Expert Opinions

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.

Judges must be held accountable for conduct that violates their codes of conduct and governing laws. A recent Reuters report on judicial misconduct, while not quite comprehensive, is an important reminder that we need to know more about this topic that is arguably central to public trust and confidence and—more importantly—justice and the rule of law.

After COVID-19 and the social unrest around racial equity, our world will never be the same. We have a duty to ensure that we learn from this season of change and to use the knowledge we have gained to create a better world. To do so, we must be guided by data and evidence—and we must improve our data and research practices.

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.

Last month, it was announced that reforms to Canada’s Divorce Act will be delayed due to COVID-19, highlighting just how important it is that courts prepare for this and other types of possible disasters. There are a number of practical steps courts must take now in order to meet people’s needs in a world where going to a physical courthouse is even more difficult—and dangerous.

The California Board of Trustees is meeting today to consider the charter and composition of the Closing the Justice Gap Working Group. We at IAALS applaud the board for creating the working group and committing to move forward with important and innovative legal services solutions, but we strongly encourage them to significantly diversify its membership.

Unauthorized practice of law rules grant lawyers a monopoly on providing legal advice and prevent “nonlawyers” from providing any meaningful legal assistance. This mindset codified in the UPL rules, along with our country’s staggering racial wealth gap, have a chilling effect on Black Americans' access to the legal system.

Professional ethics rules have long prevented judges from speaking about their rulings and opinions. However, beginning next month, California state judges will be able to comment directly on pending cases—their own or those of a judicial colleague—in connection with a judicial election or recall campaign. 

My recent experience with the civil justice system—even pre-COVID-19—has been frustrating, to say the least. Through it all, though, my journey through the system has given me a more personal perspective on the importance of our work at IAALS and helping the real users of our system—like me—have better and more efficient access to justice.

Last year, IAALS surveyed members of the American Board of Trial Advocates about their trust and confidence in the legal system and factors that influence their perspectives. A substantial majority of respondents reported high levels of confidence in both the state and federal court systems, but others gave us reasons for their declining confidence.

This year, the ABA marks Law Day 2020 with the theme of “Your Voice, Your Vote, Our Democracy,” a celebration of the centennial of the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We look to the women's suffrage movement for inspiration and to remind us that creating impact and change takes time.

Law Day 2020 celebrates the centennial of the transformative amendment that gave women the right to vote. As we recognize this moment in our country's history, we also remember that the 19th Amendment has not translated to broader gender equality—and that our justice system, too, is not immune to claims of systemic inequality and bias.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to lawyers and law students alike. For many students enrolled in live-client clinics, the challenges of meeting their clients' needs in a transitional environment are particularly demanding. Yet these law students in clinical programs have a unique opportunity to rise to the occasion.

Courts, judges, and lawyers have demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt to a remote and technology-driven version of our justice system in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These changes have fundamentally altered the way the system operates and call for a renewed commitment to civility and collegiality across the legal profession.

Administering justice in the time of COVID-19 has taken on a whole new direction in a rural municipal court in Laramie, Wyoming. After the governor declared a state of emergency, we developed a plan to temporarily delay any in-court personal appearances and began utilizing videoconferencing to facilitate necessary court functions.

Imagine a legal sector neatly divided into two groups: the Rule Makers and the Risk Takers. With evidence piling up that the legal market is not working for ordinary citizens, the Rule Makers come together to evaluate possible changes. After the new rules are enacted, the burden shifts to the Risk Takers to build out workable solutions.

In January 2019, IAALS published recommendations for improving dispositive motions practice in state and federal courts, calling for a new paradigm for motion practice in the United States. Now, judges around the country are answering the call.

On Thursday, March 12, the State Bar of California Trustees voted to postpone passing the motion to explore the development of a regulatory sandbox to May. In my eyes, every day, hour, or minute of delay leads to bad legal outcomes for Californians. Our legal system is in crisis. Now, as a community, we have to turn our kinetic access-to-justice energy into focused action.

From my perspective as the director of a law school innovation lab, legal education is disengaged from the regulatory reform effort: only a handful of legal academics have chimed in on regulatory reform or been involved in task force efforts. But legal education should join the conversation and prepare for the changes ahead, for several reasons.

To address the challenges posed by the rising number of debt collection cases in our state courts—including high rates of self-represented litigants and default judgments—IAALS and the National Center for State Courts have released a new white paper that presents a model approach to reform in these cases.