Expert Opinion

"Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities, because, as has been said, 'it is the quality which guarantees all others.'" —Winston Churchill. I agree with Churchill—who knew a thing or two about courage—that it is the quality that permits us to exercise whatever other virtues we possess. This is true for everyone, but especially for judges. No one can be a great judge, or even a good one, without the courage to do what what the law demands, even in the face of tremendous pressure to do otherwise.

At IAALS’ Fourth Civil Justice Reform Summit, we brought together stakeholders to brainstorm a vision for the courts of tomorrow and steps to get there. Today we release the report from that summit, Creating the Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive Courts of Tomorrow: Ideas for Impact from IAALS’ Fourth Civil Justice Reform Summit.

Figuring out how to educate law students to meet the needs of modern law practice is vitally important given shrinking job markets and changing demands on lawyers. IAALS has accepted that challenge with its Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers initiative, which focuses on preparing new lawyers for successful participation in the legal profession. Law schools have traditionally focused on applicants’ LSAT scores and grade point averages to determine admissions to law schools. This produces a student body designed to perform well on standardized tests and in college-type settings. 

Over the last three years, I have had the privilege of chairing the Conference of Chief Justices’ Civil Justice Improvements Committee, whose recommendations were adopted last week by the Conference of Chief Justices and released today. The goal of this effort was to provide specific recommendations for how Chief Justices and Court Administrators in states across the country can address cost and delay in their state civil justice systems.

Our Foundations for Practice survey set out to define what new lawyers are lacking. After working with state bar organizations to distribute the survey across the country, we are sitting on more than 24,000 responses from lawyers in all 50 states. Today, we are releasing two exciting outcomes from the survey.

We live in a time of cynicism and dissatisfaction with government—a dissatisfaction that includes the judicial branch. Gallup surveys of satisfaction with the way the nation is being governed have been stuck for the past few years at levels not seen since the days of President Richard Nixon and Watergate. Approval of the United States Supreme Court, which historically stayed safely in positive territory, has been close to 50-50 in recent years—and was negative (50% disapproving, 45% approving) at the start of the Court’s term last October.

We are pleased to announce the results of our evaluation of the Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF)—the first manifestation of the IAALS Honoring Families Initiative’s out-of-court model for separation and divorce. 

IAALS has been instrumental in changing the landscape of Colorado’s civil pre-trial practice. It all began with Becky Kourlis’ provocative and influential speech at the American College of Trial Lawyers annual meeting in March 2007, where she outlined the disturbing trends and challenges facing our justice system. Becky’s talk was the seed that grew into the ACTL Task Force on Discovery and Civil Justice, which was tasked with taking a hard look at these problem areas and recommending improvements. IAALS provided a wealth of information, experience, necessary guidance, and high credibility to the Task Force.

IAALS’ Honoring Families Initiative recently released two new reports focused on the experiences of self-represented litigants in our family court system: Cases Without Counsel: Research on Experiences of Self-Representation in U.S. Family Court and Cases Without Counsel: Our Recommendations after Listening to the Litigants.

One of the reasons that the American experiment succeeded was the genius of our Founding Fathers in establishing a three-part system of government with an independent judiciary. Without an independent judiciary, we have just one more political entity, subject to the control of the majority, untethered from the Rule of Law, and susceptible to bullying.