The Job of Court Reform
Judge Sheryl Pethers has created a stir with her retirement announcement, which highlights aspects of her judicial service that left her concerned about the administration of the civil courts in Cook County.
Chicago Appleseed has a long history of working with the courts, to improve deficiencies identified by stakeholders, as well as a firm belief that judges, administrators and other stakeholders can and should work together to bring innovative programs to the courts for the benefit of both the court and the people who are brought into the system and to ensure that the courts are administered optimally to promote competent, fair, prompt and effective handling of cases at all levels of the system.
Judge Pethers writes about dissatisfaction in the high-volume, low prestige courtrooms and with handling evictions and debtor-creditor cases with litigants living in poverty. We have heard frustration with these courts from a number of stakeholders concerned with equity, access and justice, as well as stakeholders concerned with judicial excellence and efficiency in courts administration. We believe it is incumbent upon judges who regularly see injustice or systemic problems in their courtrooms to work with other judges, the court administration and stakeholder agencies to identify and implement solutions to those problems. Although the Office of the Chief Judge ultimately administers all the courts, reforms start with individual judges within the divisions.
For instance, Judge Kenneth Wright, presiding judge in the Municipal Division where Judge Pethers served, has implemented a pro bono program for younger law firm associates to represent pro se litigants in those fender bender accidents she references with insurance company lawyers on the opposite side from unrepresented parties. We see great potential to go further and implement alternative dispute resolution approaches in those courtrooms or employ specially trained administrative law judges to handle the cases, as is done in some jurisdictions.
We would also suggest exploring a court-based legal services program for those courts, similar to proposals we have made for the domestic relations courts. Modeled on programs in family courts and landlord-tenant courts in California, New York and Washington DC, court-based legal services go beyond help desks to provide unrepresented parties with an “attorney for the day” or offer full day workshops to help litigants draft court documents and prepare for hearings.
Chicago Appleseed is working with coalition partners—such as the Chicago Council of Lawyers, the law firm of DLA Piper, LAF, and the Office of the Chief Judge—to convince the Illinois Supreme Court and Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts to bring digital court recording into municipal courtrooms. These cases often conclude without a full record of proceedings because no court reporter is present. The lack of record inhibits or outright prohibits an appeal in many cases. With digital court recording, court reporters can be brought in when necessary to create an official record, preserving appellate rights and access. The coalition has identified volunteer lawyers ready to take on these appeals.
So much could be done to improve our court system to make it fairer as well as more effective. In addition to expressing dissatisfaction, it Is necessary for judges and practitioners to explore reforms.