News & Updates

The National Center for States Courts has released the first in a series of evaluations of civil justice reform demonstration pilot projects around the country. The pilot, in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, focused on implementing civil case management teams (CCMTs)—an innovative court staffing model that delegates case management responsibilities across a team of judges and staff.

It is no secret that divorce poses significant problems for those who go through the legal process. The adversarial nature of the legal process can put people at odds with one another and the courts are not well-positioned to provide emotional and future-planning support. IAALS has released a new report detailing the evaluation of our out-of-court model aimed at addressing these challenges for families with children.

The best lawyers are not the ones that leave “no stone unturned” but rather they are the ones who know which stones are critical to the outcome of the dispute. This type of professional judgment lies at the core of every successful litigator, and this message is reinforced loud and clear in IAALS’ Recommendations for Improving Dispositive Motions Practice in State and Federal Courts.

Each month, the Colorado Lawyer publishes a “Judges Corner” article written by judges on a topic in which they are experts. This month, IAALS teamed with two judges to tackle the topic of unbundling and the important role that judges must play in promoting and encouraging its use.

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.

In an important step toward making family courts more user-friendly and less adversarial, the Conference of Chief Justices has adopted new guidelines to help courts be more responsive to the needs of families.

“Justice for all.” It is a promise of American democracy and enshrined in our Pledge of Allegiance. And yet, it is not a reality. IAALS wants to change all of that. We are proud to present you with our 2018 Annual Report, which highlights our work and accomplishments within this important context.

Judges and attorneys from across the country point to dispositive motions as a critical area for reform. Today, IAALS announces the release of a new report, Efficiency in Motion: Recommendations for Improving Dispositive Motions Practice in State and Federal Courts, calling for a new paradigm for motion practice in the United States. The report is the culmination of nearly three years of research, surveys, and expert input into the opportunities for improvement and innovation.

Many courts across the country struggle with overburdened staff and inefficient processes. However,  those within the judiciary are now turning to technology to make their courts more efficient and narrow the equal justice gap. 

At IAALS, much of our work centers around increasing access to civil justice—especially for those who are navigating our legal system without the assistance of a lawyer. As more and more litigants represent themselves, by choice or necessity, the need for a broader infrastructure to support them is essential, both inside and outside the court. IAALS’ Court Compass project is leading the charge in that arena.

State courts, where 95 percent of all cases are filed, are powerful. Their decisions can have profound effects on our rights and our lives—from whether Massachusetts officials can detain people based on a request from federal immigration authorities to whether a Michigan voter-initiated redistricting proposal could appear on the ballot.

On November 6, Coconino County became the first rural county in Arizona to voluntarily change from a partisan-popular election of superior court judges to a merit selection-judicial retention election.

IAALS’ recent report describes a large but relatively unknown group of executive branch adjudicators who are not "Administrative Law Judges" (ALJs) governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. The report describes principal Non-ALJ characteristics, giving special attention to the degree to which agencies that employ them seek to protect their impartiality.

According to news reports, a state district judge in Oklahoma agreed to resign following a petition describing numerous acts of misconduct. The case illustrates several aspects of state judicial discipline highlighted in a recent IAALS report.

Public trust and confidence in our judiciary, and our judges, is vital. Yet, over the last several decades, that trust has been eroded. For people to trust judges again, we must ensure a series of pillars are in place: improved ways of selecting judges; improved ways of evaluating judges’ performance; and improved systems for disciplining judges who abuse their power—which is the subject of a new IAALS report.

We are proud to present you with IAALS' 2017 Annual Report, showcasing our efforts to help create a legal system that works for everyone. The theme this year is “Action to Justice.” Throughout the report, you will see images that are straight out of the comics. But despite the whimsical tone, the real message is that we live in times that pose great challenges to our system of justice, and superheroes must answer the call to act.

Judicial performance evaluation (JPE) took center stage in the Fall/Winter 2017 issue of Voir Dire, the American Board of Trial Advocates’ magazine. The cover story, written by IAALS’ own Rebecca Love Kourlis and Natalie Knowlton, discussed JPE programs in place today around the country and how trial attorneys, in particular, fit into those processes. As one part of the larger O’Connor Judicial Selection Plan, JPE programs assess judges based on objective performance criteria, including surveys of those who work with or appear before the judge being evaluated. Kourlis and Knowlton note that trial attorneys have a unique and critical role to play in these surveys.

As part of the University of Denver’s Engaging Ideas series, IAALS Executive Director Rebecca Love Kourlis was interviewed about the importance of an independent judiciary—and IAALS’ model for sustaining it. In the video, titled “Judging the Judges,” Kourlis discusses how IAALS is helping improve state court systems through the O’Connor Judicial Selection Plan. “Public trust in the judiciary is central to its legitimacy and to its capacity to enforce its orders. Retaining that impartiality, independence, and integrity of the judicial branch, I think in this day and age, is more critical than perhaps it’s ever been.”

Kentucky State Representative Jason Nemes pre-filed bills at the end of 2017 that would change how state appellate judges are selected. Should the bills pass, the governor would select judges from a recommended list of qualified candidates provided by a Judicial Nominating Commission instead of forcing judges to run for election. The public would then cast their vote for or against a given judge in retention elections at the end of each judge’s eight-year term.

No system of judicial selection and retention is perfect; however, merit selection systems attempt to balance judicial independence with voter accountability. Those are the comments of IAALS Executive Director Rebecca Love Kourlis who, along with IAALS Board Member Chief Justice (Ret.) Ruth McGregor of the Arizona Supreme Court, was interviewed by an investigative reporter for a  Goldwater Institute paper on the benefits of using a merit selection system for municipal judgeships.