The effort to create a 21st Century system of justice is advancing. Today, IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) announced the release of a new Roadmap to guide states as they implement sweeping changes to make state courts more efficient and effective—and that five jurisdictions will serve as demonstration pilots as they follow the roadmap and implement civil justice reform. An additional three states have also received grants to support their efforts to have also been selected as demonstration pilots around the country as they work to reduce cost and delay in the legal system. These efforts are part of three-year $1 million strategic response to the call to action sounded by the Conference of Chief Justices, and supported by the State Justice Institute.

Our O’Connor Advisory Committee (OAC) members are sounding the alarm about a growing and concerning pattern: state lawmakers all but declaring war on our courts. In defense of America’s system of checks and balances, the OAC banded together on an op-ed that ran in the Arizona Republic last week. In “If you like checks and balances, these bills to usurp the courts should worry you,” the OAC explains how legislation in Arizona is an example of the 41 bills introduced in 15 states this year that would “control the ways by which judges reach the bench, unseat judges currently on courts, and generally restrict courts’ jurisdiction and power,” should they become law. They argue that these state bills interfere with the independence of the judiciary and threaten our democracy.

Washington State’s innovative Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLT) program was recently evaluated by the National Center for State Courts and found to be a well-designed program for expanding legal assistance. LLLTs are non-lawyers who are specially trained to provide certain kinds of legal assistance. And, unlike paralegals, LLLTs practice without having to be supervised by a lawyer. Becoming a LLLT requires an associate-level degree of at least 45 credits and an additional 15 credits in family law from an ABA-approved law school. In Washington, the training is provided by the University of Washington School of Law, with Gonzaga University School of Law professors helping to teach the courses.

This month, the Virginia Supreme Court begin pilot testing a performance evaluation program for its appellate judges. Among the sources of guidance to which the court looked in developing the pilot program was IAALS’ Recommended Tools for Evaluating Appellate Judges. With the implementation of this program, Virginia joins ten other states that seek input on appellate judges’ job performance from attorneys and other judges. This feedback is used by appellate judges for self-improvement, and it is also shared with the public to ensure trust and confidence in the judiciary.

It didn’t surprise me when lawyers responding to our Foundations for Practice survey indicated that “life experience between college and law school” was helpful in identifying that a new lawyer has the foundations (characteristics, professional competencies, and legal skills) that they believe are important.

When Edgar Barraza came to the United States as an 11-year-old undocumented immigrant in 1998 the odds seemed stacked against him. He spoke little...

The Rule of Law is absolutely under attack in the United States of America—from elected officials, state legislative bodies, and groups of individuals. The attacks are apparent in politicians’ tirades, legislative proposals that would limit the authority of courts, and assaults on established principles of law such as federal versus state authority. But, the solution is not to put sandbags along the perimeters and bemoan the idiocy of some people.

Recently a federal judge in Connecticut laid the "smackdown" on World Wide Wrestling, Inc., (WWE) by denying its motion for summary judgment against...

Consumer demand and innovations in the legal marketplace, especially technological advances, are leading the charge for changes in the legal profession. Many legal educators, lawyers, court administrators, and judges are embracing the evolution, but others are still reluctant to disrupt the status quo.

During a recent gala in Denver, IAALS presented El Pomar Foundation, William J. Hybl, and Kyle H. Hybl with our highest honor, the Rebuilding Justice Award. El Pomar Foundation and the Hybls were recognized for their generous support of our DIAALOGUES series of convenings, which have helped expand our impact and the impact of our work on a national scale. These remarkable gatherings are a hallmark of IAALS' process and bring together key stakeholders to forge practical solutions to the most pressing challenges in today’s legal system.

On the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., is the proclamation “Equal Justice Under Law.” However, according to our Cases Without Counsel study, in some jurisdictions nearly 80 percent of people with a court case end up representing themselves. For many, not being able to afford a lawyer is the main reason for the wide justice gap.

Now that a simple majority of votes suffice to confirm a Supreme Court Justice, each party will invariably put forward the most ideologically-extreme candidates that they can. No more moderates, no more coalition-builders, no more impartial judges. Rather, the Court could be populated, over time, by judges who have partisan instincts or agendas—maybe even by judges who have a particular alignment with the president who nominates them.