Getting to know us: judicial outreach in Oregon.

• Author: Deits, Mary J.

1. THE CASE FOR OUTREACH

   With a combined twenty-seven years of experience in state appellate courts, we have come to realize there is a bit of truth to the idea that appellate judges live in ivory towers. Our isolation is a result, at least in part, of the quantity and nature of our work. With between 3,000 and 4,000 new cases each year, our workload is unrelentingly overwhelming--we are always behind. To encourage the frank and open exchange of ideas, our deliberative process is confidential and shared only among our judges and staff. Except for oral arguments, our jobs present few opportunities for contact with lawyers or members of the public. As a result of this isolation, even though our decisions have dramatic effects on citizens of our state, few members of the public, except for a small group of lawyers, know who we are or understand what we do.

   Despite the limited time available to the members of our court, it is critical that our judges take the time to interact with citizens of our state in order to help them to understand who we are and what we do. Such interaction also gives us, as judges and court staff, the opportunity to gain a better understanding of other parts of the judicial system and legal community, and of the larger community that we live in and serve.

   Our court, like many courts today, is subject to increasing criticism from various sources. On the one hand, the media typically does not give our opinions much attention, except when the decision is controversial or the case involves some sort of celebrity. The day-to-day work of the court and the vast majority of our decisions--many of which have tremendous effects on the citizens of our state--are given little notice. On the other hand, courts in general and our court in particular are the objects of increasing criticism. We are criticized because decisions are not made fast enough, because we did not reach the "right" or the "fair" decision, and because some believe that our decisions are driven by political or personal motives.

   Some of this criticism is unavoidable: When you are deciding cases, someone loses, so there will always be someone unhappy with any decision that our court or any court makes. When you are a member of an appellate court, you will sometimes reverse the decisions of trial court judges. There certainly is no way to avoid some dissatisfaction with our court and the judicial system as a whole.

   Nonetheless, we should not ignore the apparently growing dissatisfaction with the courts. We must do something to address this problem. There is no question that the erosion of respect for and support of our legal system is seriously undermining, and will continue to undermine, the effectiveness of the courts in this country. We cannot simply hope that the situation will change on its own; we need to persuade our legal and broader communities that the appellate courts play a significant role in our democracy, and that respect and support for the court system is vital to its continued effectiveness.

   Some of the criticism the courts receive is unfounded and based on misconceptions about how appellate courts function and the role of law and courts in our society. In our view, education about who we are and what we do is among the most effective tools for overcoming this sort of criticism. Over the last several years, it has been a priority of the Oregon Court of Appeals to provide that education firsthand, both by inviting "outsiders" into our court and also by taking some proceedings of our court outside its usual venue.

2. TRADING BENCHES

   In assessing how we might develop some sort of outreach program to address this problem, the members of our court decided that we should consider non-traditional means of getting our message out. One of the first places that we found to begin enhancing the understanding of the role of our appellate court was in our own backyard. From casual conversations with trial judges throughout the state, it became clear that some of our own state trial judges had complaints about our court and sometimes misunderstood its function. One trial judge half-jokingly suggested that appellate and trial judges ought to occasionally change places. That almost-joke turned out to be an excellent suggestion and, about five years ago, we began a program for the trial and appellate bench to do just that.

   The first judge whom we invited to sit with our court was the trial judge who had made the suggestion. He readily accepted our invitation. His participation proved to be a great success from both our perspectives. Since that time, about four to six times each year, we have invited trial judges from throughout the state to sit with our court. Some of the judges have sat with us a number of times and others have sat for one day. Typically, our visiting judges hear a docket of ten to fifteen cases, and a visiting judge typically will be assigned one or more cases for preparation of a written decision.

   We have also kept our end of the deal. Although logistics have prevented us from doing direct exchanges with the trial judges who come to sit with us, a number of the ten judges on our court (only two of whom are former trial judges) have sat throughout the state as trial judges. Our appellate judges have had the chance to preside over civil and criminal trials and to hear the full range of motions and other procedural...