News & Updates

On the whole, 2020 was a quiet time for state judicial elections, at least in comparison to recent years. Fewer sitting judges were directly targeted for removal, and most of the efforts to oust judges failed at the ballot box. But even quiet years have standout moments, and the recent election cycle brought several noteworthy developments.

IAALS has released a new report which showcases the innovation occurring in courts, self-help centers, legal aid centers, and law/public libraries throughout the country to address the needs of self-represented litigants in the midst of a global pandemic.

On October 20, IAALS hosted a virtual Rebuilding Justice Award Celebration instead of gathering for our annual gala as we normally do, and we were joined by people from all over the country and world via Zoom to honor both Margaret Hagan and the late Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady for their leadership and innovation in advancing our justice system.

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.

In advance of the 2020 election, Our Courts Colorado has released a series of PSAs featuring diverse and well-known members of the community who explain why voters should take the time to educate themselves about the judges up for retention and then cast their votes accordingly.

September 17 marks Constitution Day, commemorating the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. Today, IAALS looks back on a series of perspectives we published in 2016—authored by leaders across our government, judiciary, and legal profession—which are grounded in a belief that an independent judiciary is crucial to both the rule of law and the functioning of our democratic republic.

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.

IAALS and HiiL recently launched the largest-ever survey of its kind as part of their US Justice Needs project. This survey will reach people across all regions of the United States, including urban and rural areas and people who have not historically been included, and seek to uncover their experiences in accessing justice when they need it.

Last month, the NCSC commissioned a survey of one thousand registered voters to gauge levels of public trust and confidence in the state courts. Many of the questions focused on the coronavirus pandemic and how respondents felt about remote court processes, protective measures for in-person courthouse appearances, and other new realities.

The legacy of racism that blights our criminal justice system also creates inequities in our society more broadly. IAALS joins others in this process of listening, reflecting, and recommitting ourselves to the goals of equity and inclusion, because they are central to our vision of a justice system that works for all people.

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. 

Earlier this month, the Civil Justice Council in England and Wales published a report on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on civil court users. The report includes results from the council's rapid review of remote hearings, which was conducted to assess what is and isn’t working, as well as how to best move forward.

As the whole country grapples with reopening, our federal courts continue their own efforts to respond in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In recent weeks, we are seeing some federal courthouses slowly expand in-person proceedings as the judiciary also explores reconstituting jury trials.

While the pandemic's disruption increases the need for systemic improvements, it also offers a distinct opportunity to achieve them. As we respond to COVID-19, we should learn from the new efforts underway and work to make long-term, fundamental changes. Let’s seize this opportunity to make the changes we need to provide justice we can believe in.

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.

In mid-April, the Louisiana Supreme Court announced changes to its rules to increase public access to judicial discipline proceedings. With these changes, Louisiana joins the growing tide of states that are embracing transparency—a key component of IAALS’ recommendations for judicial discipline systems.

IAALS and the NCSC have finalized a three-year project with the release of their new report highlighting the experiences of four states—Idaho, Maine, Missouri, and Texas—as they worked to implement change in their courts. The recommendations can provide critical support to courts facing unprecedented need for change during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

On April 10, the State Justice Institute hosted a webinar to launch its new Funding Toolkit for State Courts and Justice System Partners. The toolkit is designed to support courts and their partners as they pursue federal and philanthropic funding opportunities, and includes resources that cover the entire grant-seeking writing and management process.

The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules met virtually on April 1 and covered a number of different updates and discussion topics, including proposed amendments to Rule 30(b)(6). And, instead of the usual legislative update, Judge Bates provided an update on recent pandemic-related events related to the Committee.