administrators, the OJD Judicial Conference, Oregon Association for Court Administration, and the Visioning Workshop of the Future of the Courts Committee.  The Future of the Courts Committee used the results of Judge Ellen Rosenblum's presentation to the Visioning Workshop in its renewal of the OJD Justice 2020 Vision and Goals statements by including a goal related to Trust and Confidence.

Under the designation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson, Jr., Circuit Judge Ellen Rosenblum of Multnomah County spearheaded planning for the Conference, which was co-sponsored by the Oregon Judicial Department, the League of Women Voters, Portland Community College, the Oregon State Bar, and three county bar associations, including the Multnomah Bar Association.  Funding for the Conference was provided from local sources, the ABA, and the State Justice Institute. More than 270 people, the vast majority non-lawyers, participated, ranking “equal access to the courts and legal services regardless of wealth or position in the community” as the top issue. 

The Future of the Courts Committee's Visioning Workshop gathered representatives from various state agencies, local criminal justice groups, the legislature, and the media to hear from experts on future trends in demographics, technology, the economy, and professions and organizations.   

The Access to Justice Committee continues its long-standing work of improving access for all people to the courts in Oregon.  Educational efforts and monitoring of system procedures continue to occupy the committee along with assisting in the development of legislation.  This committee helps facilitate the OJD commitment to addressing issues of diversity throughout the system. 

Another effort at improving access to justice for all citizens is evident in the recent hiring of permanent staff for training, coordinating, and certifying language (including sign language) interpreters for the courts.  A considerable increase in the efforts of the OJD to increase the number and quality of interpreters in several different languages is seen through the improvement of court hearings and other court proceedings.  Certification of court interpreters is a major effort to improve the quality of interpreting services provided to litigants. 

The State Family Law Advisory Committee (SFLAC) continues its work of improving the Circuit court's procedures for processing domestic relations cases.  Newly developed Domestic Relations forms facilitate the use of the courts by indigent people with domestic and family legal problems.  These forms will soon be available via the Internet as well as through the Circuit courts.

Trial courts continue innovations through development of mental health courts, mediation in probate cases, and further expansion of drug courts, community courts, and the bundling of cases in juvenile and family courts. 

Supported by legislation the trial courts are rapidly moving to a significantly new program in jury service to improve the jury experience of community citizens.  The program is a version of one trial service which has been shown by research to be popular among those who have served.

Contact: Brad Swank, Special Counsel for Government Relations, Office of the State Court Administrator, 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563, 503/986-5938, Fax: 503/986-5503.

The Multnomah Bar Association’s activities related to public trust and confidence included opening a courthouse childcare facility -- based on survey data and collaboration with private citizens, the county, and Volunteers of America -- and adding three public members to its Judicial Screening Committee in 2001.  The Committee reports to the Governor for local appointments.

Contact: Mona Buckley, Executive Director, Multnomah Bar Association, 630 SW 5th Ave., Suite 200, Portland, OR 97204, 503/222-3275, Fax: 503/243-1881, mona@mbabar.org or mba@mbabar.org.

The Multnomah County Judicial Outreach Committee is very active and has several programs that they sponsor.  They include a Speaker's Bureau for judges, a Legislator's Open House at the court, to name a few.

Contact: Judge Ellen F. Rosenblum, Multnomah County Courthouse, 1021 SW Fourth Avenue, #512, Portland, OR 97204, 503/988-5029, Fax: 503/276-0966, ellen.f.rosenblum@ojd.state.or.us

• Oregon Judicial Department 

• Multnomah Bar Association

PENNSYLVANIA

The Supreme Court’s Committee on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System began its work in earnest during 2000 and currently anticipates completion of its work during 2003.   Public hearings have been held or are scheduled throughout the state and smaller, focus group sessions are also planned.  Work groups from throughout the state are collecting data and a major state-related university has agreed to provide statistical assistance in interpretation of data collected.  Additional research in specific areas of concern is planned, with consultants likely to undertake that research.   These activities are being coordinated with a variety of interested groups throughout the state, including several academic institutions.  Funding is primarily being supplied by state appropriations.

Contact: Lisette M. McCormick, 900 Locust Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, 412/396-6288, Fax: 412/396-5035, mccormickm@duq.edu.

The Pennsylvania Futures Commission on Justice in the 21^st Century continues its work since publication of a report in May, 2000 containing a wide range of topics. The Commission is a 104-member public/private venture.  Operating funds for the Commission are provided through the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts with additional funding through grants from private sector organizations.

Contact: Barbara Perkovic, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414, Philadelphia, PA 19102, 215/560-6588, Fax: 215/560-5492, barbara.perkovic@courts.state.pa.us.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has recently adopted a “Code of Civility” to guide lawyers in the practice of law within the Commonwealth.  Chief Justice of Pennsylvania John P. Flaherty, in public and written comment, continues to actively promote the interest of pro bono representation by Pennsylvania’s bar. Several different activities to increase public understanding of the justice system continue throughout the Commonwealth, notably under the auspices of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges.   Among newer initiatives are regional “Commonwealth Partnership Conferences” among trial jurists, legislators, and court administrators.

Contact:  Thomas B. Darr, Deputy Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, 5001 Louise Drive, Mechancisburg, PA 17055, 717/795-2000,  Fax: 717/795-2071, tom.darr@courts.state.pa.us.

• Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System

The Puerto Rico Office of Court Administration’s Commission on the “Futures” of the courts report was completed during 2000.  The content will be the main theme of the next Judicial Conference on Public Trust and Confidence.

Contact: Mercedes M. Bauermeister, State Court Administrator, Puerto Rico Office of Court Administration (OCA),   Box 190917, San Juan, PR 00919-0917, 787/641-6624, Fax: 787/250-7448, mercedesm@tribunales.gobierno.pr.

• Puerto Rico Judicial System

RHODE ISLAND

Following a conference on Public Trust and Confidence held on April 1, 2000, the Rhode Island Supreme Court initiated seven prime agenda items designed to improve delivery of justice, address access issues, and boost public trust and confidence.  The Permanent Committee on Women and Minorities has undertaken a study to empirically determine the extent to which bias may exist especially in areas of arrests, convictions, and sentencing.  The Task Force on Limited English Speakers, in cooperation with the Community College of Rhode Island, has designed language interpreter training.  The court is also moving toward a tiered interpreter certification process.  Also, outreach and sensitivity to linguistic minorities spawned a Spanish language class for judges.   Several forums on public trust were held, including a variety of town meetings and a televised broadcast through a local NBC affiliate.  Alternative dispute resolution has been expanded into small claims cases in the District Court. 

Contact: The Honorable Frank J. Williams, Chief Justice, Rhode Island Supreme Court, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, RI 02903, 401/222-3290, Fax: 401/222-1351, fwilliams@courts.state.ri.us.

The Rhode Island Bar Association’s efforts to increase public trust and confidence include joint programming with the law school, public school systems, and the courts in developing an educational television series on various elements in the law.  The first program, dealing with violence in public schools, was shown on local cable access television.  Videotapes of the program are being circulated to all public school systems in the state.

Bar association research has shown that public confidence is harmed by poor client/attorney communication.  The bar addresses the problem by continuing efforts to increase professionalism and civility.  The Bar Journal has included a series of columns on civility, educational programming informs judges about accountability issues, and a lawyer’s pledge was developed and displayed in all courtrooms.  The public education programming has drawn very positive feedback both from the school systems and the media.  The Bar’s mentor program requests are increasing.

Contact: Helen Desmond McDonald, Executive Director, Rhode Island Bar Association, 115 Cedar St., Providence, RI 02903, 401/421-5740, Fax: 401/421-2703, hmcdonald@ribar.com.

• Rhode Island Bar Association

• Rhode Island Judiciary

The South Carolina Bar is continuing an ambitious range of justice improvement initiatives.  The Bar conducted ten regional Citizens Summits on justice involving 650 SC residents, culminating in a statewide conference, in 1998.  As one follow-up step to the Citizens’ Summits, a 2000 Model/Demonstration Grant from the ABA  Coalition for Justice and Committee on State Justice Initiatives has been awarded to develop increased training for the elimination of bias in the system.

Through the “Ask a Lawyer” program, lawyers field questions from the public for free.  This service is now operational five days a week.  The Magistrate’s Court Reform Committee presented rules to the Court.  The Court has submitted the Rules to the Legislature for approval.

The Bar’s Pro bono Program has expanded its legal education seminars.  The PBP has partnered with local paralegal associations, churches, senior centers, and libraries to present a variety of seminars and a chance to meet with attorneys privately.

Contact: Donna Stobbe, Public Services Director, South Carolina Bar Association, 950 Taylor St., Columbia, SC 29202-0608, 803/799-6653; Fax: 803/799-4118.

Contact: Rosalyn W. Frierson, Administrative Director of the Courts, 1015 Sumter Street, Suite 200, Columbia, SC 29201, 803/734-1800, Fax: 803/734-1821, rfrierson@scjd.state.sc.us.

• South Carolina Bar Association

• South Carolina Judicial Branch

Update: As of 10/24/03 - The South Carolina Judiciary does not have a Public Trust and Confidence Committee at this time.

Back----------NM-NY-NC-ND-OH-OK-OR-PA-RI-SC----------More