Massachusetts Supreme Court Upholds Video Streaming of Court Proceedings

Posted on March 21, 2012 by richardzorza

Here is the beginning of the Boston Globe story:

The highest court in Massachusetts on Wednesday rejected challenges to a pilot project that continuously streams live, unedited court proceedings from one of the busiest courtrooms in the state.

The “OpenCourt” project began in May with cameras recording and streaming murder arraignments, traffic and drug cases live over the Internet from Quincy District Court.

The project, run by WBUR-FM, Boston’s National Public Radio station, was designed to promote greater access to the courts through digital technology. It was praised by journalists, but raised concerns from some prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Here is the link to the live video and archive.

There is a lot about the court at this link, including interviews with Judges and staff.

As a law student in the late 70’s I actually appeared in that court under the state’s student practice rule.  At that point the court was a national innovator in alternatives to incarceration.

It will be an interesting experiment in transparency.  I wonder if any evaluation is planed.

Posted in Transparency | 1 Comment

Maybe Not Such a Bad Thing — LSAT Test Taking Is Down

Posted on March 20, 2012 by richardzorza

The New York Times reports an almost 25% decline in the number of LSAT tests taken in the last two years.  The Times reports:

The decline reflects a spreading view that the legal market in the United States is in terrible shape and will have a hard time absorbing the roughly 45,000 students who are expected to graduate from law school in each of the next three years. And the problem may be deep and systemic.

Many lawyers and law professors have argued in recent years that the legal market will either stagnate or shrink as technology allows more low-end legal work to be handled overseas, and as corporations demand more cost-efficient fee arrangements from their firms.

That argument, and news that so many new lawyers are struggling with immense debt, is changing the way law school is perceived by undergrads. Word is getting through that law school is no longer a safe place to sit out an economic downturn — an article of faith for years — and that strong grades at an above-average school no longer guarantees a six-figure law firm job.

I am far from sure that this is a sad or bad thing.  Too many folks have been going to law school because they see it as a ticket to the $$$ than because they are attracted to an access vision.  Maybe if law schools looked for and admitted people driven to the law by a sense of the possibility of justice, more of them would find a way to serve, and we’d be better off all round.

Let’s encourage law schools to assess this at admission, and to provide incubators and other tools to help their graduates made the transition to a justice practice, rather than a business one.  Something for access to justice commissions to think about!

Posted in Law Schools | 2 Comments

Idaho Rule Allows for Informal Custody Trial — Could be an Important Idea

Posted on March 15, 2012 by richardzorza

John Greacen recently pointed out this very interesting rule that the Idaho Courts have adopted, permitting informal custody trials:

Rule 16(p).  Informal Custody Trial.

     (1) An Informal Custody Trial is an optional alternative trial procedure that is voluntarily agreed to by the parties, counsel and the court to try child custody and child support issues. The model requires that the application of the Idaho Rules of Evidence and the normal question and answer manner of trial be waived.
     Once the waiver is obtained the matter proceeds to trial by consent as follows:
     
        a.    The moving party is allowed to speak to the court under oath as to his or her desires as to child custody and child support determination. The party is not questioned by counsel, but may be questioned by the court to develop evidence required by the Idaho Child Support Guidelines and child custody evidence required by Idaho Code § 32-717.
        
        b.    The court then asks counsel for that party, if any, if there are any other areas the attorney wants the court to inquire about. If there are any, the court does so.
        
        c.    The process is then repeated for the other party.
        
        d.    If there is a Guardian ad Litem or other expert, the expert’s report is entered into evidence as the court’s exhibit.  If either party desires, the expert is sworn and subjected to questioning by counsel, parties or the court.
        
        e.    The parties may present any documents they want the court to consider.  The court shall determine what weight, if any, to give each document.  The court may order the record to be supplemented.  
        
        f.    The parties are then offered the opportunity to respond briefly to the comments of the other party.
        
        g.    Counsel or self-represented parties are offered the opportunity to make legal argument.
        
        h.    At the conclusion of the case, the court will make a decision.   

    (2) Consent and waiver. The consent to and waiver to the Informal Custody Trial shall be given verbally on the record under oath or in writing on a form adopted by the Supreme Court.

Adopted September 29, 2008.

Note that this is not a special SRL procedure, on the contrary it can be used regardless of the presence of counsel on either side. That makes a lot of sense.

It is not fully clear to me if the waiver of the Rules of Evidence makes objections impossible, or rather than such objections are limited to statutes and the other governing law.

Here are the Waiver and Consent forms used under this rule.

I understand that an evaluation is being done, and will share the results if and when available.  An important experiment for which the state should be given high praise.

Posted in Judicial Ethics, Systematic Change | 1 Comment

Interesting Points in DOJ Language Access Letter to North Carolina Courts

Posted on March 13, 2012 by richardzorza

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has sent a letter to the North Carolina Courts as part of its investgatory and enforcment process with respect to Language access.  The letter and accompanying materials are here. (Hereafter letter.  The Attached Report and Findings are similarly cited)  The issue has gotten substantial press coverage.

Rather than get into the details of the dispute, I would like to point out a few interesting points about the approach that the Civil Rights Division is taking.

  1. DOJ does acknowledge that financial burdens and ability to comply are relevant to the reasonableness of the state’s positions.  “Adequate funding is a vital aspect of compliance, and we recognize that many state and local court systems around the country are struggling with budgetary constraints. The costs of services and the resources available to the court system are part of the determination of what language assistance is reasonably required in order to provide meaningful access. See Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41,455, 41,460 (June 18, 2002). However, fiscal pressures are not a blanket exemption from civil rights requirements, and our investigation has determined that financial constraints do not preclude the AOC from taking further reasonable steps to comply with its federal non-discrimination obligations, for several reasons.”  Letter at p. 2.
  2. In make the impact of financial constraints, the Department is analyzing the costs of additional services, relative to the state’s court budget.  “First, according to the AOC’s Senior Deputy Director, the AOC has estimated the cost of expanding interpreter services to be approximately $1.4 million per year. A review of certified budgets revealed that $1.4 million would have been 0.3% of the AOC’s fiscal year 2011 certified budget of $463.8 million. See State of N.C., Office of State Budget and Mgmt., Post-Legis. Budget Summary 2009-2011, at 200 (2010).”  Letter at p. 2-3).
  3. DOJ is, as it must, firmly rejecting state assertions of state law as a defense against what DOJ views as Federal obligations:  “I am in receipt of your March 6 letter, in which you acknowledged your sensitivity to the need for interpreters in providing access to North Carolina courts. I also appreciate your willingness to work in good faith to resolve these issues. I respectfully disagree with your observation that “there appears to be a misunderstanding or failure of communication between the Judicial Branch of North Carolina and [our] office.” In responding to our concerns regarding compliance with federal civil rights law, you have been consistent in asserting that state-law barriers and financial constraints prevent you from expanding interpreter services. We respectfully disagree with your assessment that a state law supersedes and eliminates your civil rights obligations under federal law as a recipient of federal financial assistance. We are quite willing to explain further our legal position that federal law preempts the state-law provisions that you have cited as a barrier to compliance.”  Letter at p. 3.
  4. However DOJ is increasing its leverage by referencing the Safe Streets Act.  The letter asserts that finding of a violation of a state’s obligations under that Act allows for administrative procedures leading to suspension of certain funding. ” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (Safe Streets Act), 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c), and their implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 42, Subparts C & D, together provide that programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.”  Attached Report of Findings at p. 1.  “In addition, the United States may initiate administrative procedures to trigger recovery, suspension, or termination of federal funding from DOJ by making a formal determination of a Safe Streets Act violation or by making a determination, under Title VI, that compliance can not be secured by voluntary means.” Letter at 4.

While this all suggests the potential for an increase in tension after a period in which there seemed to be more consensus, some of the elements in the letter as described above suggest a possible flexibility on the part of DOJ that might enable the process of improving language access to move forward with a good spirit.  (It also invites discussion.)

If I have got this wrong, I welcome folks pointing that out.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Dept. of Justice, LEP | Tagged | 1 Comment

More on Public Welfare Foundation Grant to ABA for ATJ Commissions Work

Posted on March 10, 2012 by richardzorza

Here is more information on the new grant to the ABA to support ATJ Commissions.

An American Bar Association project has been selected to administer a $270,000 grant to support state panels that promote access to civil justice for low-income and disadvantaged people.

Under the 18-month grant from the Public Welfare Foundation to the ABA Resource Center for Access to Justice Initiatives, more than half of the funds will go to mini-grants to help create new access to justice commissions and expand the scope and activities of existing commissions.

The resource center lists 27 states with access to justice commissions, whose members are leaders of the state’s courts, organized bar and other stakeholder groups. Most commissions were created by the state’s supreme court, and several high courts are considering creating one.

The grant will also fund travel fellowships for supreme court justices and other judges who lead access to justice commissions to attend annual ABA meetings of state access to justice chairs. In recent years, court funding shortfalls have kept many judicial leaders from traveling to the meetings.

The grant will also enable the ABA to offer regular telephone conferences on current issues for commission leaders and staff, develop new resource materials on best practices and innovations, and provide training for commission staff.

State access to justice commissions have increased awareness among legislators and other key policymakers, the bar, the judiciary and the general public about the legal needs of low-income and disadvantaged people and the social and economic benefits of ensuring that they do not go unmet. They have helped expand support for self-represented litigants in the courts, increase state-level funding for civil legal aid, and develop initiatives to increase pro bono services by lawyers.

A companion grant to the National Center for State Courts will help strengthen the role of state judges and courts in improving access to legal services for low-income people through court-based innovations, the development of an access to justice center for the court community and related activities.

I am really thrilled to see that there are going to be resources in this area.  I believe that commissions are critical, not only as fundraisers for legal aid, and as promoters of court and pro bono innovation, but ultimately as planners and coordinators of each state system.

The regular phone calls will help turn this into a real national movement.  The grants to start or expand the work of commissions will expand and give depth to their work.

Seeing DOJ support commissions, seeing Rebecca Sandefur pointing out the urgent need for coordination, and now this grant, makes me much more hopeful.

Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Funding | Comments Off on More on Public Welfare Foundation Grant to ABA for ATJ Commissions Work

Public Welfare Foundation Grants in Access to Justice

Posted on March 9, 2012 by richardzorza

The Public Welfare Foundation has announced two grants for access to justice.  They are being made under its Special Opportunities Fund.  This is how they are described on the Foundations Website.

These companion projects are part of a Special Initiative on Civil Legal Services for the Poor, a targeted effort by the Foundation to expand legal assistance for indigent and low-income people.  

American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education – Washington, DC – ($270,000 – 18 months)

Support to expand the number and reach of state-based Access to Justice Commissions, and to provide technical assistance to help them share best practices and innovations taking place in different states.

National Center for State Courts – Williamsburg, VA – ($300,000 – 18 months)

Support to help strengthen the role of state judges and courts in improving access to legal services for poor and low-income people through court-based innovations, the development of an Access to Justice Center for the court community, and related activities.

I can promise more information soon, since it is planned for me to be a consultant with the National Center for State Courts project.

It is exciting to see a major foundation making grants in this area.

Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Funding, Self-Help Services | 1 Comment

Self-Represented Litigation Network Pre-Conference at Equal Justice Conference May 16 Jacksonville Fl.

Posted on March 9, 2012 by richardzorza

As in prior years, there will be a pre-conference focusing on self-represented issue the day before the main Equal Justice Conference.  The pre-conference is Wed May 16, and the main conference is Thur May 17, to Sat May 19.  The gathering is in Jacksonville Florida.

It will be possible, at a cost of only $75, to register only for this pre-conference, although the Self-Represented Litigation Network strongly urges attendees of the benefits of attending both the pre-conference and the full conference.  There will be lots of sessions at the full conference of great relevance to us, including on the past and future of unbundling, and LEP programs for the self-represented.  Some other panels:

  • Brick and Mortar Self Help Centers + Technology=Magic
  • Empirical Research on Delivery of Legal Services: What Can We Learn? Why Do
    We Need It?”
  • Evaluating the Effectiveness of Telephone Legal Hotlines
  • Helping Immigrant Clients: Legal Service and Pro Bono Models to Reach Under-
    served Populations
  • Interactive Ethical Issues in Intake and Hotline Services
  • Legal Hotlines and Beyond: Multiple Functions to Meet Multiple Needs
  • Librarians Collaborating to Meet Citizen’s Needs for Access to Legal
    Information.
  • Low Bono: Serving Clients Above Traditional Eligibility Guidelines
  • Not in My State: Self Represented Litigation From the Ground Up in
    Challenging States
  • Programs to Assist Self-Represented Litigants in the Federal Courts: Continuing an Open Conversation
  • Strategic Use of Non-Lawyer Professionals
  • The Implications of Turner v. Rogers for Access Institutions
  • What are Online Forms and How Can Access to Justice Communities Use
    Them?
  • Worthwhile Exploration, or Contradiction? Integrating Limited Representation into the Civil Right to Counsel Model

Here is the description of the pre-conference:

Self-Represented Litigation Network Educational Program Wednesday, May 16 8:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
This program brings together court, private and pro bono bar and legal aid practitioners in self-represented litigation. Educational sessions will cover a broad range of innovations, research, and collaborations, with a particular focus on the implications for state and local programs of changes in the national environment. A significant portion of the time will be spent in sharing and group problem solving. This pre- conference is open to all practitioners, including those working for and with courts, law and public libraries, law schools, and in unbundled representation, regardless of their participation in the Self-Represented Litigation Network.
Cost: $75 (includes lunch on Wednesday; breakfast NOT included). (Non-members interested in SRL issues are welcome to attend.)

Here is registration information:

To register for the Self-Represented Litigants Networking Educational Program at $75, please complete the form, scan, and email to erin.wellin(at)americanbar.org. If paying by check, please send to:
Erin Wellin
Re: SRLN EJC Session
American Bar Association
321 N Clark St
Chicago, IL 60654
 
Indicate that you are only selecting the pre-conference and not the entire EJC registration rate.

If you are planning on attending the conference as well as this session, please register online by visiting http://www.americanbar.org/calendar/2012/05/equal_justice_conference/registration.html

Hoping to see lots of people there.

Posted in Meetings | 1 Comment

Texting for Citizenship

Posted on March 7, 2012 by richardzorza

CitizenshipWorks has a new text app out.

Just text “citizenship” (“ciudadania” in Spanish) to 877877 and receive the location and contact information of nearby legal services providers as well as information about the naturalization process.

Nice.

 

Posted in Technology | Tagged , | Comments Off on Texting for Citizenship

Claudia Johnson on Lay Legal Self-Help Support in the Small Claims Context—A Trend To Watch?

Posted on March 7, 2012 by richardzorza

In health care it is very common that persons who suffer from long term conditions or illness, or go through traumatic experiences, join self help support groups. Doctors often recommend support groups to help persons learn about self care, increase prescription compliance, and improve the overall status of their patients.  Everyone understands that a support group does not replace medical care or medication. It is one additional tool that doctors and their patients can use to help individuals and their families cope with illness and loss. People who go to the self help groups know that the persons facilitating the groups may not be doctors or nurses, and that the participants are not providing medical treatment.

Although this idea has been mentioned in the legal context, I have not yet come across such legal self help groups, until this past weekend, when I reading this article about how consumers are helping each other online with small claims cases against big corporations. (It seems like it is more of an informational process of model pleading sharing through Internet posting than detailed one-on-one assistance, which might well raise unauthorized practice of law and confidentiality issues.)

Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney-Client, Foreclosure, Self-Help Services | 4 Comments

Free LSC Webinar on TIG Programs and Language Access, Wed March 14

Posted on March 6, 2012 by richardzorza

Here is part of the announcement:

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. (EDT) LSC will host “Language Access and LSC’s TIG Program: Legal Aid and Court Collaborations.” LSC is offering this webinar to help legal services providers better understand language access issues and how to improve access to justice for people who are limited English proficient using technology and creative collaborations.  Representatives from three legal services programs will explain how their TIG-funded projects work, and answer your questions.  The featured projects are:

Atlanta Legal Aid Society’s project to assist Spanish-speakers with completing family law forms.

Speaker: Kristin Verrill, Innovation Practice Manager

Partnership involving: Cobb and Gwinnett CountySuperior Courts, Fulton County State and Magistrate Court.

Illinois Legal Aid Online/Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago’s project to launch the Spanish-language version of the statewide legal aid website incorporating Google Translate API.

Speakers:  Adela Carlin, Director of Community Engagement (LAFC) and Teri Ross, Program Director (ILAO)

Partnership involving: Forty three legal self-help centers in courthouses and libraries across Illinois, Latinos Progresando

Lone Star Legal Aid’s Texas Court Help Project creates a website gateway to help self-represented litigants understand and navigate the court system and will include multilingual video, Spanish and Vietnamese A2J Author interviews, and forms.

Speaker: Lewis Kinard, Supervising Attorney

Partnership involving: Texas Office of Court Administration, Texas Legal Services Center, Texas Access to Justice Commission.

Register here.

Posted in LEP, LSC, Technology | 1 Comment

Boston Bar Releases Its Report on Housing Studies

Posted on March 5, 2012 by richardzorza

The Boston Bar Association Task Force on the Civil Right to Counsel has just issued its Report on the pilots that it made possible, and that were the subject of, Jim Greiner’s randomization studies.  The Report includes survey data and analysis not present in the Greiner papers, and is more of an advocacy document on the need for representation, rather than an academic study.  The studies and Report together will surely be of great use.  Moreover, the studies together emphasize not just the value of representation but the need for courts and legal aid to be intelligent and focused in how they use triage to focus their resources.

The report is summarized in the Executive Summary as follows:

The findings of both pilot studies confirm that extensive assistance from lawyers is essential to helping tenants preserve their housing and avoid the potential for homelessness, including all of the far-reaching tangible and intangible costs to tenants and society generally that are associated with homelessness.  .  .  . Previous studies, both nationally and in Massachusetts, similarly showed that tenants represented by lawyers obtain significantly better outcomes in court than those who represent themselves because, without counsel, they are unable to present their valid defenses. In interviews and surveys conducted by the Task Force prior to the pilot studies, judges and experienced practitioners expressed the same view of the beneficial impact of counsel and the need for more representation in eviction cases.
Although civil legal aid reaches some indigent clients in eviction cases, the shortage of available counsel for the poor, and the dramatic extent of unmet legal needs, have been widely documented. Massachusetts studies show that landlords are represented by lawyers in more than two-thirds of summary process eviction cases, but only 6 to 10% of tenants are represented. The intervening recession has made the problem worse, increasing the number of potential clients eligible for legal services, at the same time it has led to dramatic budget cuts for legal services programs, ultimately causing a sharp reduction in the programs’ capacity to help at a time of urgent need.
Based on all of the available data, the Task Force concludes that expanding the right to counsel, including full representation as of right, makes an enormous difference in the types of eviction cases identified by the targeted representation model in both the District Courts and the Housing Courts.

 

Posted in Access to Counsel, Research and Evalation | 2 Comments

Bloomberg Editorial Board Endorses Forms, Self-Help Services, Unbundling

Posted on March 5, 2012 by richardzorza

The Bloomberg Editorial Board looks at the Texas forms brouhaha and comes out in favor of innovations for access:

The Supreme Court of Texas, like courts in dozens of other states and counties, wants to make things easier by providing do-it-yourself petitions, summonses and other forms needed to manage a divorce. Texas family lawyers are fighting back, arguing that the forms may not provide adequate help, that marriages are best dissolved with a lawyer’s advice and assistance.
We have nothing against lawyers. We know and like them. And we do not dispute that they can be extremely helpful in divorce: In situations involving long-married spouses who have children and real property, they’re essential. But judges know that the significant share of marriages are simpler than that. In any case, many people who want divorces can’t afford lawyers’ fees.
Budget cuts in recent years have limited the availability of legal-aid lawyers. They now rarely help people with divorce, except in cases of domestic violence or child abduction.
This is why the Texas court’s solution is sound, and should be taken up by every other jurisdiction that hasn’t already created fill-in-the-blank forms. (Bold added)

.  .  .

In Texas, the court has signaled its intention to move ahead with self-help forms, despite the lawyers’ objections. We trust both sides will be better off with the new system.
Rather than worry about losing business, many lawyers in other states have learned to take advantage of self- representation by “unbundling” their services. The lawyer agrees to work on a piecemeal basis, handling specific tasks such as drawing up the property settlement or making court appearances. The client does the rest of the paperwork alone.
This business model addresses the reality that many divorcing spouses either don’t want or can’t afford to pay a lawyer a retainer to represent them start to finish. Court- sanctioned do-it-yourself forms make it possible.

This has good quotes on statistics, on unbundling, on self-help and on forms — as well as implicitly on the role of courts in access.  Its nice to see national media paying attention to access.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Forms, Self-Help Services, Unbundling | Tagged | 3 Comments

Legal Zoom Terminates Rush Limbaugh Show Advertizing

Posted on March 5, 2012 by richardzorza

Those who follow the document assembly market will be interested that LegalZoom has terminated advertizing with the the Rush Limbaugh show (this link currently shows Limbaugh statement of apology).

The New York Times reports, towards the end of its story on the situation.

For the most part, the other advertisers involved have also stuck to scripts that distance themselves from Mr. Limbaugh’s comments — betting, it would appear, that short statements will suffice.

Quicken Loans and Citrix, a maker of Internet software, are among the companies that have announced, on Facebook and Twitter, the removal of ads from Mr. Limbaugh’s show.

When another company, LegalZoom, a seller of online legal document services, was asked for further comment on Sunday, a spokesman sent along a statement that read, “LegalZoom has decided to terminate all current and future advertising with ‘The Rush Limbaugh Show,’ effective immediately. Our company does not in any way support or endorse the recent comments of Mr. Limbaugh.”

Later that day, a LegalZoom executive accidentally copied a reporter on an e-mail to her colleagues. It read, “We may need to prepare additional Q.& A.’s if this situation does not settle down soon.”

I had not known that their advertizing reached that far.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Document Assembly | Comments Off on Legal Zoom Terminates Rush Limbaugh Show Advertizing

Collection of SRL Data

Posted on February 29, 2012 by richardzorza

Yet more useful info from the Texas forms process.

Here is the summary of national data on SRL distribution gathered by the Texas Access to Justice Commission:

Nationwide

  • 2009 survey by Self-Represented Litigation Network
    • 60% judges reported increase in pro se litigants in their courtrooms
    • Only 29% reported no impact, and many were criminal court judges
  • Data on Unrepresented Litigants from Documenting the Justice Gap in America, an Updated Report of the Legal Service Corporation, September 2009
  • Judicial Impact:
    • References the 2009 Self-Represented Litigation Network study mentioned above.
  • Unrepresented by Necessity
    • 2005 study of pro se litigants in New York City Family and Housing Courts found that 57% had incomes under $20,000 and 80% had incomes under $30,000 per year.
    • 2003 California Report to the Legislature found that more than 90% of the 450,000 people who use court self-help programs in the state earn less than $24,000 per year.
  • Maryland
    • Has very detailed data capturing information on SRLs who appear at any point in the case.  They are able to capture very accurate data because reporting is tied to court funding.
    • 70% of cases involve at least one SRL at some point in the case.
    • Number of SRLs has remained steady over time.
  •  Oregon
    • Estimate 65% pro se in total family law.  Based on a sample study data and extrapolated.

Texas

Data obtained from the Office of Court Administration, except poverty statistics and unless otherwise noted.  Poverty statistics were obtained from Data from U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates (SAIPE).  Data does not include pro se respondent filings, Title IV-D cases in which the parties are not represented, or post-judgment filings.

Total Cases Filed September 1, 2010 – August 31, 2011

  • 57,597 family law cases in which petitioner filed pro se, representing 21.6% of total family law case filings
  • 16,862 for other civil and probate cases in which petitioner filed pro se
Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Research and Evalation, SRL Statistics | 1 Comment

A New Cut at Triage Principles

Posted on February 28, 2012 by richardzorza

A few weeks ago, I bogged on some principles for triage that had come out of a meeting at the TIG conference.

Since then I have elaborated and expanded them, including expanded their scope to include triage conducted to determine how a court should treat a case, as well as that to decide what services should be provided to litigants to navigage the court track.  This draft reflects extensive help from Tom Clarke, Vice President at the National Center for State Courts, particularly with the insight that court-track triage must be included, and for a re-organization to reduce the number of principles. Continue reading →

Posted in Court Management, Technology, Transparency, Triage | 3 Comments