Expert Opinions

In the final days of North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue's term, she will be filling the supreme court vacancy created by the unanticipated retirement of Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson. Given the short time frame in which the appointment must be made, the governor has decided to forego use of the judicial nominating commission and make a direct appointment. As a necessary step, she entered Executive Order 137, “temporarily modifying” the selection process for all vacancies that may arise before she leaves office. We understand the time constraints but lament her decision.

In the world of choosing law schools, we have generic rankings and recommendations—including US News & World Report, and a number of others that have popped up over the years—which can provide a certain value, but they hardly give the whole picture. Last year, we launched Law Jobs: By the Numbers, an employment calculator that allows you to review school employment numbers based on the criteria you care about most—and with the new 2013 ABA employment numbers, we've made some big upgrades.

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.  

On October 5, 2016, I was honored to be a panelist at IAALS’ joint Law Firm Council and Business Leadership Network meeting. There were three panels at this plenary session: 1) a panel of corporate in-house counsel; 2) a panel of outside counsel; and 3) a panel of judges (from both the federal bench and the state bench).

As state courts around the country have been responding to the Conference of Chief Justices' 2016 Call to Action for civil justice reform, IAALS, NCSC, and NCJFCJ also have been focused on developing companion recommendations for evaluating and improving the way courts handle domestic relations cases, which have just been released.

The public knows the reality of how the justice system functions today. It is we who are now catching on. The call has never been louder for court leaders and system stakeholders to accept and admit some hard truths. It is time that we look inward and take responsibility for those aspects of the system that are failing.

This November, thousands of judges across 38 states find themselves on the ballot, and there is reason to believe that this year judicial races will capture more voter attention than usual.

Once again, law schools have found themselves the subject of a New York Times front-page article about the sharp decline in law school applications. According to the article, law schools are responding by cutting faculty, taking a closer look at affordability, and adding clinics and in-the-field training. But perhaps more interesting is the story the article doesn’t tell—the story of law schools across the country that are already in front of this wave by offering students a better education.

In recent years, I have been distressed to see persistent efforts in some states to politicize the bench and the role of our judges. Working closely with IAALS and its Quality Judges Initiative, we have collaborated to promote processes for selecting and retaining state judges that inspire public trust in our courts and the integrity of their decisions. Today, I am pleased to share with you the O’Connor Judicial Selection Plan—our recommendations for protecting and strengthening the courts.

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.

One year ago today, the long awaited amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. The “package” of amendments included changes across a number of rules and focused on increasing cooperation, achieving proportionality in discovery, and encouraging early case management by judges. A new Rule 37(e) was added addressing sanctions for the failure to preserve electronically stored information.

Nevada, which directly elects nearly all of its state judges, has never implemented an official judicial performance evaluation program. Instead, between 1992 and 2013, the state’s largest newspaper conducted its own surveys of attorneys in Clark County regarding judges seeking reelection until their survey methodology came under sharp criticism. Now the surveys are set to return, with some significant retooling.

Dedicated judges, attorneys, and court administrators have the power to establish justice in our modern time. By gathering the input of those who use the court system, who rely on it to decide some of the most important issues in our lives—like divorce and child custody—we help ensure that the courts function in a way that serves all of us.

The legal community has varying opinions on regulatory reform, with some supporting, some opposing, and many unaware. As people explore this topic, they often encounter several arguments against reform—countered here with data and insights from other industries.

The oldest advice in the world is that the trick is not in knowing the answers—rather it is in knowing the right questions to ask. Such advice has broad application, and in the current debate about legal education, it is quite possible that the wrong questions are currently on the table. The question should not simply be: why does legal education cost so much? Rather, the question should focus on reassessing and re-measuring the value of legal education.

One year ago, the Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families opened its doors at the University of Denver to serve families in metro area. Based on an interdisciplinary out-of-court model developed by the Honoring Families Initiative, the RCSDF is operating at full-force today, helping numerous parents transition in a positive and constructive manner that better serves them and their children.

Ten years ago, few would have predicted that IAALS would have such an impact on the legal system. The world wasn’t exactly clamoring for another legal think tank, and aside from a few visionaries in Denver, no one foresaw the need for an organization dedicated to the improvement of the legal system rather than partisan advocacy. Yet ten years later, IAALS has succeeded not only in prompting a conversation about how cases get litigated but in touching off a broader reexamination of a number of assumptions about attorney control over litigation, discovery, and the relationship of the legal system to the people it serves.

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.

In her final post as Executive Director, Rebecca Love Kourlis discusses the public’s low trust and confidence in the American legal system. IAALS will be rolling out the results of its research in the area over the next few months, and begins with three papers, which together kick off a part of the conversation IAALS calls “Are We at a Boiling Point?”

Courts around the country are focused on staying open to ensure access to justice is available; however, with so many doing so much, we need to ensure cross-pollination of these varied ideas by sharing knowledge and combining our collective intellectual capacity across the various silos within our system.