Rethinking traditional approaches.

• Author: Kaye, Judith S.
• Position: Public Understanding and Perceptions of the American Justice System

I am pleased to be here with my many colleagues from the state judiciary, most especially David Brock, President of the Conference of Chief Justices, and Roger Warren, President of the National Center for State Courts. And I am delighted to be here with my lawyer friends from the American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, and the New York City Bar Association. Since I know so many of you, the apology that I have to begin with is really directed at a very small, but important group. I have to begin with an apology to those of you who understood that the luncheon speaker today was the other Judge Judy--you know, the TV star.

Be assured that you are not the first to be confused by the similarity of our names and titles. There are a couple of telephone operators somewhere in the bowels of the city of New York who keep handing out my telephone number when Information is called in search of the TV jurist. I cannot begin to tell you how many of my callers express crushing disappointment when they learn that they have reached only the Chambers of the Chief Judge of the State and not the dressing room of a great cultural icon.

Now, for those callers, Judge Judy--the personification of justice with an attitude--is much more real than any member of the Third Branch. That is understandable; she is in their living rooms every single day. They actually experience her formidable personality. They know her because they see her.

I think there is a real lesson here. It is related to one of the key findings of the ABA survey being discussed at this symposium: knowledge and direct experience play a huge role in public perceptions of the justice system. Put most simply, the take-home lesson is that the public knows effective justice when the public sees effective justice.

Now, that's a good sound bite, but what on earth do we do with it? How do we build court systems that reflect this obvious but fundamental truth? How do we deliver effective justice? Then how do we make sure that the public knows when we do?

What is "effective justice"? Effective justice, I think, is dispute resolution that is fair, both in substance and in appearance. Effective justice is accessible. It's speedy. It's affordable. It treats everyone involved--litigant, witness, counsel, juror--with dignity and respect. On a larger scale, it includes the sense that the courts are making some difference, adding value, and safeguarding bedrock values.

You have heard a lot about changes in society this morning--explosive, fundamental changes in society. Changes in society mean that courts must continually examine their performance to make sure that the justice we are delivering is in fact effective. Over the past twenty years, the workload of our courts has changed very dramatically. Increasingly, society has been turning to the courts and to the justice system to resolve some of its toughest issues: family dysfunction, drug abuse, and assaults on the quality of life in our urban areas. These changes mean many more cases in the courts, which is an issue all by itself. But they also mean new kinds of cases that create new roles for judges and lawyers, more like problem solvers than jurisprudes.

At the same time, we have seen a huge shift in public expectations regarding government and the legal system. No longer can courts rely on black robes, marble halls, and rapping gavels to ensure public respect. The public is not impressed by trappings. The public wants performance.

And maybe the most frustrating of all is our inability to get the word out about just what it is we do and how we do it. The media is drenched with court news, yet there is little meaningful, systemic coverage designed to educate an already cynical public about the justice system. Emphasis on bizarre, brutal, sensational cases...