Panel discussion: judicial outreach initiatives.

• Position: Public Understanding and Perceptions of the American Justice System - Panel Discussion

MR. ROBERT STEIN(**): Our first panel will discuss judicial outreach initiatives. I have the great pleasure of introducing the presider for this first panel, Roberta Cooper Ramo of New Mexico. Roberta was elected president of the American Bar Association at the same meeting at which I was appointed executive director, and so I've had the wonderful opportunity to work closely with Roberta for two years: first, when she was president-elect; then when she was president. She is widely known throughout this country and indeed the world as the first woman to serve as president of the American Bar Association. I think I'm well positioned to tell you that Roberta is also one of the truly great presidents of the American Bar Association. Brilliant, energetic, creative, dedicated, [and] compassionate are just some of the talents that she brings to leadership of our profession. Particularly meaningful to me is Roberta's gift for expressing eloquently the core values of our justice system that we care about so deeply. I have probably heard her speak as much as anybody in the world, dozens and dozens of times, and she is still able to move me, frequently to tears, by the eloquence by which she expresses those values, and I know others in the audience feel the same way. She has continued to exercise leadership for the profession after completing her year as an ABA president, most recently by agreeing to chair the Asian Law Initiatives Council to develop the rule of law in Asia and particularly in China. It is my great pleasure to present our presider, a great leader in our profession, Roberta Cooper Ramo.

MS. ROBERTA COOPER RAMO: Well, I thank you for that incredibly kind introduction. I think what you didn't say was how relieved you were that you didn't have to hear me anymore, but that was a very kind thing. This has been an extraordinary experience, I think, for all of us. Let me put just a little bit of international context to it. I think even judges and even lawyers sometimes forget the remarkable, miraculous nature of the American system of justice. You only have to spend a little bit of time in places like the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, or some of the places in Asia, where people are struggling to understand what it means to have a truly independent judge sit and listen to people expressing their views of the legal problems in which they find themselves. It is so easy for us to be critical of our system and so hard for us, I think, to speak and to spend enough time reflecting, not just on the mechanics of our system of dispensing justice in the United States, but upon the relationship of our justice system to the core of the American democracy. And I think our discussion yesterday that went from dealing with issues of how, in an increasingly complex, multicultural society, we dispense justice to how we make sure that justice is obtainable in a world in which it is possible now to have a media feeding frenzy about high-profile cases that reverberates, not just around this country, but around the world, how you make sure that judges who are in the position to be elected are somehow able to find the courage to insulate themselves from the enormous waves of public opinion that may come, rightly or wrongly, careening at them as they are trying to dispense justice in a case. All of those kinds of things lead us to look at judges themselves and to say, "Is there a role in our society, is there a role in our system, for judges to initiate any sort of outreach, and to what public [entities] should those judges be talking?" And that's what we are going to talk about today. Let me introduce our presenter, the Honorable Veronica McBeth, who is the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles Municipal Court. I want to introduce the rest of [the] panel [ ] and then we'll get right to work. We have the Honorable Richard Fruin, who is the Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court; the Honorable Thomas Merrigan, who is the First Justice in the Orange District Court of Massachusetts; Amanda K. Todd, who is the Court Information Officer from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin; the Honorable Ellen Rosenblum, Judge of the Circuit Court of Oregon; and the Honorable Thomas A. Zlaket, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Arizona.

[The Honorable Veronica S. McBeth's remarks, occurring at this point in the conference, have been deleted. Instead, an edited version of Judge McBeth's presentation appears above at page 1379.]

MS. RAMO: Well, if Alexander Hamilton were here today, I think he would have affection, reverence, and appreciation for you, Judge, that's for sure. Our goal today is to make sure that we have plenty of time for you to hear from each of our panel members and also to make sure that we have an opportunity to interact with you. And so, we thought we would get started by giving you a chance to hear from each of the distinguished judges on our panel. And then, after about fifteen or twenty minutes, we will open the discussion to the audience.

Let me begin by posing a question to everyone on the panel, and I'm going to start with you, Judge Fruin, and go right down the list. We have heard a great deal about judicial outreach. What is judicial outreach to each of you and why should any judges or our court systems care about it?

JUDGE RICHARD L. FRUIN, JR.: Well, first I want to say that I think the work that the special task force is doing in California is terrific because it is making institutional change in what the judiciary thinks it should be doing. I do think, however, it is important to think about what [ ] the definition of judicial outreach [is]. Definitions might vary. Not everyone would agree with my definition. But I think that you have to have boundaries on the concept before you can analyze it.

Judge McBeth's report talked about court-community activities which, to my mind, have a broader scope than judicial outreach. Judicial outreach, the way I have defined it, are planned efforts undertaken by judges to inform the broader community about the work of the courts in our society.

We might ask why courts should be doing this. The special task force said that, or at least suggested that, the courts should be engaging in judicial outreach activities because there is a mistrust of courts in the community. That might be a valid reason. Another reason is to build a constituency for the judiciary so as to immunize the public from criticism against the judiciary that arises from time to time. However, my own view is that judicial outreach is really part of the job. I look upon judging as public service, and public service is not restricted to what happens in the courtroom. I think that the public service component requires a judge to educate and to explain to the community about the judicial system.

The question is, why must a judge personally lead in judicial outreach activities? Well, I think it harkens back to the data that we received yesterday. The public wants to hear from judges. And judges really are in the best position to explain the judicial system. They have the respect to command public attention, and they have the ability to explain the system. Also, they are the leaders of the courthouse. To the extent that help is needed from other court employees, you are going to have to look to the judges in order to obtain that.

I think there is value in judicial proceedings. What I have tried to do in thinking this through is think about judicial proceedings as sort of a product, and how can this product be repackaged and presented to another audience? The way you do that is either move the court proceedings out of the courthouse or encourage judges to go out and try to explain the court system to the community.

What is the value? Yesterday, I think, former Chief Justice Feldman talked about educating the community about reality. I think that's one thing that judges can do. They can talk about the consequences of life choices. They can talk about the laws. They can talk about the operation of law. They can talk about the impact of the law. They can develop respect for the law. They can talk about the responsibilities of citizenship. They can also, at the same time, seek criticism or seek comments about the courts because I do think that judges can learn from the community. Ultimately, it will reduce the mistrust, if there is such, that our communities have about the court system.

That's the way in which I try to think about judicial outreach programs. Again, my definition is purely personal, and I'm going to hope that the other panelists can give me some guidance, too.

JUSTICE THOMAS MERRIGAN: One of the things that I want to say before I respond to your question is that it is very important to acknowledge the ABA, under the leadership of Phil Anderson and the Conference of Chief Justices, spearheaded by Chief Justice Zlaket, and the vision of Roger Warren, in putting all of this initiative together to address a most critical issue as we end this millennium and begin another. This project is something that is extraordinary in terms of putting together the strategy, the energy and the resources to, I think in a very effective way, take on what is the critical issue of our time. I really do appreciate it, and I think it needs to be recognized.

Judicial outreach, from my point of view, is more of a process than it is a particular program. I don't think that there is any cookie-cutter that we can apply to the concept of judicial outreach. One size does not fit all. Outreach, from my perspective, is the process of going to the community, creating a permanent, ongoing interaction with the community where we have a two-way dialogue; [] we listen to the community, we take the suggestions and the feedback from the community about what the basis [is for] the lack of public trust and confidence, [and] try[ ] to figure out how to improve the service delivery functions of the court.

I think that outreach is not simply...