Area highlights include:
• William J. Clinton Presidential Library
• Clinton School of Public Service
• Arkansas Arts Center
• Mosiac Templars Cultural Center
• Museum of Discovery
• River Market District
• Arkansas Repertory Theater
• Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site
• Statehouse Convention Center
• Arkansas Governor’s Mansion

THEME: The Times They Are A-Changin’
This important center of the civil rights movement will set the stage for our conference theme. In one of the many relevant and interesting conference sessions, we’ll visit historic Central High School (pictured on this flyer with the “Little Rock 9”) and hear about the courts’ pivotal role in advancing civil rights in the United States.

ONLINE REGISTRATION: You can register for NASJE 2013 online. Register for the conference now.

LODGING: Little Rock Marriott
The conference hotel is the Little Rock Marriott (formerly the Peabody Hotel)

Little Rock Marriott (formerly the Peabody Hotel)
Three Statehouse Plaza Little Rock, AR 72201 map it
Hotel Direct Phone: 501-906-4000

The deadline to reserve your hotel lodging at the group rate is July 16, 2013. After July 16, you may need to pay the full lodging rate. You are responsible for booking your own lodging at the Little Rock Marriott. Please make sure to confirm the conference lodging rate of $129.00 per night.

• To reserve by phone, please call 501-906-4000 (mention “NASJE” to receive the conference rate of $129.00)
• You can also register for your hotel room online at the group rate

The Little Rock Marriott provides complimentary shuttle service to and from the airport.

L to R: Nevada Chief Justice Michael Cherry, Justice Kristina Pickering, and Justice Mark Gibbons at Lincoln County High School in Panaca, Nevada

Since 2003, at the urging of Justice Mark Gibbons, the Nevada Supreme Court has been hearing cases at high schools throughout the state. Panels, usually made up of three of the seven Justices, have traveled to a number of rural areas, conducting hearings that usually have a connection to that specific region, in an effort to allow the general population and students to see how the court functions.

“I talked to my colleagues and said, ‘Wouldn’t it be great for high school students to see how courts work and explain how a Supreme Court is different than a Traffic Court?’,” Justice Gibbons said. “We figure it’s an encouragement to continue on with their education.

The court is run in a different fashion than it would be in Carson City. The Justices have allowed each attorney to explain their side of the case to the audience before proceeding with their arguments. The Justices also explain how the court functions, the court’s purpose, how they reach a decision, and what they write in their opinions for each case. Justices may also mold their questions to the local area or students, in order to add relevance to the questioning.

One high school government teacher told a local newspaper that she was excited to see the students actually able to process the curriculum first hand.

L to R: Chief Justice Michael Cherry, Attorney Christopher Arabia, Justice Kristina Pickering, Justice Mark Gibbons, and Attorney John Friel at Tonopah High School in Tonopah, Nevada

After a hearing at the Churchill County High School in Fallon, NV, the local paper ran an editorial stating, “This courtroom on wheels serves the citizens well by giving students and adults a better insight into the workings of the Nevada Supreme Court. We thank the justices for their contributions to the state and for enlightening our students and community on one aspect of the judicial system. Seeing a proceeding like this is definitely worth more than words in a textbook.”

Chief Justice Michael Cherry said, “The Nevada Supreme Court holds arguments at Nevada high schools for several reasons: to bring the court process to high school students helping bring civics and constitutional processes to life to allow students to witness their court system in action, to humanize the judiciary and judges by sharing stories of personal experiences and general information on decision making, to provide an opportunity for interaction between legal professionals and students in an educational manner, and to make tangible studied concepts such as judicial impartiality.”

In 1986, several events took place that reflected the culture and technology of the time: the Internet Message Access Protocol was designed, opening the door to the widespread use of email; Voyager completed the first nonstop circumnavigation of the earth by air without refueling; the first ten Rock and Roll Hall of Fame artists were inducted; and, The National Judicial College (NJC) offered a course entitled Dispute Resolution Skills (DRS) for the first time.

(L to R) Hon. Sophia Hall, Chair, NJC Board of Trustees; Hon. Sam DeSimone; Hon. William Dressel, NJC President

By and large, theories and practices relating to dispute resolution in the late 1970s and early 1980s focused on conflict management outside the courtroom. However, in 1986, court-mandated mediation and statutory arbitration were trending on the legislative front, models for appropriate alternatives to trial were emerging, and judges were hungry for information and tools. After a nationwide assessment of judges’ needs, the NJC determined that an ideal course would include information on the various modes of dispute resolution, setting up programs in courts, methods specific to case type, and judicial ethics implications. The resulting DRS course was so popular that in 1986, it was offered three times to a total of 141 judges.

As DRS gained momentum among the judicial community, a New Jersey judge named Samuel DeSimone (or “Big Sam” to his colleagues) adopted it and helped the NJC further refine the core competencies of dispute resolution skills for judges. “Big Sam was instrumental in bringing the judicial perspective to a topic area that on its surface, may appear to appeal to non-judicial practitioners,”said Joy Lyngar, Chief Academic Officer at the NJC. “Since its inception, the NJC has offered continually improved versions of the course thirty-eight times and has tailored the curriculum for state court judges, administrative law judges, and tribal court judges.”

Big Sam joined the distinguished ranks of emeritus faculty for the NJC in 2012 after 25 years of teaching. “DRS is a better course because of his vision and dedication,” said Lyngar.

Where once ADR stood for “alternative” dispute resolution (i.e., that which occurred outside of the courtroom), ADR is now thought commonly to stand for “appropriate” dispute resolution, whether in or out of court. No longer are the skills used for mediators or arbitrators outside of the courtroom setting. The skills that are required in practicing ADR are essential to a judge who finds him or herself needing to negotiate, conduct settlement hearings, refer to mediation, or one who chooses to become a private or state-appointed arbitrator once he or she leaves the bench. As the course continues to evolve, the NJC hopes to honor Big Sam’s legacy by continuing to offer a Dispute Resolution Skills course that appeals to a judiciary invested in holistic problem-solving in a 21st century court system.

Katheryn Yetter, Esq., is the Academic Director for The National Judicial College. She can be contacted at The National Judicial College, Judicial College Building/MS 358, Reno, NV 89557; 775-327-8213; www.judges.org

Knowledge is of no value unless you put it into practice. – Anton Chekov

As judicial educators, we focus on how to present important topics to the judiciary in ways that not only inform them, but also assist them in changing practices which at times are deeply ingrained in judicial tradition and legal practice. When considering how to teach procedural fairness, Washington state judicial educators searched for a way that extended beyond the traditional conference plenary session so commonly used in our state. We sought to do more than inform, but also to convince people to change.

Adult learning theory teaches that adults learn better when they see both the extrinsic and intrinsic value of what they are being taught, when the topic is relevant to their work, and when they get to practice what they are learning. We also know that chunking a topic into easily digestible pieces and spreading learning out over time helps. This article describes a recent learning series on procedural fairness executed using a blended model in Washington State, following those adult learning precepts.

Procedural fairness concerns the public’s perception of how they are treated by the judicial system. Studies have shown that the perception of unfair or unequal treatment in the courts is the most important factor in public dissatisfaction with the American legal system (Burke and Leben, 1). If court users feel that they have been treated fairly, they are more likely to accept the outcome of their case, even if they lose. Judges and lawyers are concerned with fair legal outcomes—did the defendant get what he deserved? The public, on the other hand, is more concerned with whether they were treated fairly from a procedural standpoint—was the decision arrived at using fair methods? Professor Tom Tyler describes four key components to procedural fairness:

1. Voice – Court customers expect to be able to express their viewpoint, or their side of the story.
2. Neutrality – Court users believe that decisions are made consistently based on sound legal principles by unbiased decision makers.
3. Respect – Individuals are treated with dignity and their rights are protected.
4. Trustworthy authorities – Authorities care about the individuals before them and listen carefully to what they say. They address litigant’s needs by explaining decisions. (Burke and Leben p. 6)

The need for procedural fairness begins at the courthouse door (or on the courthouse web page) and permeates many aspects of the administration of the courts, as well as what occurs in the courtroom. Thus, things like good signage, a useful website, and helpful staff impact procedural fairness, as does what actually occurs when the defendant stands in front of a judge during hearings and trials.

For more information about procedural fairness, what it means and how it affects courts, please go to the Procedural Fairness website.

In order to understand how a blended learning model can be applied to the topic of procedural fairness, it is important to know what blended learning is. According to the Sloan Consortium, blended learning consists of courses or programs in which 30%-79% of the learning is offered online while the rest is face-to-face (Allen, Seaman, and Garrett, p. 5). The online portions and the face-to-face portions can be combined in whatever order best fits the learning objectives of the program. Online segments can be webinars, self-paced elearning, web-based research and activities, wikis, blogs, email and much more. Face-to-face portions can be lectures, workshops, seminars, discussion groups, or experiential learning modes such as field trips and interviews. For a longer discussion on a blended learning model for the courts, see Smith, N., Blended Learning: Seven Lessons Learned through Experience in the August 2012 NASJE News.

In Washington, we sought to put together a blended learning series that incorporated many best practices for adult education. Based on input from our diversity committees, our education committees and two Supreme Court commissions, we knew the material was important and relevant to our intended audience of judges and court administrators. We looked for methods to chunk the content, spread the learning out over time, offer opportunities to practice what was being taught, and provide practice activities to be able to self-assess progress. Ideas for the learning series are based on the model Context-Challenge-Activity-Feedback, as explained by Ethan Edwards at Allen Interactions (Edwards, p. 6). In short, and in the context of eLearning, Edwards counsels instructional designers to provide a relevant, work-related context for the learning design so learners’ interest is heightened. He suggests providing realistic challenges for learners, and interactive activities to allow them to practice solving the challenges. Finally, he advises providing feedback that offers guidance to the learner, not just “you’re right” or “incorrect, try again.”

To accomplish these goals and decide on learning modes that provided the necessary context, challenge, activity and feedback, several questions needed answers.

1. In what order and in what time frame should the various parts of the program be presented. (context)
2. What groups in the court community would serve as resources and planners for the program? (context)
3. Who could be the respected expert(s) to meet judicial officers face-to-face and teach the topic? (context)
4. What did judicial officers need to know prior to the face-to-face session, if anything? (context)
5. How would judicial officers and court administrators know how they were doing with respect to procedural fairness? How could they measure their current and future status? (activity, feedback)
6. What concrete steps could judicial officers take to be able to see themselves through the public’s eyes in the courtroom? (activity)
7. Could judges be persuaded to take concrete steps? How could they be persuaded of the value of the steps? (challenge)
8. How could judges measure their progress in their courtrooms? (activity, feedback)
9. How could judges and court administrators measure progress in their courthouse? (activity, feedback)

One question we did have to answer was how to fund the project. The Washington Courts Blended Learning Project, a grant from the State Justice Institute, provided funds.

We found a willing expert and advocate in Judge Kevin Burke of Hennepin County Courts in Minnesota. Judge Burke has conducted research on the topic and written a white paper and other articles about it, as well as speaking nationally. His passion for the topic served as an inspiration for the Washington Courts educators involved in the project.

With Judge Burke on board, we were able to enlist the help of the Washington Supreme Court Minority and Justice and Gender and Justice Commissions. The Diversity and the Education Committees of the District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association and the Equity and Fairness Committee of the Superior Court Judges’ Association all climbed on board the project train early in the process. As it turned out, the judges on these committees really took a big risk later in the project to make it real to the audience, as you will see later. Washington Court Education Services educator Nancy Smith and several support staff completed the project team. The importance of buy-in from the various commissions and committees cannot be overstated in establishing the legitimacy of the project.

We decided on a four- or five-part learning series:

• Part One: Read the Burke/Leben white paper called Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction.
• Part Two: Complete a Web-based Self-Assessment to measure procedural fairness throughout the court house.
• Part Three: Attend a face-to-face session at spring conferences with Judge Burke and Washington judges as faculty.
• Part Four: Participate in a webinar: Procedural Fairness: Real Steps for Real Improvement; facilitated by Judge Burke, with faculty from Washington State.
• Part Five: Repeat the web-based self-assessment to monitor progress. This part is optional, but encouraged.

To begin the series and establish a context for the topic, a lesson on the basics of procedural fairness was essential. We chose Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction, a white paper of the American Judges Association written by Judge Burke and Judge Steve Leben as our basic “text.” Reading this article would help judges to understand what is meant by procedural fairness and how good techniques in this area could impact not only their workload, but also compliance with court orders, while also increasing public satisfaction. The article also cites sociological research on the topic, thus providing credibility about the value of the concepts put forth. We provided all judges and administrators with a hyperlink to the article and included a printed copy in conference materials.

In addition to having basic definitions and concepts, we decided it would be helpful for judges and administrators to have a good tool to assess where they stood with regards to procedural fairness in their courtrooms and court houses. We searched for a means to allow and encourage them to measure their effectiveness. Through the assistance of a court educator in California, we found the answer in the report published in 2011 by the Center for Court Innovation on research conducted on procedural fairness in California: PDF. We are grateful to Ms. Diane Cowdrey and Mr. Douglas Denton of the California Administrative Office of the Courts for sharing this report.

Besides a wealth of information, tools, techniques and suggestions, this report contains a self-assessment for court leadership. We loved the idea of a self-assessment as an activity that would provide court officials with a means to see how procedural fairness impacts many aspects of their courts, as well as to get feedback about their effectiveness. They could also quickly see their strengths and weaknesses. The problem was persuading court officials to actually complete the survey.

In order to make it as easy as possible for the court officials, we worked with our web designers to transform the paper assessment into an online tool, accessible at any time, easy to complete, and providing instant results. Another benefit realized from this method was that the data from the survey fed a spreadsheet from which analysis could be made and shared. The online self-assessment became part two of the project, with the hope that it could also be a part five for officials willing to reassess themselves at a later date. The assessment gathered information on date of completion and court level, but was otherwise totally anonymous.

Over 200 judicial officers and court administrators completed the self-assessment, although not everyone completed it before the face-to-face session which constitutes part three. In addition to providing a contextual activity with feedback for participants, results of the self-assessment were used to guide the focus of part four of the learning series, a webinar, as will be explained below. Thus, parts one and two of the learning series provided in-depth background and context for the learning, as well as serving to inform judges of their own level of procedural fairness through an interactive activity.

With the way prepared for him, Judge Burke presented face-to-face sessions at two judges’ spring conferences as part three of the series. In April, he presented a 2-hour session to Washington’s Superior Court Judges and Administrators, an audience of close to 200 people. In June, he returned to the state to present to the District and Municipal Court Judges at their conference. We videotaped the June presentation so that anyone who missed the live conference session could also view it when they wished to do so. In June, the presentation lasted three hours and included a listening self-assessment for 175 audience members.

While Judge Burke is an important and well-known figure nationally, one of our goals was to involve local judges in the conference sessions to provide relevance. In order to do this, two judges from the Equity and Fairness Committee of the Superior Court Judges’ Association and two judges from the Diversity Committee of the District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association agreed to be videotaped during an entire half day while presiding in their courtroom. We shared the videotapes with Judge Burke, who subsequently worked with each of the four judges about what he saw in their videos and what techniques they could use to improve their fairness. During the live presentations, Judge Burke shared video of judges in other states, and led discussion and provided commentary on these videos. Next, the local judges testified as to how videotaping helped them, and what changes they planned to improve their procedural fairness. After the live session, judges had a solid understanding of what procedural fairness is, why it is important, how it can make a difference for them in their jobs every day.

The two conference sessions reached over 350 judges and court administrators and were highly rated for content and effectiveness. We also found that many more judges completed the online self-assessment after hearing the live presentation.

The goal of the fourth part of the learning series, the webinar, was to provide concrete steps for improving procedural fairness in areas Washington judges identified as being less developed in their courts. It would also serve as a reminder of what they had previously learned, and add to their knowledge of the topic. Finally, it would suggest activities for judges and administrators to undertake in order to get more feedback about their progress on procedural fairness in both court room and court house. In preparation for the webinar, we analyzed the results of the self-assessment to identify where Washington judges believed they needed the most help.

Table 1: Self-assessment analysis of responses for all courts completing the survey.

KEY: W=weak, D=Developing, S=Strong, Total=total number of respondents, %S=Percentage of respondents indicating a strong response.

The table shows the nine areas of self-assessment as developed in the California Courts report. As can be seen, Washington judges considered themselves and/or their courts weaker in three areas, as indicated not only by the number of weak responses, but also by the lack of strong responses. These areas are Understanding Court Proceedings, Ensuring a Voice in the Court, and Limited English and Culturally Diverse. Due to time constraints, faculty for the webinar decided to focus in on the first two areas of need; another webinar is planned for the third area.

During the webinar, we showed clips from the Washington judges’ videotapes, and the judges themselves provided commentary related to the specific clips they chose. We also offered concrete activities that judges and administrators could do to gather feedback and make improvements in each of the focus areas. We polled the audience during the presentation to encourage them to seriously consider being videotaped and to discover their opinions on relevant topics. We also asked for their feedback using chat about steps they have taken or would like to take in their jurisdictions.

Sixty-five people attended the live webinar, called Procedural Fairness: Real Steps for Real Improvement, and another 80 have viewed the recording. According to polling taken during the webinar, 82% of participants said they are “very likely” to videotape themselves in order to see what they look like and how they sound to court users, while 18% said “maybe.” No one said they definitely would not be videotaped. Participants also shared many ideas they thought would work in their courts to improve procedural fairness. Participants overwhelmingly rated this webinar high. In applicability to their jobs, likelihood of implementing what they learned, increase in content knowledge level, and content delivery, over 90% agreed/strongly agreed in every case.

While our polling and evaluations indicate high interest and satisfaction with the learning they experienced about procedural fairness, we have no way of knowing how much change has actually occurred, or is occurring, because of participation in all or part of the learning series.

We do know several things:

1. We reached many judges and court administrators through our efforts. Over 400 people participated in one or more of the components of the process.
2. We did much more than simply present a conference session. We provided several concrete activities with opportunities for participation, discussion or feedback to help make the learning more real. We chunked up the content and spread it out over a five month timeframe.
3. There is a “buzz” around Washington Courts on the topic. Anecdotally, the author has heard judges from several different court levels talking about incorporating aspects of procedural fairness into sessions at the Washington State Judicial College. In addition, several conference sessions are planned for spring 2013 that tie into the topic—judges have stated this while planning the sessions, and as a reason for having the sessions. “This will tie in well with what we learned last year about procedural fairness.”
4. Concepts integral to procedural fairness are appearing in plans for reorganization of the Washington State Judicial Branch.

Will this learning series improve the public’s perception of procedural fairness in Washington’s Courts? One can always hope so. If nothing else, evaluations show that participants found the series relevant to their work, and they tell us they will apply what they learned in their jobs. If they follow through, positive change will occur.

References

Allen, I. E., Seaman, J. and Garrett, R. (2007) Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States, Sloan Consortium.

Burke, K. and Leben, S. (2007) Procedural fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction. The American Judges Association.

Edwards, E. (2012) Creating e-Learning that Makes a Difference, http://info.alleninteractions.com/?Tag=CCAF.

Tyler, T. R. (2006) Why People Obey the Law.

Porter, R. (2011) Procedural Fairness in California: Initiatives, Challenges, and Recommendations. Center for Court Innovation, New York, NY and Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts, San Francisco, CA.

Smith, N. (2012) Blended Learning: Seven Lessons Learned through Experience, NASJE News, http://news.nasje.org/blended-learning-seven-lessons-learned-through-experience/.

NASJE member Nancy Smith recently moved from the Washington State AOC to the Pima County Superior Court in Tucson, AZ where she has assumed the position of Field Trainer.  In this position, Nancy is responsible for providing training to six courts of limited jurisdiction in Pima County on topics such as the case management system, legislative changes, ethics and more. She has worked in judicial branch education since joining the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in September 2008 as a Court Education Professional. She has worked in education for most of her career, including 14 years as a teacher at the community college and secondary levels in Tucson. Prior to moving into court education, she assisted the Deans of Curriculum at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA planning and producing the curriculum for Evergreen’s full-time programs. In a past life, she spent four years as an Army Intelligence Officer.

 Ms. Smith has produced education events for judges and court staff at all levels and in several different formats, most recently adding eLearning to her repertoire. She completed a certificate in Electronic Learning Design and Development at the University of Washington. She has organized a variety of webinar and self-paced learning modules for different court groups. In 2009, Ms. Smith was awarded a grant from the State Justice Institute to establish a model for blended learning (combining e-learning with face-to-face learning) for Washington Courts. The Procedural Fairness learning series was the last project for the grant.

 Ms. Smith has broad experience in multi-cultural education, and has traveled widely in the United States and abroad. A French linguist, she earned her bachelor’s degree from the College of William and Mary in Virginia, and her master’s in French Language and Literature from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium. She is a certified community college and secondary teacher. She also studied Spanish at the University of Arizona. When not at work, she enjoys travel, gardening, and a variety of outdoor activities. 

Educating and training court personnel is every bit as important as educating our judges, but often it gets less airtime. So NASJE News is launching a new feature category exclusively dedicated to education for court personnel, starting with this article.

In preparation for the launch, I surveyed NASJE membership to learn about the types of education we collectively provide to court staff. The survey received 35 responses representing 24 states and the District of Columbia, the province of Ontario, and two national agencies. Many thanks to all of you who took the time to respond.

Nearly 89% of respondents indicate they support the education and training of court staff. However, the percentages of budgets dedicated to court staff range from less than 5% to 100%, so it’s clear that the degree to which court staff are supported ranges widely. Whether courts are unified or non-unified also impacted responses. Approximately 59% of respondents indicate they work in a unified court while 41% do not. Additionally, some respondents only support a small portion of court staff, such as a specific job type, rather than all staff; and some respondents are dedicated to supporting court staff only while their peers are assigned to support judicial officers.

Slightly more than half of the respondents indicate their court has mandatory education for all court personnel. Some of these requirements seem to be supported by statute while others are court policy. Some of the mandatory education includes ethics, discrimination, diversity, harassment, new employee orientation, and supervisory skills. Primarily, though, requirements seem to be based on the model of continuing education hours per year. The reported required hours ranges from 6 to 20.

Sometimes, requiring mandatory education for staff can be complicated when staff work under labor contracts. Twenty-seven percent of respondents indicated some portion of their staff is unionized.

Distance education is getting a lot of play in state courts for a variety of topics. Seventy-two percent of respondents have used synchronous distance education, such as webinars and phone or video conferencing, and asynchronous education, such as on-demand computer-based training or videos. However, small group and conference-style live education is still very much the core of most education programs.

The topics of interest to court employees vary widely, from computer skills to customer service, from CPR to court security. The good news is that court staff personnel are getting a wide variety of educational opportunities in many states!

Over the next five years, respondents feel that a variety of technology topics will become increasingly important, from learning to use an e-filing system to understanding how social media can impact the court system. Many people commented that electronic delivery of content will also become important as the time and money available for traveling for live training dwindles.

Comments also indicate education that helps increase retention and succession planning may be forefront in educators’ minds, such as management skills, motivation and wellness, respectful behavior, diversity, onboarding, etc. There is a strong leaning toward increasing an employee’s breadth of knowledge – understanding why they do what they do and how it is important – rather than just on specific, task-oriented knowledge and skills learned in great depth.

As a disclaimer, I must say that the observations made in this article are based solely on the responses to the survey and may or may not be representative of state courts in general. In fact, one truth this survey did reveal is that state court education programs run the gamut from well-developed to “barely there,” and while many courts are interested in similar topics, they may not be interested in them at the same time and may approach them in very different ways. The world of state court education is one of “wondrous variety.”

The raw data from the survey is available on the members-only website for your review. If you did not get the chance to complete the survey, it will remain open at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WB5CDM3 for you to contribute to our data collection. Updated copies will be added to the members-only site periodically.

The next article in this series will examine how state courts educate non-law trained staff on concepts of government, civics, and the role our court system plays in society. If you are willing to discuss the challenges you’ve faced in this area, relate your experiences teaching these topics, or share course content you’ve developed to address this need, please contact me at *protected email*

Jennifer J. Wadsworth serves as an educator in Iowa’s Judicial Branch. As part of a small Education Division, she does a little bit of everything. Her focus lately has been on eLearning design and on-demand facilitation.

Jennifer graduated from Iowa State University with an M. Ed. in Adult Education, Curriculum Design, and Training & Development. While in college, she served on the board of the student chapter of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) for several years and later served as president of the Hawkeye Chapter in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. As president of the Hawkeye Chapter of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), Jennifer and the board designed, obtained funding for, and taught a Train-the-Trainer seminar for the community to promote the use of Adult Education principles in local businesses.

During her fifteen years in the education field, she has worked as a trainer for a variety of organizations, including software companies, business coaching groups, educational institutions, and both state and federal government. Though she frequently teaches technology skills, she has also designed new employee programs; taught communication, management, and change leadership courses; and written numerous newsletter articles, job aids, and other training documents.

In a year that marks the 150th anniversary of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 50th anniversary of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech, the 2013 Law Day theme is particularly apt: “Realizing the Dream: Equality for All.”

Law Day was started in 1958 by President Eisenhower to celebrate the rule of law and to educate citizens on how law and legal processes support American freedoms, with an emphasis on the role of courts in our democracy. Law Day is May 1.

The American Bar Association’s Law Day website, www.lawday.org, provides judicial branch educators with some great tools for community outreach. The site is well-organized and provides easy access to numerous resources including the Law Day 2013 planning guide, reflections on the theme and strategies for incorporating it, downloadable artwork, resources and ideas for programming and promotion, and activities for teachers and students. A particular strength of the information provided is the wide range of ideas and tips for reaching different audiences.

Talking points, lesson plans (for all ages), quotations, and film and print resources focus in particular on the serious issues of human trafficking and gender equity.

Ideas for activities that are well-suited to the courts include court tours, information fairs, mock trials, judge “shadowing,” career panels, and book/movie discussions. In addition to the web-based tips, ideas, and resources, the ABA also offers individual assistance through Chandra Fitzpatrick, outreach manager for the ABA Division for Public Education, at (312) 988-5720 or *protected email*

As it says on the ABA website: “Law Day, May 1, 2013, will provide an opportunity to explore the movement for civil and human rights in America and the impact it has had in promoting the ideal of equality under the law. It will provide a forum for reflecting on the work that remains to be done in rectifying injustice, eliminating all forms of discrimination, and putting an end to human trafficking and other violations of our basic human rights.”

Kelly Tait is a college instructor and communication consultant with eleven years of experience in judicial branch education. Her areas of expertise include procedural fairness, courtroom communication skills, communicating effectively with non-legally trained court participants, faculty development, and avoiding bias and perceptions of bias. She is Vice President of NASJE and can be contacted at *protected email*

Read the article here: PDF.

Some of the latest stories (as of this writing):

• Revised Probate Court Standards Now Available
• 5th Appellate District of California Streamlines Civil Case Records Transfer
• Senate Confirms New SJI Board Member
• Texas Addresses Alternatives to Incarceration for Mentally Ill Offenders and Improves Outcomes

Like a mechanical timepiece, judicial branch education (JBE) programs have many moving parts.  For a JBE program to be effective, these moving parts must complement one another and move together: facilities must nurture a learning environment, content must meet participant professional needs, materials must be clear and engaging, faculty must be prepared, and participants must show up at the right place at the right time, ready to learn.  As the Globe Theater manager was fond of reminding young Shakespeare during moments of trepidation in the film Shakespeare in Love, “it always comes together in the end.”  Indeed it does, but never without the effort of a team.

Regardless of whether you are a member of a team, a formal manager, or an informal leader, it is important to understand how teams can be formed and enhanced to produce the most effective JBE programs.

First, a group is not necessarily a team.  Perhaps the most distinguishing difference between the two is mutual accountability.  Whereas members of a group can contribute to the outcome of the group through individual action, a team relies on mutual accountability and coordination among members to produce a collective outcome.

One of the seminal works about teams, The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization (2003) by Katzenbach and Smith, defines teams as “a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.”

To help us better understand the difference between a team and a group, let’s examine a group of attendees at a training session.  These individuals are assembled for a common purpose and likely assessed on their ability to learn key pieces of content, but the group effectiveness is a function of individual performance.  Can this group become a team?  You bet!  Assign the group an activity requiring interaction and upon which their performance will be assessed as a whole, and the group can build mutual accountability around a common purpose to function as a team.  In this respect, interactive classroom activities not only enhance learning but can also build team skills directly transferrable to the court workplace.

So is your judicial education department a team or a group?  Future Manager’s Briefcase articles will examine how teams form and which characteristics make teams effective.

Additional Reading on the topic of teams:
Katzenbach, Jon R. and Douglas K. Smith. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003. (link to Amazon – http://amzn.com/0060522003)

Katzenbach, Jon R. & Smith, Douglas K. (1993). The Discipline of Teams. Harvard Business Review: Best of HBR 1993. 2005. Reprint R0507P. (link to HBR – http://hbr.org/2005/07/the-discipline-of-teams/ar/1)

Whether elected or appointed, the privilege of sitting on an American judicial bench is unique. Judges are central to applying the law of the land with evenhanded fairness and, thereby, providing stability and justice in society. And, certainly, there is the gratification of helping to assure access for all to the courts and to bringing closure in individual cases. These are but a few of the privileges of the bench.

Yet, for all its opportunities and rewards, we must acknowledge that judges experience challenges as well. For many, these include personal security risks, the impact of ever-changing technology, judicial isolation, and, conversely, sometimes living in a fishbowl of sorts.

It is in light of these challenges that this newsletter seeks serve you. We hope Judicial Balance helps you navigate the sometimes exhilarating and sometimes treacherous waters of being a judge, and makes it easier to find and enhance your fulfillment in serving the public as a judicial officer.

– Brent E. Dickson, Chief Justice of Indiana 

Begin With the End in Mind
While the legal profession is exhilarating, we must consider the end of our career before the end is nigh. Susan Koenig challenges us to reflect on the legacy of our life’s work: how we have helped others; our relationships; our succession plan; and even our gratitude. Please see, “Celebrating the Seasons of Our Life: A Lawyer’s Winter,” by Susan A. Koenig, The Nebraska Lawyer, January/February 2013. http://nebar.com/associations/8143/files/TNL-0113i.pdf

People Smarts
Our level of “people smarts” – the way we relate to others – is perhaps the single greatest contributor to personal happiness and success. High social intelligence also yields stronger families and communities by focusing on commonalities between individuals. Thankfully, people skills can be cultivated. Please see, “How to Develop Your People Smarts,” by Susan K. Minarik, Positive-Living-Now, Feb. 2013. http://www.positive-living-now.com/how-to-develop-your-people-smarts/

Sharing the Pants
This book explores the unique challenges of marriage with a lawyer. A collection of essays by the husbands of women lawyers, Sharing the Pants focuses on work/life balance from the male perspective and seeks to help couples find that elusive balance. Please see, Sharing the Pants: Essays on Work-Life Balance by Men Married to Lawyers, by Jacquelyn Hersh Slotkin and Samantha Slotkin Goodman; Vandeplas Publishing (2009). Widely available. Review by The National Jurist, admin., June 2010. http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/married-lawyers-share-pants

Just Do It
You need a vacation once in a while. Time away from work is a critical part of the work/life cycle. To remain constantly at work diminishes your judgment and leads to a host of other issues, ranging from poor health to damaged relationships. Please see, “How’d You Spend Your Summer Vacation?” by Martin Cole, Minnesota Bench and Bar, Aug. 2012. http://mnbenchbar.com/2012/08/howd-you-spend-your-summer-vacation/

The Lighter Side
Despite being well-qualified for the bench, now-retired Judge J. Samuel Johnston recalls his surprise at the parade of humanity – with its dramas and foibles – that appeared before him. He recounts hilarious stories from the courtroom, reminding us that humor can get you through nearly anything. Please see, Why Judges Wear Robes, by Judge J. Samuel Johnston, Retired; Warwick House Publishing, First Ed. (2009). Widely available. Review by Dawn Chase, Virginia Lawyer, April 2010. http://www.vsb.org/docs/valawyermagazine/vl0410_book.pdf

(Don’t) Do It All
Achieving perfection is impossible, yet many of us can’t resist the challenge. Professional women often struggle to “have it all,” and to do it all alone. Yet, women remain underrepresented in the highest echelons of the workforce. Can we achieve our personal and professional goals simultaneously? Please see, Why Women Should Stop Trying to Be Perfect, by Debora Spar, The Daily Beast, and Sept. 2012. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/23/why-women-should-stop-trying-to-be-perfect.html