2002 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary (cont.)

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts serves as the central support agency for the administration of the federal court system. One of the Administrative Office’s key priorities has always been to secure adequate funding for the Judiciary from Congress. As I noted above, the fiscal year 2003 budget process has been a difficult one, and it still has not been resolved. Despite the efforts of Judge John Heyburn, II, chair of the Judicial Conference’s Budget Committee, Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham, his staff, and many others, the Judiciary, like most of the federal government, is currently operating under a continuing resolution. Because there continues to be uncertainty over the level of funding that will be provided to the Judiciary in 2003, agency staff are closely monitoring funding issues.

Since 1985, over $5 billion has been appropriated for 75 courthouse projects. Eleven additional projects totaling more than $300 million are likely to be funded by Congress in 2003 based on last year’s request, and 26 buildings will be requested by the Judicial Conference this year for fiscal year 2004. Despite this level of success, there is still a significant backlog of projects. Administrative Office staff and the Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities have revised the way projects are prioritized in the Judicial Conference’s five-year courthouse construction plan to ensure that the most critically needed projects are considered by Congress.

This past year, a primary focus of the Administrative Office was to enhance court security and emergency preparedness. The Administrative Office created court security and emergency preparedness Web sites to provide timely security-related information to the courts, it broadcast security-related and emergency preparedness programs over the Federal Judicial Television Network and provided numerous briefings for judges and court managers. With the help of an independent consultant and the courts in New York, a continuity-of-operations model plan was produced to assist courts nationwide in developing their own individual plans. The model plan lays out steps to be taken to safeguard the welfare of Judiciary employees and the public and to ensure that essential functions and activities can continue and that normal functions can resume as quickly and safely as possible.

Director Mecham has spearheaded the decentralization of administrative and budgetary authority to the courts, and implemented modern automated systems to meet changing needs of the courts and their users. The delegation of management authorities from the Administrative Office has given courts considerable flexibility regarding the expenditure of funds and the hiring of personnel. Last year, a Management Oversight and Stewardship Handbook was published and training on management oversight was provided to chief district judges and chief bankruptcy judges. This year, a companion program for court executives was launched. In addition, a number of actions were taken this year to strengthen internal controls, including revising policies regarding contracting and procurement, property management, travel and transportation, time and attendance, and the appropriate use of government equipment, including information technology.

Another key Administrative Office responsibility is developing, implementing, and supporting new systems and technologies for the courts. A significant project underway is the continuing implementation of case management/electronic case files systems, which began in the bankruptcy courts in 2001. These systems will provide appellate, bankruptcy, and district courts with both a new case management system and the ability to manage electronic case files. The Administrative Office also completed installation of a new national electronic mail system, which includes a security feature that allows a sender to encrypt an outgoing message so it may only be read by the intended recipient. An automated jury management system has now been implemented in district courts and a new case-management system for probation and pretrial services offices has been installed in more than 20 districts.

The Federal Judicial Center

The Federal Judicial Center is the federal courts’ statutory agency for education and research. A few highlights of its work in 2002 include:

Public understanding of the judicial process: Its interactive Web site, "Inside the Federal Courts," available at www.fjc.gov, helps federal court employees, as well as the media and citizens of this and other countries, understand the Judicial Branch’s structure and operation. An 18-minute video, An Introduction to the Patent System, is now available for judges who wish to show it to jurors to help explain patents and the patent process. Bar associations are making copies available to lawyers and the public.

Education for federal judges and court personnel: In 2002, at least 16,600 federal judge and support staff participants received orientation and continuing education through over 300 national, regional, and local seminars, and an estimated 7,500 viewed FJC programs on the Judicial Branch television network. These, along with publications, Web-based programs, and video and audiocassettes covered topics as diverse as redistricting, mediation, scientific evidence, federalism, law and the Internet, cyber terrorism, and supervision of sex offenders. (The Center also provided six programs for over 850 federal defenders, assistant defenders, and their staffs.)

Judicial Ethics: Two publications provided guidance to judges and law clerks: Recusal: Analysis of Case Law Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 & 144 and Maintaining the Public Trust: Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks. The Center, with the assistance of Administrative Office staff, provided a report requested by the chair and ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on chief judges’ public orders under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980.

Technology in the litigative process: At the request of a Judicial Conference committee, the Center is assessing the Conference’s Criminal Case Files Pilot Program to identify whether on-line availability of criminal case files might pose special dangers to witnesses and others. The Center’s courtroom technology project, which last year produced Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A Judge’s Guide to Pretrial and Trial (with the National Institute for Trial Advocacy), this year began an analysis of the perceived need for increased use of videoconferencing in federal criminal proceedings and the possible impact on trial rights.

Civil litigation: A range of projects is in place to help a Conference advisory committee determine how, if at all, the federal rules should regulate discovery of information and evidence in digital form. Requests of other Conference committees led to assessments, currently underway, of class action filings, and of court orders to protect release of information about settlements.

Alternatives to traditional litigation: To help federal court alternative dispute resolution administrators implement the 1998 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, the Center is producing an ADR manual, model referral orders and other forms, model local rules, guidance for selecting and training ADR neutrals, and questionnaires for evaluating ADR programs.

Interjudicial relations: Pursuant to statute, the Center staff worked with the Department of Justice to assess the effectiveness of the State Justice Institute, a private non-profit organization that Congress established to improve justice in state courts. The Center presented seminars or briefings for 522 foreign judges and officials representing 81 countries. More specific assistance included a two-day seminar for representatives of the Mexican Instituto de la Judicatura and the Canadian National Judicial Institute, a follow-up to the September 2001 judicial exchange in Mexico that I led, and collaboration with the Center for Russian Leadership at the Library of Congress on a series of exchange programs for Russian judges and law professors. (The Center does not use its own funds for these activities’ direct costs.)

New director: U.S. District Judge Fern M. Smith has announced her intention to return to San Francisco next July, when she completes four years of service as the Center’s director. Judge Smith has been an able and dedicated director and on behalf of the federal Judiciary, I thank her for her exceptional service. The Center Board, which I chair, will announce the selection of a new director in February.