Court Leader's Advantage Peter C. Kiefer

March 28, 2024, A Question of Ethics Conversation

Join Kevin Bowling as we discuss the ethical issues surrounding the burgeoning topic of courts’ use of artificial intelligence (AI).  Kevin discusses a definition of AI and specifically generative AI, existing practical uses in the courts, some misuses of IA, the need for policy and data governance, ethics issues, and the need for transparency to promote public trust and confidence.

 Kevin also publicly acknowledges the work of Roger Rand and Casey Kennedy, the entire Joint Technology Committee, as well as gives a sneak peek of the, soon-to-be-released, NACM AI Guide.

 

Moderator

 Kevin Bowling, Retired Circuit Court Administrator, Ottowa County, Michigan

 

Joining in the Conversation   

 Courtney Whiteside Director, Municipal Court, St. Louis, Missouri

Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Officer; First Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Erika Schmid, Supervisor, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon

Stacy Worby: State Jury Coordinator, Alaska Court System, Anchorage

May 21st Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Although they are not universally accepted, court self-service centers can help prepare self-represented litigants to navigate the exotic terrain of the courtroom.  They can also expedite court proceedings and weed out inappropriate arguments.  Less obvious but equally as important, the information these centers provide helps boost the public’s trust and confidence in the courts. We well know that the public’s perception of courts has been woefully lagging over these last several years.      

  A basic tenet of self-service centers, in fact, a tenet of all public-facing court staff is “we cannot give legal advice.”  Yet this prohibition is more nuanced than it
first appears.   There are a host of questions that seem more procedural than legal.  Questions many self-represented litigants may not even know enough to ask about.  How much should courts tell litigants? How much information should courts volunteer even if the litigants don’t know to ask?  This month we are going to look at what courts can, do, and should tell litigants.

 This episode presents several situations in which self-represented litigants often find themselves.  These are situations that do not immediately appear to involve giving legal advice.  Rather they seem, on their face, procedural.  But they are obscure enough that only individuals who have been in the system might know their implications.      

 Today’s Panel

 Nathan Devries, Supervising Attorney, Self-Help Services Unit, Superior Court, San Bernardino, California;

Robby Southers, Managing Attorney for the Self-Help & Dispute Resolution Center, Franklin County Municipal Court in Columbus, Ohio;

Jena Elsnes, Program Manager, Minnesota Judicial Branch’s Self-Represented Litigant Program;

Danielle Trujillo Court Administrator for the Municipal Court, Littleton, Colorado

January 25, 2024, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode

Welcome to the latest episode of A Question of Ethics
Conversation.  The topic for this discussion is Organization Fairness.  The October 26th, 2023, Question of Ethics Conversation hosted by Samantha Wallis, brought up
many interesting questions.  One set of questions revolved around the concept of fairness.

We are all dedicated to fairness and take it seriously, Canon1.3 of NACM’s Model Code for Court Professionals speaks to fairness.  It reads that the court professional makes the court accessible and conducts his or her business without bias or prejudice. The Model Code actually mentions Fairness nine different times.

Fairness, however, is subjective. Everyone has their own
idea of what is fair.  What I consider fair may not be the same as how you see things. What are the perceptions of fairness in an organization, particularly a court organization?

Employees often express perceptions of fairness, with which we, as managers, might disagree. Although not all employees hold these perceptions, they are common
enough that it might be instructive to ask if we, as managers, can craft responses that can convince employees of a different view of fairness.  Can we come up with something more than just saying “the organization has determined the following policy is fair, the topic is not
up for debate.”

This Conversation recounts three specific perceptions that some employees have. The panel will discuss if there is some sort of response that could persuade employees of the validity of a different concept.  In essence, is there a response that might change “hearts and minds?”   

·        
Perception 1

A manager needs to be able to perform the desk work of every employee he or she manages. If he or she cannot, that manager has no right to conduct performance
reviews of the employees.

·        
Perception 2

Managing employees is just using common sense. 
There is no great skill involved in management.  It is ridiculous that courts pay exorbitant salaries to managers for just using their common sense.

·     
Perception 3

The employee’s manager is not the employee’s friend.  If an employee gets into trouble at work and they need an advocate.  The manager will not save them.

 

Today’s Moderator

Peter Kiefer: Host of the Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Series
Today’s Panel

 

Samantha Wallis: Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer; First Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Stacy Worby: State Jury Coordinator, Alaska Court System, Anchorage

Rick Pierce: Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

 Join the Question of Ethics Conversation held after the Ethics Subcommittee meetings every fourth Thursday of the month at 2:00 ET.

 

Email us at: ethics@nacmnet.org

April 16th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

It may have started with the advent of no-fault divorce in the 1970s.  But the numbers of litigants representing themselves in court has regularly increased year after year.  This fact has presented a challenge for the community and for courts.  People pursuing legal matters in court and who have limited legal experience are at a decided disadvantage.  They are at greater risk of ending up with an unfortunate (or maybe even a disastrous) outcome.  Likewise, unschooled self-represented litigants in a courtroom can be time-consuming and lead to uncomfortable situations for litigants, judges, and court staff.

  As a result, many courts around the country have created centers to assist self-represented litigants in pursuing their cases and appearing in court.  The presence of court self-service centers is a mixed bag.  Not all courts have them and the centers themselves can range from the very modest to the very extensive.  This month we’re going to look at self-service centers.  Some questions we are looking into include:

·  What do the varieties of centers look like?

·  Are the costs of running them worth the benefits?

·  What are the criticisms of the centers and what is the response?

· What advice do our panelists have for courts considering starting a center and for courts that already have one?

Today’s Panel

Angela Polk, Supervisor of the Legal Resource Center for the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon

Kristi Cox, Chief Deputy County Clerk for the 44th Circuit Court in Howell, Michigan

Salvador Reynoso Managing Attorney for the Self-Help Services Unit of the Superior Court in San Bernardino, California

Robby Southers Managing Attorney for the Self-Help and Dispute Resolution Center, Franklin County Municipal Court, Columbus, Ohio

March 19th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

In April of 2022, we hosted a podcast episode on “The Great Resignation.”  At the time large numbers of employees were resigning, or (after being furloughed for some period) were deciding not to return to work.  The assumption back then was that this was a temporary phenomenon. Once COVID receded, people would return to work, and things would get back to normal.

 It is now a year and a half later.  COVID is receding, (or at least we think it is). Yet many courts still struggle with staffing shortages.  And this is not just limited to courts.  The World Bank has predicted that over the next decade, the number of people of working age in the U.S. (between 15 and 65) will decline by over 3 percent. This is a prospect that courts will find increasingly challenging.  This month we’re going to look at ongoing staff shortages and the battle courts are having to recruit new talent. 
Not every court is short-handed; not all positions suffer from chronic vacancies.  On the other hand, I can’t
think of a court administrator who has not told me their court struggles to find court reporters, interpreters, and IT staff.

Today we are going to delve into several questions:   


 Who is struggling to hire new employees?  Are there types of employees that are more challenging to recruit?
Has your court experienced operational challenges due to staff shortages?
What are job candidates asking for these days regarding working conditions?
Are you exploring new ways to recruit employees?

  Today’s Panel

        
Audrey Anger: Assistant Court Administrator for the City of Olathe, Kansas

Danielle Trujillo: Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Littleton, Colorado

Dana Bartocci: Human Resources & Development Director, Minnesota Judicial Branch,
St. Paul, Minnesota

MiHa Kapaki: Court Administrator & Probation Director, Grays Harbor District Court, Montesano, Washington

Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Officer, 1st Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

 Leave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org

February 20, 2024, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has spawned numerous questions, both practical and ethical.  These are questions that courts are going to have to grapple with in the near future, including:

 
Given the complexity of AI algorithms and the tens of thousands of data points used for training, can we reasonably expect that a human reviewing AI results would actually uncover bias or uncover anything significant?

  
Our court system is designed to move in a slow and deliberate fashion to render decisions; AI is evolving at breakneck speed. Can we afford to wait years for courts to answer questions about AI if it is changing by the month? 

     
AI uses data as training to make better decisions in the future.  Since it does not publicly reveal sensitive or confidential information about individuals, are privacy concerns about AI irrelevant?

 
Automated chatbots can save time, save money, and provide a sympathetic ear for litigants who want to talk about their case.  But do folks who call into self-service centers really want to talk to an automated electronic voice even if that voice gives good sound answers?

  
Will AI be a savior to rescue us from the drudgery of boring repetitive work or is it an existential threat to our way of life?

 

Here to discuss these questions are:

Kevin Bowling: retired Court Administrator for the Circuit Court in Ottawa County, Michigan

Roger Rand: Information Technology Manager for the Multnomah County Circuit Court, in Portland, Oregon.  Roger is also on the NACM Board of Directors

Casey Kennedy: Director of Information Technology, for the State Office of Court Administration, Austin, Texas

Alan Carlson: retired Court Administrator for the Superior Court in Orange County, California

Stacey Marz: Administrative Director for the Alaska State Court System in Anchorage, Alaska