Court Leader's Advantage

Peter C. Kiefer

Coming innovations, thought-provoking trends, questions that matter to the court community, these and more themes are covered by the Court Leader’s Advantage podcast series, a forum by court professionals for court professionals to share experiences and lessons learned.

  1. 2d ago

    Justice by Design: Can We Achieve Open, Standardized Court Data?

    Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode originally released July 15, 2025 From the Archives: We’re revisiting this important conversation about the National Open Court Data Standards (NODS) project. Although this episode was originally released in July 2025, the challenge of creating accessible, standardized court data remains just as important today.  One of the major challenges facing state trial courts today is the disturbing lack of accurate national statistical data. Beneath the surface of our justice system lies a troubling truth: we often don’t know, we can’t know, what’s really happening. How many cases do our courts handle? What kinds? How efficiently? Without reliable data, we are left to make educated guesses in the dark. This absenceof clarity is not accidental, it is the result of a decentralized system of justice. Some of the results include:   Lack of Uniform Court CodingWhat one court calls a “hearing,” another might call a “conference.” These differences seem small, but they add up to a patchwork of mismatched codes, formats, and definitions across jurisdictions. Limited Data Transparency and Public AccessEven when data exists, it is often locked behind arcane systems, hard to find, and harder to interpret. Hurdles with Data SharingDisconnected technologies, legacy systems, and inconsistent standards create silos of information making collaboration truly a challenge. Inability to Measure Performance and OutcomesWithout standardized metrics, we can't track how long cases take, how they’re resolved, or whether justice is truly being served. It’s like trying to navigate with a map that constantly changes shape.  Addressing this challenge is the National Open Court Data Standards project (NODS). It is a collaborative effort led by the National Center for State Courts, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the Joint Technology Committee.By creating shared standards for collecting, sharing, and interpreting court data, NODS shines a light in the shadows, allowing courts to operate with greater transparency, efficiency, and consistency.  This month, we are looking at the National Open Court Data Standards project. We explore how this effort will transform access to court data for researchers, policymakers, the media, and the public.  Today’s Panel:  The Honorable W. Brent Powell, Judge on the MissouriSupreme Court. T.J. BeMent, Court Administrator for the 10th Judicial District Court in Athens, Georgia Laura Ritenour, Caseflow Management Specialist for the Administrative Office of the Courts, Phoenix, Arizona

    Justice by Design: Can We Achieve Open, Standardized Court Data?

  2. Jul 20

    When the Court Scale Tips: AI, Innovation, and Trust

    July 21st 2026, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode 106 AI promises greater efficiency, lower costs, and better public service—but it also raises concerns about privacy, bias, job displacement, and accountability. This panel explores where courts should draw the line.Artificial intelligence is currently having a difficult moment. Hardly a day goes by without headlines highlighting a new AI concern. Consider just a few of the issues currently dominating public conversation:  • Corporate leaders are investing billions in AI while simultaneously announcing layoffs, fueling fearsabout job displacement and economic insecurity. • Communities across the country are opposing the construction of new data centers due to concernsabout their massive consumption of water and electricity. • Educators and researchers worry that AI has weakened students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills by making information and answers available almostinstantaneously. • Privacy advocates warn that AI enables governments, employers, and corporations to monitor individuals more closely than ever before, raising concerns about the emergence of a surveillance society. • Others fear that AI-generated videos, voices, images, and documents have become so convincing that distinguishing fact from fabrication is almost impossible. As a result, AImay undermine trust in elections, journalism, and public institutions.  These concerns are real and deserve careful consideration.Yet they often overshadow the remarkable accomplishments AI has already achieved. Consider just three examples: • Google's DeepMind developed an AI system that analyzes mammogram images that, in some cases, detect breast cancer earlier and more accurately than expert radiologists, reducing both false positive and false negative results. •AI-powered wildfire detection systems now analyze live camera feeds, satellite imagery, weather data, and vegetation conditions to identify wildfire smoke within minutes.  This saves valuable time for emergency first responders and ends up protecting lives and property. •Arizona State University has implemented AI-powered educational tools that provide personalized learning experiences through conversational tutors, simulated learning environments, and on-demand academic support.  AI is also becoming increasingly embedded in courtoperations. It can summarize documents, draft reports, assist with legal research, identify patterns within large datasets, and automate a wide range of administrative tasks. Even courts that have not formally adopted AI are likely employing staff who are already experimenting with these tools in theirday-to-day work. This reality raises a number of difficult questions. As with many technological revolutions, the central challenge is not simply deciding what AI can do. The central challenge may be deciding what AI should do. How much responsibility should be delegated to algorithms? Where must human judgment remain indispensable? And how can courtsstrike the proper balance between innovation, efficiency, fairness, and accountability? Today’s Panel  TJ BeMent Court Administrator, 10th Judicial Administrative District in Athens, Georgia Rick Pierce Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Karl Thoennes Court Administrator, 2nd Judicial Circuit Court, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota Creadell Webb Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer, 1st Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Where should courts draw the line on AI? Email your comments or questions to CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org. Selected comments may be featured in a future episode.

    When the Court Scale Tips: AI, Innovation, and Trust

  3. Jun 16

    Justice by Algorithm? AI, Job Anxiety, and the Future of Courts

    June 16th, 2026, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode 105 When former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, real estate executiveGloria Caulfield, and music executive Scott Borchetta praised artificial intelligence during recent commencement addresses, graduates responded not with applause but with boos. For a growing number of Americans, especially younger workers entering the workforce, AI is no longer viewed primarily as a tool of innovation and opportunity. Rather, it is increasingly seen as a threat to jobs, economic security, and public trust. The concerns are multifaceted. AI's massive demand forelectricity and water raises environmental questions. Its capacity to generate misinformation and "hallucinated" facts raises concerns about public trust and the integrity of information. Most significant for Generation Z, however, is the fear that AI will fundamentally alter the job market andundermine economic security. Many technology leaders appear largely unmoved by theseconcerns. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has argued that fears of widespread job displacement are overstated. Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, contends that workers will not lose jobs to AI itself, but rather to workers who know how to use AImore effectively. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, has similarly predicted that AI will increase productivity, create new opportunities, and improve living standards rather than simply eliminate jobs. The public remains unconvinced. A March 2026 Quinnipiac University poll found that 70% ofAmericans believe AI will reduce the number of available jobs. Among Generation Z, concern is even more pronounced, with 81% believing advances in artificial intelligence are likely to decrease employment opportunities. These concerns are fueled by highly visible workforcereductions. In 2025, Amazon announced approximately 14,000 corporate layoffs while acknowledging that AI-enabled efficiencies played at least a partial role in workforce reductions.[i] UPS announced plans to eliminate 20,000 positions. While the main reason for the reduction in force was a pullback by Amazon, CEO Carol Tomé also cited efficiencies from implementing AI.[ii] Cisco reduced itsworkforce by more than 4,000 employees while increasing its focus on AI-driven networking and security products.[iii] For many workers the message is unmistakable: artificial intelligence means fewer jobs rather than greater opportunity. Courts have historically been cautious adopters of newtechnology, and artificial intelligence appears to be no exception. Yet courts also face chronic staffing shortages, budget constraints, growing caseloads, and increasing pressure to improve efficiency. State legislatures, funding authorities, and court leaders may soon begin asking whether AI can help courts accomplish more with fewer resources. This month, we examine the growing backlash againstartificial intelligence. Is it a temporary reaction or the beginning of a lasting shift in public attitudes? Are court professionals and the public prepared for the inevitable transition? [i]Variety, "Amazon Says It Will Lay Off 14,000 Corporate Workers, Citing AI" (October 31, 2025) [ii] Gulf News, "AI Job Cuts: Major Companies Replacing Humans with Bots in 2025" (February 21, 2026) [iii] PBS (October 28, 2025), “Despite reporting record quarterly revenue of $15.8 billion — up 12% year-over-year —Cisco announced layoffs representing less than 5% of its global workforce, as the company realigned around AI-driven growth” Today's PanelTJ BeMent Court Administrator, 10th Judicial Administrative District Athens, Georgia Rick Pierce Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Karl Thoennes Court Administrator, Second Judicial Circuit Court, Sioux Falls, South Dakota Creadell Webb Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer, 1st Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania

    Justice by Algorithm? AI, Job Anxiety, and the Future of Courts

  4. Jun 1

    The Disappearing Line: What are the New Ethics in an Era Where Nothing Is Neutral?

    Question of Ethics: A Conversation of Courts and Ethics: June 2nd Court Manager This episode of the Question of Ethics Conversation examines a fundamental ethical challenge facing court professionals today: how are their ethical responsibilities evolving inan age of social media with an increasingly politicization? Canon Four of the Model Code focuses on conduct that is unmistakably political: attending campaign rallies, canvassing for judges running for election, or advocating for ballot initiatives within the courthouse. We now operate in a landscape where nearly every issue is viewed through a political lens. Statements that once would have been considered civic, educational, or banal are now often interpreted as partisan. Today, they can trigger assumptions of perceived bias. At its core, Canon Four rests on a critical assumption: that court professionals can maintain a private sphere in which they exercise their First Amendment rights, separate from their official role. Nearly 40 years later, that assumption is severely strained. In an era defined by social media and the always-on visibility of the digital world, personal expression is no longer private. Opinions, political or otherwise, are broadcast instantly, permanently, and often without context. Anonymity isfragile at best. Even attempts to separate identities through pseudonyms or multiple accounts are increasingly common and increasingly ineffective.  This episode does not claim to offer definitive answers. Instead, it confronts the complexity of the moment and frames questions that court professionals and the professionitself, must now grapple with:         Can we, as court professionals, realistically be held accountable for navigating an ever-expanding universe of “political” issues, even down to opinions aboutcultural events or entertainment? ·              To what extent can we express our personal views without creating a perception of bias that undermines public trust? ·                                       How do we reconcile widely differing ethical standards across jurisdictions, roles, and court systems?    What emerges is not just an ethics question, but a question of professional survival and institutional trust. One possible path forward is not to attempt an ever-expanding list of prohibitions, but to shift toward practical, principle-based guidance. This could include developing best practices, strengthening commentary within the Code, and emphasizing leadership judgment, mentorship, and open dialogue.   Above all, the goal remains constant: to ensure that court professionals, regardless of personal beliefs, are perceived as fair, impartial, and worthy of the public’s trust. In a world where neutrality is harder to demonstrate, that responsibility has never been more important.On the CallToday: Creadell Webb, Chief Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Karl Thoennes, Court Administrator, 2nd Judicial Circuit Court in Sioux Falls, South Dakota Teshrie Kalisharan, Alternative Dispute Resolution  Coordinator for the 9th Judicial Circuit Court in Orlando, Florida Norman Meyer, Retired Clerk of Court for the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico Roger Rand, IT Manager for the Multnomah County Court in Portland, Oregon Nathaniel Mingo, Director of Court Services for the Municipal Court in Riverdale, Georgia Kelly Hutton, Deputy State Court Administrator for the North Dakota State Court System in Bismarck, North Dakota Access the episode by going to the NACM website podcast link: ⁠⁠https://www.nacmnet.org/podcasts⁠⁠ Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to: ⁠⁠ethics@nacmnet.org⁠ Join the Question of Ethics Conversation held after the Subcommittee meetings every fourth Thursday of the month at 4:00 pm ET.

    The Disappearing Line: What are the New Ethics in an Era Where Nothing Is Neutral?

  5. May 18

    Court Leader's Advantage 5/19/2026 Episode - Do We Need to Rethink Public Outreach?

    It seems there is a growing disconnect between courts and the public, which directly affects the public’s trust and confidence in our court system.  Judges and court staff routinely speak to the public. They frequently speak to small, targeted groups, such as business leaders, civic organizations, or students in schools. Thesepublic outreach campaigns reach dozens, if not hundreds, of community members.  At the same time, media voices reach thousands, even millions. The nightly news and programs such as Dateline,America’s Most Wanted, and 48 Hours shape how people see crime and our courts. These stories can often leave the impression that crime is rampant and that the courts are too lenient.  We, court professionals, often rely on data and statistics to explain the courts. In fact, crime today is lower than in the 1990s. Americans are far less likely to be victims of crime than 30 years ago. Violent crime specifically has fallen for the pastcouple of years. The FBI reported a 4.5% drop in 2024, with murder down nearly 15%.  The media, however, relies on storytelling, and in that they are experts. A well-told story is powerful and can be hard to counter. Paraphrasing the political consultant and communications strategist Frank Luntz, “a single compelling story can level a mountain of data.”  This month, we look at our courts and the struggle to control the narrative that describes the vital role our courts play in our society. We ask the questions, do we need to rethink how we communicate with the public? How do we reach a broader audience?   Today’s Panel Sean O’Sullivan, Chief of Community Relations for the Administrative Office of the Courts, in Dover, Delaware Darren Toms, Public Information Officer and Community Outreach Coordinator for the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in Cleveland, Ohio Paul Flemming, Public Information Officer for the FloridaOffice of State Courts Administrator, and more recently, the Florida Supreme Court.  Paul is also the current President of the Conference of Court Public Information Officers. Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to: CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org

    Court Leader's Advantage 5/19/2026 Episode - Do We Need to Rethink Public Outreach?

  6. Apr 20

    Court Leader's Advantage 4/21/2026 Episode: NACM Midyear: What Was Your Biggest Takeaway?

    The 2026 NACM Midyear Conference brought together court professionals from across the country. They came to share best practices, confront common challenges, and explore new ideas. The theme of the midyear conference Preserving the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence, connects to an important national milestone. In 2026, our nation celebrates its 250th anniversary.  This moment calls us to reflect on our justice system’s founding principles. It challenges us to recommit ourselves to those basic tenets. We, as court professionals, play a vital role in this effort. Every day, we ensure that our justice system is fair, accessible, and accountable to all. The midyear conference brought together both experienced leaders and emerging voices who care deeply about the future of our courts.  This month, we ask court professionals a simple question: What was your biggest takeaway from the 2026 NACM Midyear Conference?  We examine what court professionals can do to protect the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence at a time of unprecedented challenges.  These challenges raise fundamental questions about whether our justice system can live up to its ideals. They also come at a time when public trust in our institutions is already under enormous strain. Whether you are an experiencedadministrator or just beginning your career, this episode highlights the ideas and lessons that mattered most at the 2026 Midyear. It also sharpens our focus on what matters most to court professionals as we all move into the future.  Today’s Moderator  Tina Mattison Retired Deputy Court Administrator for the Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts in Tucson,Arizona and current lecturer at the Institute for Court Management.  Today’s Panel Sean O’Sullivan Chief of Community Relations at the Administrative Office of the Courts in Wilmingtn, Delaware Amanda Hammer Court Executive Officer for the Tenth Judicial District in Tucumcari, New Mexico, and Michael Cuccaro Executive Director of the Council of Judges in El Paso, Texas  Access the episode by going to the NACM website podcast link: https://www.nacmnet.org/podcasts Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to: CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org

    Court Leader's Advantage 4/21/2026 Episode: NACM Midyear: What Was Your Biggest Takeaway?

  7. Mar 16

    The Upskill Battle: Courts and Employee Career Development

    Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Series March, 17, 2026, Episode Career development is essential for both individual success and the long-term health of any organization. There are several obvious benefits to an organization having asolid career development program.  Improved Performance and Results When people keep learning, they get better at their jobs, they produce higher quality work, and are better problem-solvers. Increased Employee Engagement and Retention Employees feel more valued when they can see a future for themselves. They are more likely to stay and give their best. Organizations Can More Easily Adapt to Change Career development helps staff stay current with business trends and adjust to new roles. Why, then, do so many organizations, including courts, struggle to implement effective career development programs?  Competing Business Priorities Career development often feels less urgent than meeting case processing targets, struggling with budget shortfalls, and dealing with unexpected events such as high-profiletrials. Limited Time and Resources Career development takes staff time, money, and structure. All are scarce resources. Training budgets are often the first to be cut in tight times. Management Mindset Not all managers feel responsible for developing their people. Some may focus on employees just doing their jobs, or worry about losing strong employees to jobs elsewhere. Limited Internal Opportunities In smaller organizations, especially, there just aren’t many rungs on the ladder to the executive level.  This month, we are discussing courts and career development programs. Katie Hemphill wrote a terrific article in the Fall 2025 issue of the Court Manager. It explains why career development matters and how courts can build effectiveprograms.  Today’s Panel  Katie Hempill, Consultant and Retired Federal Court Administrator Aaron Burdick, Professional Development Manager for the Illinois Supreme Court Judicial College Juli Edwards-McDaniel, Curriculum Developer for the National Center for State Courts Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to: CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org

    The Upskill Battle: Courts and Employee Career Development

  8. Feb 28

    Reimagining Access to Justice: Should Courts Go More into the Community?

    Question of Ethics: A Conversation on Courts and EthicsMarch 4th, 2026 Courts stand at a crossroads between tradition andnecessity. On the one hand, we are guardians of legal boundaries, carefully distinguishing who may practice law and what constitutes legal advice. On the other hand, we are confronted with an undeniable reality: in many locationsaround our country, people with legal problems never reach the courthouse door, often because: Distance They live miles away from the courthouse or even any legal help Affordability They cannot afford to get the legal help they need  Recognition They do not even see their problem as “legal” or the courthouse as a place that can help.  As unmet legal needs grow, our community is asking courtsto do more, to do things differently, with fewer resources, and with fewer assumptions about how justice is accessed. These questions invite us to wrestle with uncomfortable issues. If non-attorney legal advocates are helping close critical legal gaps in selected areas around the country, is the currentlimitation on giving legal advice (Canon 1.7) still appropriate? Conversely, do some areas of law require stricter boundaries to protect the public? Can we continue to rely on courthouse-centered models, ormust courts extend their presence into the community in more sustained and meaningful ways? And as front-line staff increasingly become the first, and sometimes the only point of contact, how do we responsibly navigate that thin line between providing helpful information and giving permissible legal advice? Finally, this discussion challenges us to think about thefuture of the court’s workforce itself. Expanding non-attorney legal advisors raises questions not only about service delivery, but about professional identity, training, liability, and career development within the courts. Are we prepared to redefine roles, invest in training newskills, and accept a more flexible vision of how we as court leaders serve the public? The answers to these questions may shape not just access to justice, but the very role of courts in the communities we serve. In this episode, we examine the expanding roles of non-attorney advocacy and community-based services. We look at the evolving role of court staff to meet people where they are. We ask the question can we reimagine access to justice?  Today’s Panel Maggie Humm Executive Director of the Alaska Legal Services Corporation in Anchorage. Sarah Carver Co-director of the Alaska Legal Services Corporation’s Community Justice Workers Resource Center. Creadell Webb Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District Court, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Liz Rambo Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court, in Eugene, Oregon  Access the episode by going to the NACM website podcast link: ⁠https://www.nacmnet.org/podcasts⁠ Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to: ⁠ethics@nacmnet.org Join the Question of Ethics Conversation held after the Subcommittee meetings every fourth Thursday of the month at 2:00 pm ET.

    Reimagining Access to Justice: Should Courts Go More into the Community?
See All (123)

Ratings & Reviews

4
out of 5
11 Ratings

About

Coming innovations, thought-provoking trends, questions that matter to the court community, these and more themes are covered by the Court Leader’s Advantage podcast series, a forum by court professionals for court professionals to share experiences and lessons learned.

Information

  • Creator
    Peter C. Kiefer
  • Years Active
    2019 - 2026
  • Episodes
    123
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Peter C. Kiefer
  • Show Website
    Court Leader's Advantage

You Might Also Like