Guest Posts

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.

It’s time that the delivery of legal services reflected the reality of innovation and progress we see in every other field—medical, financial, engineering, and everything in between—giving everyone greater access to legal services.

In response to the aftermath caused by COVID-19 to businesses throughout the state of Rhode Island, the state’s Superior Court implemented a Business Recovery Plan with the goal of preserving businesses as they climb through recovery and stabilize their operations and accounts.

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.

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. 

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.

The United States of America leads the world in many areas of democracy, technology, economy, and culture, but what holds back American citizens from accessing justice when they need it? In times of extreme uncertainty, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, this is a critical question.

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.

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.