Doris Marie Provine

1
Access to Justice

• Doris Marie Provine
• School of Justice Social Inquiry
• Arizona State University

2
Where Im from.
3
Goals of this conference Reaffirm the enduring
purposes and continuing responsibilities of courts
4
In order to.

• Achieve impartial and independent judiciaries
• Not get lost in trivial issues and demands
• Provide world leadership
• Survive the current economy!

5
Access to Justice Access to Courts?
6
Commitments to access to courts as access to
justice

• 6th Amendment right to public trial in US
  Constitution
• All courts shall be open in 17 state
  constitutions
• Judgment shall be pronunced publicly in
  European Convention on Human Rights
• Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public
  hearing Intl Cov. Civil Political Rights

7
Googles perspective

• 57,900,000 images of justice
• 3,280,000 of Lady Justice
• 298,000 of the scales of justice
• versus
• 1,720,000 images of courtrooms
• 3,450,000 images of courthouses
• 9,900,000 images of the US Supreme Court
• 12,000,000 of court administrators!!

8
But note that Google defines Court
administrator broadly.
9
And this one, entitled court administrators
office
10
Our problem How to enhance access to courts in
order to enhance access to justice?

• But first we need to know ...
• What we mean by access
• Whether access a problem with a solution or a
  conundrum that must be navigated because there
  are conflicting values at stake
• In order to determine..... What courts can/should
  do, practically speaking, about improving access
  to courts ---and therefore, hopefully access to
  justice.

11
Note how concepts of justice in courts have
changed .

• The tradition of local justice of juries, local
  courts, and election of judges.
• Progressivism Courts must professionalize!
• Managerialism Courts must be efficient.
• The age of accountability - Courts must
  demonstrate results, engage communities and
  stake-holders.

12
Current recipes for justice include

• Problem-solving courts drugs, mental health,
  housing, homeless
• Engaging stakeholders
• More aggressive public education
• Community courts
• Performance indicators, metrics
• Data gathering

13
Cf concerns about losing public dimension of
adjudication

• Bargaining has become a requirement of the law
  of conflict resolution less than 2 of all
  civil cases go to trial (v. 20 50 years ago).
• Oral argument may require court permission
• Decisions may not be published
• Mandatory mediation with non-judges
• Growth of administrative proceedings
• Arbitration requirements in service contracts

14
Access in our contemporary world involves

• efficiency and attention to individual needs
• access to judges and cost savings to litigants
• uniform rules and flexibility
• working with stakeholders and avoiding favoritism
• attention to local communty needs and
  professionalism
• AND accountability with all of the above

15
Access is complex, contextually specific, and
time-bound(Goose waiting for access to Salem, OR
prison)
16
Achieving access, in other words, is no sport
for the short-winded
17
The NCSC Trial Court Performance Standards

• A good starting point for thinking about how to
  improve access to courts. and justice

18
Quick introduction to this project

• Replaces previous focus on structure and
  machinery with performance-oriented standards
• Shifts emphasis from resources and processes to
  responses
• Offers accountability and means for continually
  improving performance

19
What the performance standards are NOT

• A means to accredit courts
• A means for comparing courts with each other
• A vehicle for appellate-court oversight
• A way to guage performance of individual judges
  or staff

20
The idea is self-assessment

• Because
• Courts need diagnostic tools to assess processes
• Publicity often leads to posturing, covering up
  etc.
• Appellate courts dont know much about trial cts.
• Courts are organizations
• All of the above

21
The Project

• Advised and guided by NCSC and Bureau of Justice
  assitance of US DoJ.
• 8-year initiative begun in 1987
• Standards developed by a 16-member commission of
  state and federal judges, court administrators,
  and academic personel (me)
• Many iterations of standards and measures that
  were tested in 12 courts in various states

22
For details see

• TCPS Trial Court Performance Standards and
  Measurement System (Natl Center for St. Cts.)
• http//www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/tcps/index.ht
  ml

23
The five overall standards are

• Access to Justice
• Expedition and Timeliness
• Equality, Fairness, and Integrity
• Independence and Accountability
• Public Trust and Confidence

24
Access to justice includes

• Public proceedings includes audibility for all.
• Safety, accessibility, and convenience includes
  accomodation, parking, access to public transit,
  security in and around court.
• Effective participation requires assistance to
  overcome language, hearing, etc. barriers.
• Courtesy, responsiveness, and respect respect
  and assist all who come.
• Affordable costs of access minimize costs
  through simplication, scaling, controls.

25
Note that these standards pre-date

• High-speed internet
• 9/11
• The current economic crisis
• Which have created additional challenges and
  opportunities..

26
So at this point, our question isWhat can you
do to enhance access to your court?
27
Break-out session

• Form into groups of 5 10 and appoint a
  spokesperson for the group.
• Please determine
• Which standard(s) are most difficult to reach in
  your court and why.
• Possible improvements
• How to determine effectiveness of changes

28
Thanks very much for your participation!