Inspired in part by the work of the Conference of Chief Justice’s Civil Justice Improvements Committee, Chief Justice Scott Bales of the Arizona Supreme Court issued an Order at the end of last year establishing a new initiative for the Arizona Courts, creating a 24-member committee of judges, lawyers, and stakeholders to address ways in which civil litigation can be made more efficient and less expensive.

It’s that time of year again, when state legislatures are in session and lawmakers who are dissatisfied with the judiciary and some of its decisions are proposing changes in how judges are selected. This is nothing new: the O’Connor Judicial Selection Plan, which calls for commission-based appointment of judges, has been under attack in a number of states, and there seems to be a pattern to the attacks.

I spent half my legal career as a civil trial lawyer in New Hampshire trying all manner of cases in state and federal court and sometimes trying or preparing to try cases in other states and jurisdictions. I learned from some great lawyers and mentors over those years. They viewed a jury trial not as a failure of the system but as an integral part of American justice. They tried many of their cases with four or five depositions, twenty key exhibits, an expert or two, and a theory of the case. Justice was almost always served. The lawyers I admired understood the probing value of focused, incisive cross examination, the transformative power of a witness's solemn oath, the value of the courtroom's sterile unfamiliarity in a search for the truth, and the capacity and integrity of juries to render fair verdicts. They viewed trial lawyering as a craft with a noble purpose and never viewed discovery as an end it itself.

As is true in many jurisdictions, Arizona courts are finding that self-represented parties are heavily concentrated in family law matters, like divorce, child support, and custody. With little or no legal experience, litigants are navigating these complex processes by themselves—with many citing lawyer costs as prohibitive. .

Toward the end of last year when I first read IAALS’ report, Change the Culture, Change the System: Top 10 Cultural Shifts Needed to Create the Courts of Tomorrow, I had feelings of both trepidation and hope. It said a lot of things I have often thought about, but have not always spoken up about.

Last month, MSN released a ranking of the best and worst states (including D.C.) for getting a low-cost divorce, based on a survey conducted by...

Millions of cases pass through state courts every year, which is why it is imperative that the judges handling them are objective and accountable. While many judges are selected through political contests that threaten these important values, others are chosen through merit selection processes that strengthen these goals and our courts. Yet, even this method can be improved upon. To help ensure that merit selection procedures are open, fair, and inspire public trust, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System today announced the release of its Model Code of Conduct for Judicial Nominating Commissioners.

I recently attended IAALS’ Fourth Civil Justice Reform Summit and served as a faculty member on several panels. It never fails that I come away from these gatherings with more ideas. I began to take notes on this question—what can we do to effect the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

When I was first contacted by IAALS in early 2014 about the possibility of replicating the methodology used to investigate the lived experiences of self-represented litigants in three Canadian provinces, I was thrilled. I had spent the previous two years conducting this (qualitative, interview-based) research and our results were published in 2013. While the data revealed many multi-layered complexities, diversities, and variables in the experiences of those without counsel, it underscored one new reality.

In a recent opinion piece, Judge Daniel E. Ramczyk emphasizes the importance and benefits of New Mexico’s judicial selection and retention process, and in particular the role that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) plays in providing valuable feedback to judges as well as to the citizens who vote for them.

Last Thursday and Friday, February 25 and 26, IAALS hosted its Fourth Civil Justice Reform Summit, focused on creating the just, speedy, and inexpensive courts of tomorrow. The goal of the summit was to bring together stakeholders to chart the next steps for creating the just, speedy, and inexpensive courts of tomorrow.

Rebuilding justice. This is an awesome charge. And it is one that IAALS has embraced since its beginnings in 2006. IAALS was started as an attempt to remake the American legal system. While our system has many virtues, it is inefficient. It is unequal. Fundamentally, it is imperfect. But we are a country of laws, and the legal process is the thread that holds together our enviable conception of democracy. Therefore, the desire for a perfect system of justice is a natural outgrowth of that foundational goal of a more perfect union. But justice is more than systems. Justice is about people. Justice is about hopes and dreams and goals. Justice is about dignity. This is why the idea of rebuilding justice is so awesome, so ambitious, and so necessary.