2 0 0 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

Creating the InfrastructureFor the New California Court System

CONTENTS

State of the Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2002 Year in Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Utilization of Judicial Resources . . . . . 17

Trends in Court Workload . . . . . . . . . . 22

California Judicial Branch . . . . . . . . . . 27

Mission and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Judicial Council Committees and Task Forces . . . . . . Inside back cover

2003 Annual Report

CHAIR

Hon. Ronald M. GeorgeChief Justice of California

SUPREME COURT

Hon. Marvin R. BaxterAssociate Justice of the Supreme Court

COURTS OF APPEAL

Hon. Norman L. EpsteinAssociate Justice of the Court of AppealSecond Appellate District, Division Four

Hon. Richard D. HuffmanAssociate Justice of the Court of AppealFourth Appellate District, Division One

Hon. Laurence Donald KayPresiding Justice of the Court of AppealFirst Appellate District, Division Four

TRIAL COURTS

Hon. Gail A. AndlerJudge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Orange

Hon. Aviva K. BobbJudge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Los Angeles

Hon. Eric L. Du TemplePresiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Tuolumne

Hon. William C. HarrisonJudge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Solano

Hon. Brad R. HillJudge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Fresno

Hon. Jack KomarJudge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Santa Clara

Hon. William A. MacLaughlinAssistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of

California, County of Los Angeles

Hon. Heather D. MorseJudge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Santa Cruz

Hon. Ronald M. SabrawJudge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Alameda

Hon. Barbara Ann ZúñigaJudge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Contra Costa

LEGISLATURE

Hon. Martha M. EscutiaMember of the Senate

Hon. Ellen M. CorbettMember of the Assembly

STATE BAR

Mr. Rex A. HeesemanAttorney at Law

Mr. David J. PasternakAttorney at Law

Ms. Ann Miller RavelCounty Counsel

Mr. Thomas Joseph Warwick, Jr.Attorney at Law

ADVISORY MEMBERS

Hon. Frederick Paul HornPresiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Orange

Ms. Tressa S. KentnerExecutive Officer, Superior Court of California,

County of San Bernardino

Ms. Susan NullExecutive Officer, Superior Court of California,

County of Shasta

Hon. Gregory C. O’Brien, Jr.Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Los Angeles

Mr. Alan SlaterExecutive Officer, Superior Court of California,

County of Orange

Hon. Patricia H. WongCommissioner, Superior Court of California,

County of Sacramento

SECRETARY

Mr. William C. VickreyAdministrative Director of the Courts

Published by the

Judicial Council of California

Administrative Office of the Courts

Office of Communications

455 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102-3688

415-865-7740

California Courts Infoline: 800-900-5980

The Judicial Council’s 2003 Annual Report summarizes

the achievements of the California Judicial Branch as

well as key trends in court workload and budget allo-

cations for fiscal year 2002. The online version of the

report contains numerous links to the California Courts

Web site (www.courtinfo.ca.gov) for more detailed infor-

mation. A companion publication, the Court Statistics

Report, provides detailed 10-year statistical caseload

and trend data on a wide variety of court business as

well as caseload data for each county.

Printed on recycled and recyclable paper.

© 2003 Administrative Office of the Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

Dear Friend of the Courts:At the close of a tumultuous yet highly productive

year, we are pleased to report continuing progress inrealizing the Judicial Council’s goals for the state’scourts. Ensuring fairness and access to justice for allCalifornians remains the measure of our success.

Of special note in 2002, the judicial branch wasgranted the responsibility for trial court facilities. TheTrial Court Facilities Act was the final step in therestructuring of our courts into an integrated state-wide judicial branch, strengthening our ability tomanage our resources prudently and in the bestinterests of the public. This act, combined with theimplementation of a statewide funding system andtrial court unification, leaves the judicial branch strate-gically positioned to meet the future, and to besthandle the very difficult challenges now confrontingour branch and our state. Despite the fiscal downturn,courts have continued to implement an assortmentof new initiatives to improve jury service, expandcourt interpreter services, and enhance the use oftechnology to expand public access, and to improveservices for self-represented litigants, particularly infamily court. Our progress and our plans have beenslowed as we grapple with unprecedented anduncertain budget constraints.

California’s judicial branch has responded coop-eratively and effectively to the challenges facing ourstate. We have reduced budget requests and absorbedreductions to date, while avoiding serious compro-mises to public access and to our core duties. Cali-fornia’s courts understand that further action on ourpart will be required—sacrifice as well as dedication.We continue to strive to accommodate calls for greaterreductions, ever mindful of our obligation to ensurethat we must fulfill our constitutional responsibilities.

The structural changes of recent years will beput to the test over the next few years, but withoutquestion they have placed us in a far better positionto cope with today’s challenges. We remain committedto using all the tools and resources available to us andconfident that we shall be able to build on the firmfoundation we have created.

In partnership with our sister branches of gov-ernment, we have taken remarkable strides towardimproving court access, modernizing court adminis-tration, increasing accountability, and preserving ourbranch’s independence. Our courts, with the assis-tance of remarkable individuals at every level, haveconfronted and overcome grave challenges in the past.We are confident that, working together, we shallcontinue to succeed in administering justice fairly,accessibly, and independently for all the people ofCalifornia, whom we are privileged to serve.

2003 AN N U A L RE P O RT 1

STATE OF THEJUDICIARY

MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR

Ronald M. George William C. Vickrey

Ronald M. GeorgeChief Justice of California andChair of the Judicial Council

William C. VickreyAdministrative Director of the Courts and

Secretary of the Judicial Council

In 2002, California’s court system consolidatedgains from two historic reforms of the previousdecade—the state’s assumption of trial court

funding and legislation unifying the trial courts ineach county. The year 2002 was the first in whichcourts could proceed as part of an integrated branch.A statewide infrastructure, including legal and humanresources services, branch-managed facilities, andthree Administrative Office of the Courts’ regionaloffices, helps to enable the judicial branch to continueto provide high-quality services to the public despitethe effects of the state’s severe economic downturn.

The year produced bold legislation—mostnotably the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002—thathas brought the judicial branch new opportunities

to improve court infrastructure and administration,provide more rational management of vital branchresources, and ultimately, more easily fulfill its con-stitutional obligations to the public by ensuring auniformly accessible and well-run court system.

During the year, these goals were advanced bythe judicial branch assuming new responsibility forimplementing the transfer of court employees fromthe county to court supervision and by reclassificationof court interpreters as court employees. Also signif-icant was Assembly Bill 2321, which establishes theJudicial Council as the courts’ governing body forthe purposes of the Tort Claims Act. The bill sets fortha procedure for the council to use in responding totort claims arising out of the activities of a judicial

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A

A high school student addresses

the Supreme Court at a special

public educational session in

Fresno in October.

2

2002 YEARIN REVIEW

branch entity or judge and clarifies theprocedure for claimants to follow in filingsuch claims.

In addition to new programs, the yearsaw the continued expansion of alterna-tives to traditional court proceedings tomeet the needs of particular litigants.These include domestic violence courts,peer courts for teenagers, juvenile mentalhealth courts, and drug courts. Collabo-rations during the year among membersof the bench, bar, and law enforcementresulted in a rapid and effective implemen-tation of Proposition 36, which mandateda new approach to handling nonviolentdrug offenses. To meet the needs of theincreasing number of litigants withoutcounsel, the Judicial Council pursuesprograms that provide more meaningfulaccess to the courts. In response to tech-nological advances and public interest,the council developed policies to allowaccess to court records on the Internet,and it continues to examine issues involv-ing the scope of such access and thesometimes competing interests of privacyand public access.

LOOKING AHEAD

The judicial branch must now move for-ward in an uncertain funding environ-ment, recognizing that it must addresscurrent and future budget reductionswithout compromising its constitutionalobligations. To meet these responsibilitiesand help courts accommodate the limitsof their resources without substantiallyaffecting the rights of the public, thebranch is reviewing a variety of options,such as further organizational restructur-ing and raising of court fees. Moreover,

the Judicial Council and the Administra-tive Office of the Courts (AOC) have madesignificant strides to improve the branch’sfiscal accountability through the develop-ment of systems that ensure better man-agement of branchwide resources. Thesemeasures are described in the next sectionof this report.

Despite the formidable challenges pre-sented by the unprecedented state budgetdeficit, efforts to improve court adminis-tration by working in collaboration withall members of the judicial branch, otherbranch agencies and justice system part-ners, the community, and the legislativeand executive branches will continue todominate the courts’ priorities in 2003and the years ahead. Milestones reachedin 2002 are presented below.

Improved TrialCourt InfrastructureFACILITIES

The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002ranks among the most significant courtreforms in state history. By shifting gov-ernance of California’s more than 450court facilities from the counties to thejudicial branch over the next four years,the act furthers the transformation oftrial courts into a fully integrated, state-operated system overseen by the JudicialCouncil. The act sets forth proceduresand conditions for the transitional periodand beyond. It provides for a newly cre-ated Courthouse Construction Fund to beused for the acquisition, rehabilitation,and construction of court facilities.

32003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

HOW CALIFORNIA ISREBUILDING ITS JUDICIALBRANCH INFRASTRUCTURE

With the goals of bringing greater

efficiency to court operations and

improving public access to court services,

four major reforms have enabled the

creation of a new and stronger infra-

structure for the state’s judicial branch.

■ By consolidating all funding decisions

at the state level, the Lockyer-Isenberg

Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 did

away with the bifurcated system

under which courts were subjected to

two separate budget processes—at

both the county and the state level.

■ In 1998 California voters passed a

constitutional amendment that pro-

vided for voluntary unification of the

superior and municipal courts in each

county into a single countywide trial

court system.

■ In 2001, the Trial Court Employment

Protection and Governance Act man-

dated the transfer of 21,000 court

employees from the counties to the

courts.

■ The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002

(Sen. Bill 1732) initiated a shift in

governance of more than 450 court

facilities from the counties to the

state over a four-year period.

A study of California’s court facilities bya statewide task force created by the Legis-lature reported last year that more than 90percent of court facilities require signifi-cant repair, maintenance, or renovation.

JUDGES AND COURT EMPLOYEES

LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE JUDICIAL

BRANCH The Judicial Council adoptednew rules of court to carry out the coun-cil’s responsibility, under a new statute,to act on claims against a judicial branchentity or a judge. The rules set out thespecific procedures by which claims affect-ing the council, the AOC, the courts, andthe judicial officers and employees will behandled. The rules describe the responsi-bilities of the Office of the General Counsel(OGC) and the trial courts regarding claimsand lawsuits, and clarify the council’sobligation to defend and indemnify thejustices and employees of the Courts ofAppeal and the Supreme Court, as well asjudges and employees of the trial courts.

HR PARTNERSHIPS With the enact-ment of the Trial Court Employment Pro-tection and Governance Act, effectiveJanuary 1, 2001, courts became inde-pendent employers. Few courts have theinfrastructure needed to take over thisnew role from their counties, a role thatincludes classification and compensation

systems, payroll-processing systems, ben-efits plans, workers’ compensation insur-ance, applicant testing programs, and labornegotiation expertise. To assist the courtsduring their transition to independentemployers, the AOC is working closelywith courts across the state to design,develop, and implement several statewideinitiatives. Following are highlights of2002 achievements.

■ Trial Court Classification and Com-pensation Study/Program The study,designed to enhance and update theUniform Model Classification Planand conduct a statewide classificationand compensation review, establishedmarket-based salary ranges and pro-vided management tools to helpestablish consistency across the courtsin classification and associated salarystructures.

■ Trial Court Benefits Study/ProgramThe outcome of this study has been acomprehensive and competitive healthand benefits program alternative fortrial court employees who could belegally excluded from county benefitprograms. On January 1, 2003, fourcourts adopted the Trial Court BenefitsProgram. More courts are expected tofollow.

■ Trial Court Workers’ CompensationStudy/Program This study produceda self-insured workers’ compensationprogram administered by a third party.The program includes performancestandards for vendors. Courts are beingencouraged to move to this program onJuly 1, 2003, with full participation byJuly 1, 2004.

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A4

“What message is conveyed about the value we place on

justice when the structures in which it is rendered lack basic

amenities? Our judicial system does not need, want, or expect

palaces. But it does deserve facilities that are secure, well

maintained, and adequate to serve the public’s needs.”

—Chief Justice Ronald M. George

■ Trial Court HRMIS Study A compre-hensive study of human resources needsin the trial courts is under way. It willassist the judicial branch in determin-ing the best HR service-delivery modelfor the courts. Implementation of an effi-cient statewide judicial branch humanresources delivery model supported bya human resources management infor-mation system (HRMIS) will assist courtswith the cost of processing each HRtransaction.

■ Trial Court Master Payroll ServicesContract To support those courts thatno longer receive payroll services fromtheir counties, a master agreementwith Automatic Data Processing, Inc.,for interim payroll services was nego-tiated. The master agreement providesexcellent service, consistent and fairpricing, and a choice of options andproducts to meet the individual needsof each court.

■ Trial Court Fast Track Training Fasttrack training was implemented toprovide timely and relevant trainingand information to human resourcesprofessionals and those performingHR duties throughout the trial courts.During 2002, ten courses weredesigned, developed, and delivered in33 classes to approximately 761 trialcourt employees.

■ Trial Court Interpreters RecruitmentTo ensure access to justice, the courtsneed qualified court interpreters. In2002, a statewide recruitment campaigncalled “One Law, Many Languages” usedradio, television, and print media toincrease the number and availability

of qualified interpreters inthe trial courts. As a result,during 2002, there was atenfold increase in visits tothe interpreter portion ofthe judicial branch Website, a fourfold increase(over 2001) in telephoneinquiries, and a 20 percentincrease in the number ofcandidates testing forinterpreter qualification.

■ Court Interpreters BecomeEmployees Starting in 2003,the courts will extendoffers of employment toqualified interpreters underthe Trial Court InterpreterEmployment and LaborRelations Act. Certified andregistered interpreters whohave previously worked forthe courts as independentcontractors will be eligiblefor employment as courtinterpreters pro tempore.

SUBORDINATE JUDICIAL OFFICERS

At its final business meeting in 2002, theJudicial Council reaffirmed its supportfor proposed legislation that would per-mit the conversion of subordinate judi-cial officer (SJO) positions to judgeshipsin state trial courts. The goal is to helpcourts achieve a balance between judgesand SJOs and to allow them to assignmore judges, rather than SJOs, to per-form the work of superior court judges.

JUDICIAL SERVICE ADVISORY COM-

MITTEE This new committee was estab-lished in 2002 to develop and make rec-

52003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

“One Law, Many Languages,”a statewide court interpreterrecruitment campaign,dramatically increasedinquiries about opportunitiesin the courts.

ommendations for improving the admin-istration of justice in the area of judicialretention, which includes benefits, com-pensation, and retirement; “quality ofjudicial life” resources and programs;and mentorship programs.

NEW POLICY FOR ASSIGNED JUDGES

California retired judges who wish tocontinue serving in the Assigned JudgesProgram were asked to reapply to theprogram and certify their compliancewith a new policy that prohibits assignedjudges from engaging in privately com-pensated dispute resolution activities.Retired judges were required to maketheir election to stay in the program byJanuary 31, 2003, for calendar year2003. The policy is designed to avoidany public perception of a potential con-flict of interest created by a judge sittingon assignment in the public courts andconcurrently providing private servicesto litigants for a fee.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING Train-ing opportunities for court employees atall levels have been expanded in both thenumber and subject matter of new pro-grams, which also include both manda-tory and voluntary courses. Educationalopportunities and communications alsowere extended to an increased number ofthe state’s 21,000 court employees bycreation of AOC-TV, launched with aseries of regular training, new employeeorientation, and news programs—manyof them live and interactive. They arebroadcast from AOC headquarters to 183downlink sites throughout the state.

NEW REGIONAL OFFICES The AOCopened two new regional offices, one based

in Sacramento that provides expandedAOC services to courts in the northernand central regions of the state andanother in San Francisco that serves theBay Area and northern coastal regions.The first of these three regional officeswas established in Burbank in 2001.

Progress in CourtTechnologyPUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS The Judi-cial Council approved statewide rules ofcourt that expand public access to elec-tronic trial court records, effective July 1,2002. Similar to federal court policies, thenew rules permit broad electronic accessto most civil records while restricting

remote Internet access in criminal mat-ters and other cases that may containsensitive personal information.

TRIAL COURT E-FILING Newly adoptedstatewide rules of court will standardizeelectronic filing and service of docu-ments in state trial courts. Electronic fil-ing (e-filing) is not mandatory at thistime. The rules recognize that not allcourts currently have the resources tomove to a paperless environment. Judi-cial Council initiatives to upgrade localtechnology infrastructure are under way.The new rules, effective January 1, 2003,allow payment of filing fees online withcredit cards and also authorize the serv-ing of a notice by electronic means.

COURTS OF APPEAL E -F I L ING Anew pilot program in the Court of Appealfor the Second Appellate District is eval-uating the usefulness of e-filing in civilappeals. The court invited counsel to vol-untarily file electronic records and elec-tronic briefs, in addition to the requiredpaper copies of such documents.

CALIFORNIA CERTIF ICATION Exist-ing case management systems used bythe trial courts are now being certified toensure that they meet court requirements.Over 15 courts now are moving to theCalifornia-certified versions of these sys-tems. In addition, the 10 counties in thestate’s Southern Region are working withthe AOC to develop a California-specificsystem capable of meeting the needs of thelargest superior courts in the state and yetavailable for use in any other size court.

TRAFFIC LINKS California drivers whoget traffic citations now can pay theirtickets online by clicking on the state’s

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A6

On February 14, the Center for JudicialEducation and Research presented “Iden-tifying Recusal Issues,” its first educationalsatellite broadcast to the appellate courts.The broadcast panel included (left to right)Justice Thomas E. Hollenhorst, FourthAppellate District; Justice Rebecca A.Wiseman, Fifth Appellate District (mod-erator); Frederick Ohlrich, Clerk of theSupreme Court; and Justice Judith Lyn-nette Haller, Fourth Appellate District.

My California site, a joint effort by thestate’s judicial and executive branches.The site provides links to the five statesuperior courts that currently permitcitations to be processed online: Alameda,Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, andVentura Counties. These counties accountfor almost half of California’s 21 milliondrivers.

“We are pleased that the judicial andexecutive branches of government havejoined forces to give California drivers theability to take care of their traffic citationsfrom any personal computer with Inter-net access,” said Justice Joanne C. Parrilli,chair of the Court Technology AdvisoryCommittee, the committee responsiblefor the online payment initiative.

Other Advances inCase ProcessingNEW RULES The Judicial Council revisedthe rules of court governing civil casemanagement, effective July 1, 2002, pro-viding an integrated, up-to-date set ofrules designed to promote best practicesand simplify court procedures. A manda-tory case management statement alsowas adopted to provide consistency inrequired forms. Finally, a comprehensiveupdating, simplification, and reorganiza-tion of all the rules of court is under way.

COURT REPORTING The new 17-member statewide Reporting of theRecord Task Force is working to addressimportant issues concerning the creationof the verbatim record in state trialcourts. Issues for study include standard-

ization of court reporting systems, uni-formity of transcripts, the maintenanceof and access to transcripts via electronicor paper media, and the current shortageof court reporters.

Enhanced Qualityof JusticeJURY REFORMS

ONE DAY OR ONE TRIAL Over the lastseveral years, California courts have beenimplementing several fundamental juryreforms, including one-day or one-trialjury service. Created by a Judicial Councilrule of court in 1999, under which jurorsappear for one day at the court andreturn only if they are selected to serveon a jury, the system became statewide(with the exception of the Superior Courtof Alpine County) when the SuperiorCourt of Los Angeles County put it intoeffect in 2002.

MODEL JURY SUMMONS The AOCrefined a model juror summons formaimed at improving juror compliancerates. Currently, the state’s 58superior courts use severaldifferent forms with varyinglevels of clarity and effective-ness. In 2003, the new model form willbe tested in pilot counties and distrib-uted for comment before becoming final.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS Another juryreform under way is the development ofcivil and criminal jury instructions writtenin language that is more user-friendlythan the terminology that is used in juryinstructions now. A task force sought

72003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

California Courts Juror

Information Web site:

www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury

input from the bench and bar and is nowfinalizing the simplified civil jury instruc-tions and verdict forms with publicationscheduled for the fall of 2003. Draft crim-inal instructions will also be distributedfor public comment that year.

JUROR EDUCATION The state’s firstofficial juror orientation video, IdealsMade Real: The Jury, along with informa-tional brochures, debuted in all Califor-nia jury assembly rooms during JurorAppreciation Week (May 13–18, 2002).

ETHICS STANDARDS FORARBITRATORS

At the direction of the Legislature, thecouncil in 2002 adopted ethics standardsfor arbitrators in contractual disputes.These comprehensive standards addressconcerns about the fairness of privatedispute resolution processes and weredeveloped with the participation ofexperts on arbitrator ethics drawn fromevery facet of the legal and arbitrationcommunities. In November, a federal courtdismissed a challenge to these ethicsstandards filed by the New York StockExchange and the National Associationof Securities Dealers’ Dispute ResolutionCorporation, thereby upholding a requestby attorneys for the Judicial Council. TheAOC will continue to work with all par-ties to ensure the standards are soundand achieve legislative objectives.

EQUAL ACCESS

Through its Equal Access Program, theJudicial Council expanded the numberof court-based self-help centers by estab-lishing five model self-help centers and

eight partnership programs with legalservices agencies, and by providing seedmoney for courts to implement localaction plans for serving self-representedlitigants.

The AOC also developed a resourcelibrary for courts to share self-help mate-rials and completed a “plain language”revision of the California Courts OnlineSelf-Help Center at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/.

In addition, the AOC is working toimprove customer service in the trialcourts by developing broadcast trainingand materials for court clerks on the dif-ference between providing legal informa-tion and giving legal advice.

STANDARDS FOR DEATH PENALTY

COUNSEL For the first time in California,the Judicial Council adopted minimumstandards as a rule of court to govern thetrial courts’ appointment of counsel forindividuals facing capital charges.

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A8

The California Courts self-help Web site has over 1,000 pages oflegal information and receives over 2 million hits per month.

92003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

The Judicial Council’s 2002 legislative

package was carefully crafted to seek

administrative improvements that were

important yet economical. Among the

key measures that succeeded, in addition

to those already mentioned elsewhere

in this report, are:

■ COURT SECURITY Senate Bill 1396

(Dunn) requires each of California’s 58

trial courts to prepare and implement

a court security plan, and requires

each sheriff or marshal to prepare and

implement a law enforcement security

plan. Co-sponsored with the State

Sheriffs Association, the bill clarifies

allowable and unallowable state costs

for court security and requires the

Judicial Council to adopt a rule

establishing a working group on

court security.

■ JUDGES’ RETIREMENT

Assembly Bill 2879 (Strom-

Martin) makes improve-

ments to judges’ retirement

systems and appropriately

conforms assigned judges’

compensation, consistent

with the Judicial Council’s

commitment to improve

the quality of judicial

service.

■ COURT OPERATIONS

Assembly Bill 3028

(Assembly Committee on

Judiciary) includes numerous

substantive and technical

changes pertaining to court operations.

Among other provisions, this bill will

allow courts to hold sessions in other

counties with the consent of the

parties involved; authorize the Judicial

Council to directly pay costs incurred

by the trial courts for trial court pro-

grams, contract costs, or legal and

financial services; and provide presiding

judges in small courts the same 2

percent pay differential that larger

court presiding judges receive during

their term.

■ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Senate

Bill 2011(Burton) allows the courts to

self-insure, like other state agencies,

and establishes a Judicial Branch

Workers’ Compensation Fund to pay

claims.

■ JURY WAIVER AND CIVIL PROCEDURE

Assembly Bill 3027 (Assembly

Committee on Judiciary) requires all

parties demanding a jury trial to

deposit advance jury fees at the same

time; conforms service of opposition

and reply papers in summary judgment

proceedings; and makes clarifying,

procedural changes related to small

claims, local rules, administration of

oaths, and intracounty venues.

LegislationCOURT NEWS LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY

This annual publication abstracts the more than 150 bills passed during the most

recent legislative session that affect the courts or the legal community. It includes

brief descriptions of the measures and explains who each bill is most likely to

impact. www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtnews/legsumdec02.pdf

Chief Justice Ronald M. Georgelooks on as Governor Gray Davissigns Senate Bill 1732 (Escutia),shifting governance of Califor-nia’s court facilities from thecounties to the state, effectiveJanuary 1, 2003.

Children, Families,and the Courts■ Rules The Judicial Council approved

more than 125 new and amendedrules of court, forms, and standards ofjudicial administration relating tofamily and juvenile law. Among themare new “plain language” forms fordomestic violence and adoption pro-ceedings that will be easier for liti-gants to use. The domestic violenceforms have been translated into Span-ish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese.

■ Unified Family Courts The councilauthorized grants totaling approxi-mately $1.3 million from the JudicialAdministration Efficiency and Mod-ernization Fund, which were awardedto the superior courts in 31 countiesto assist them in developing actionplans for unifying or coordinatingfamily, juvenile, and related court pro-ceedings. Goals are to develop unifiedfamily court systems that are moreefficient and effective in addressingthe needs of the public; to ensuremore fully informed decision makingand improved delivery of services tofamilies and children; and to reducethe risk of conflicting orders andunnecessary court appearances.

■ Domestic Violence The councilauthorized grants totaling $1.5 millionto provide interpreters for indigent lit-igants in family law and related caseswhere domestic violence restrainingorders have been sought. In fiscal year2001–2002, twenty-five courts sought

and received fund-ing. The funds wereused to provide inter-preters and to payfor interpreter coor-dinator services. Thecouncil also receiveda grant to launch anew Violence AgainstWomen EducationProject to improveand expand judicialbranch educationabout domestic vio-lence and sexualassault cases, enhance local courtcoordination and communication incases involving violence againstwomen, and supplement other localand regional projects to include anenhanced focus on issues of violenceagainst women.

■ Juvenile Court Improvements Toimprove the quality of advocacy forchildren in dependency proceedings,the AOC administered grant fundingto 39 Court Appointed Special Advo-cates (CASA) programs in 40 counties,conducted Peer Assessment and Com-pliance Review (PACR) site visits, andprovided follow-up technical assis-tance as needed. Program staff alsolaunched a CASA/attorney partner-ship pilot project to study the effect ofcloser collaboration between chil-dren’s attorneys and CASA volunteerson the quality of children’s experi-ences in the juvenile courts statewide.

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A10

Children adopted during the Supe-rior Court of Sacramento County’sAdoption Saturday program madetiles of their handprints that are ondisplay in the courthouse.

■ Through its Judicial Review and Tech-nical Assistance (JRTA) Program, thecouncil sought to ensure compliancewith and continued funding undertitle IV-E by sending expert juvenilecourt attorneys to each county to con-duct a courtesy review of court filesand to report to the presiding judge ofthe juvenile court on data related tojudicial findings and orders requiredby title IV-E. JRTA attorneys also con-ducted title IV-E compliance work-shops tailored to meet the individual-ized needs of judicial officers, clerks,attorneys, social workers, and proba-tion officers in each county.

California Supreme CourtPRACTICE OF LAW The Supreme Courtcreated the Multijurisdictional PracticeImplementation Committee to draft spe-cific rules and procedures that will mod-ify current restrictions on the practice oflaw in California by out-of-state attor-neys who are not members of the Cali-fornia State Bar. Recommendations to thecourt are expected by June 2003.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE At the requestof the California Supreme Court, theAmerican Bar Association Standing Com-mittee on Professional Discipline reportedon the operation, scope, and proceduresof California’s attorney discipline system.Its report is being reviewed by a court-appointed committee that will make rec-ommendations to the Supreme Court.

CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS Duringthe year, the court considered a numberof requests to review various aspects ofthe California Code of Judicial Ethics—canons that govern the conduct of Cali-fornia state judges. Under a constitutionalamendment adopted in 1995, the SupremeCourt has the responsibility to adopt andamend the code. At the suggestion of sev-eral organizations and persons, the court,in some instances with the assistance ofits Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics,has been reviewing, among others, vari-ous provisions concerning restrictions ofspeech during judicial elections, judicialmembership in youth organizations thatmay discriminate, and the practice of lawby part-time subordinate judicial officers.

RULE CHANGES The Judicial Council’sAppellate Rules Project is in the process ofrevising the entire set of appellate rulesfor the first time in six decades. Revisedrules that govern the filing of a civil appealand preparation of the appellate record andbriefs took effect on January 1, 2002, andthe next installment—which addresseshearings and decisions in the Courts ofAppeal and the Supreme Court—willtake effect January 1, 2003.

PUBLIC EDUCATION The SupremeCourt conducted the largest-ever courtpublic educational program in October2002 when it held an oral argument ses-

112003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

REDEDICATION

Sacramento’s historic Library and Courts Building and the Los

Angeles County Superior Court’s main civil courthouse were

officially renamed in honor of the late Justice Stanley Mosk,

whose many contributions to the law during his 37 years on

the court earned him national recognition and esteem.

sion in Fresno that was televised on localpublic broadcasting and cable stationsand to almost 200 high schools. Studentswatched the proceedings after havingbeen given a set of comprehensive writ-ten materials that explained the courtprocesses and gave background informa-tion on the individual cases beingargued. Volunteer lawyers and judgeswere on hand in the classrooms to leaddiscussions and to make the session aunique and valuable learning experience.

IMPROVED ACCESS The court’s case-information Web site now enables litigants,attorneys, and the public to access up-to-date information about pending casesquickly at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov. Users of the new system mayrequest e-mail notification of updated caseactivity. While a case-information Website has been in operation for the state’ssix Court of Appeal districts for twoyears, the Supreme Court’s former com-puter system was not Internet compati-ble. With a new Supreme Court casemanagement system in place, all of Cali-fornia’s appellate courts now offer onlinecase information.

Since 1996, the Supreme Court hasprovided online access to its writtenopinions at the time of filing (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme). Thecourt also provides same-day onlineaccess to the results of its weekly petitionconferences, during each of which thecourt considers up to 200 requests toreview cases.

COUNSEL FOR CAPITAL CASES Dur-ing 2002, the court continued to reviewits operating procedures, including those

affecting the handling of death penaltyappeals and related habeas corpus mat-ters. The court is working with theHabeas Corpus Resource Center, the Cal-ifornia Appellate Project, and the StatePublic Defender and has adopted numer-ous changes, including improved trainingopportunities, enhanced payment sched-ules, and internal restructuring, to ensuremore consistent and informative actionsby the court in response to motions inthese matters. These and other measuresare designed to alleviate the shortage ofcounsel qualified to represent defendantsconvicted of capital offenses. The courtalso hired the first members of a newcapital case central staff, who are beingtrained to assist the court in handlingthese cases more effectively. Detailed infor-mation about the application process islocated at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/dpenalty.htm. Application formscan be found at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/application.htm.

California Courts of AppealAPPELLATE RULE CHANGES Next on theagenda of the Appellate Rules Project(see “California Supreme Court”) arerules for criminal and juvenile appeals.The council has adopted some aspects ofrules governing appellate court practiceand procedure to clarify their meaning. Italso amended rules on the transfer of casesfrom the appellate divisions of superiorcourts to the Courts of Appeal.

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A12

Awards and HonorsCHIEF JUSTICE RECEIVES 2002WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST AWARDThe annual National Center for State

Courts (NCSC) award to a state court

judge who exemplifies the highest level

of judicial excellence, integrity, fairness,

and professional ethics was presented to

Chief Justice Ronald M. George. In naming

Chief Justice George the winner of its

2002 William H. Rehnquist Award for

Judicial Excellence, the NCSC noted that

during his seven-year tenure, “Chief

Justice George has overseen some of the

most significant initiatives and reforms

in the history of the California courts.”

WILLIAM C. VICKREYRECOGNIZEDThe California State Association of

Counties presented an award to the

Administrative Director of the Courts in

recognition of his successes in a wide

range of trial court reforms.

AOC EDUCATION DIRECTORWINS NATIONAL AWARDKaren M. Thorson, Director of the AOC’s

Education Division, received the National

Center for State Courts’ 2002 Warren E.

Burger Award for her significant contri-

butions to court administration.

132003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

DISTINGUISHED SERVICEAWARDSPresented each year by the Judicial

Council to persons who demonstrate

extraordinary leadership and make sig-

nificant contributions to the administra-

tion of justice in California, the 2002

winners are listed below.

■ JURIST OF THE YEAR Presiding Judge

James A. Bascue, of the Superior Court

of Los Angeles County, and Judge Lois

Haight, of the Superior Court of Contra

Costa County

■ JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AWARD

Ms. Tamara Lynn Beard, Executive

Officer, Superior Court of Fresno

County, and Mr. Ray LeBov, Director,

Office of Governmental Affairs,

Administrative Office of the Courts

■ BERNARD E. WITKIN AMICUS CURIAE

AWARD Professor Jay Folberg, Univer-

sity of San Francisco School of Law

■ BENJAMIN ARANDA I I I ACCESS TO

JUSTICE AWARD Judge Ken M.

Kawaichi, of the Superior Court of

Alameda County

2002 KLEPS AWARDSThe Judicial Council selected the follow-

ing 10 court programs as winners of the

Ralph M. Kleps Award for Improvement

in the Administration of the Courts.

■ SUPERIOR COURT OF AMADOR

COUNTY After becoming the employer

of its own staff, the court, without

additional funding, successfully

absorbed all fiscal and administrative

functions from the county in a rigor-

ous one-year project.

■ SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BENITO

COUNTY Developed a project to

reduce unplanned teen pregnancies

and births where the children of teens

become dependent on family mem-

bers or public assistance.

■ SUPERIOR COURT OF NEVADA

COUNTY Established a Public Law Center

to provide comprehensive resources to

the growing number of self-represented

individuals and to improve court access

for all members of the community.

■ SUPERIOR COURT OF YOLO COUNTY

Created a collaborative effort between

the superior court and the Probation

Department that has resulted in an

effective and cost-efficient response

to reducing juvenile violence.

■ SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN

COUNTY Developed a cultural aware-

ness video and related materials to

educate both the bench and court

staff about the Cambodian, Hmong,

Laotian, and Vietnamese cultures.

2002 KLEPS AWARDS■ SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA

COUNTY Installed computer software

that allows automatic electronic trans-

mission of restraining order information

from the superior court case manage-

ment system to the Department of

Justice’s California Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System (CLETS)

automated computer system.

■ SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE

COUNTY Installed self-service, high-

speed kiosks at all seven of the court’s

justice center locations.

■ SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE

COUNTY Created a Court Certificate

Program to enhance court staff’s skills

and performance through continuing

professional education and development.

■ SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO

COUNTY Developed a project in col-

laboration with a local teacher to

educate youth about the legal system,

the courts, and the administration of

justice.

■ COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE

DISTRICT Launched a mediation pro-

gram that resolves litigation early in

the appellate process, before parties

incur the cost of preparing briefs.

Awards and Honors continued

ETHICS RULES FOR MEDIATORS In2002, the Court of Appeal, First AppellateDistrict (San Francisco) became the firstCalifornia court to implement new ethicsrules for mediators in court-connectedmediation programs for civil cases. Theserules, which establish ethics standards formediators in court-connected programs,are part of the council’s program to createcomprehensive ethics standards for court-connected alternative dispute resolutionneutrals in California. Although the ruleswere adopted by the council for superiorcourts, effective January 1, 2003, theFirst Appellate District found themequally applicable to its appellate media-tion program. The court also adopted aprocedure for addressing complaintsinvolving mediators.

The court’s three-year-old mediationprogram has reduced costs, time to reso-lution, and the adversary culture of liti-gation, while increasing litigant satisfac-tion with the judicial process and thenumber of dispositions without judicialintervention. More than half of the appealssubmitted to mediation have been resolvedthrough this process. This is due to theefforts of approximately 200 mediatorsrecruited and trained by the court. Thetraining included an extensive discussionof ethics issues.

PUBLIC EDUCATION Many Courts ofAppeal are now holding sessions beforenew groups and in new venues as part ofoutreach programs that enhance publicunderstanding of the nature and impor-tance of the appellate courts’ work. Forexample, the Fourth Appellate District forthe first time heard oral arguments before300 San Diego County high school stu-

dents. The First Appellate District heardoral arguments at Golden Gate UniversitySchool of Law. Traveling to other loca-tions provides greater access to our judi-cial system for plaintiffs, defendants, andattorneys living in the county. In a relatedeffort, the Court of Appeal for the SecondAppellate District, Division Six (Ventura)hosted its annual Moot Court HonorsCompetition for law students of VenturaCollege of Law, Santa Barbara College ofLaw, and San Fernando Valley College ofLaw of the University of West Los Angeles.

Key Workshops,Meetings, ForumsIn addition to the AOC Education Divi-sion’s numerous annual training forumsfor judges and court employees—oppor-tunities greatly expanded by distancelearning technology and Web-basedtraining—other major workshops spon-sored by the Judicial Council in 2002include:

CAL IFORNIA JUDIC IAL ADMINIS -

TRATION CONFERENCE (January) pro-vides an annual forum for dialogueamong the judicial branch’s executive-level leaders to enable them to create avision for the future of the court system.

FAMILY COURT SERVICES STATE-

WIDE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE (March)provided state-of-the-art training designedspecifically for professionals serving chil-dren and families in the courts.

FAMILY VIOLENCE AND THE COURTS

CONFERENCE (May) provided a forumfor judicial officers, domestic violence

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A14

victim advocates, prosecutors, defenseattorneys, probation officers, socialworkers, court staff, batterer programstaff, law enforcement officers, and othermembers of county family violence coor-dinating councils to learn about modelprograms and new legislation and to planactivities for the future.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND THE

COURTS CONFERENCE (August) focusedon sharing the successes of juvenile jus-tice programs and also the perspective ofyouths who participated in the juvenilejustice system.

UNIF IED COURTS FOR FAMIL IES

SYMPOSIUM (September) provided anopportunity for teams of judges, admin-istrators, service providers, and otherprofessionals from 31 counties to develop

strategies for coor-dination and unifi-cation of court pro-ceedings involvingchildren and fami-lies and to share

information and ideas about how todevelop resources and overcome obstacles.

S IXTH ANNUAL AB 1058–CHILD

SUPPORT TRAINING CONFERENCE (Sep-tember) provided training for title IV-Dchild support commissioners, family law

facilitators, and administrative, account-ing, and clerical staff who work in the AB1058 Program area.

SECOND ANNUAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

HUMAN RESOURCES CONFERENCE (Octo-ber) brings together court HR profession-als and court executive officers to collab-orate in building a new HR infrastructurefor the branch.

BEYOND THE BENCH XIV (Decem-ber) convenes annually for judicial offi-cers, court administrators, and child wel-fare professionals from each Californiacounty to learn about the latest researchand best practices with regard to improv-ing proceedings involving child abuseand neglect.

152003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

AOC Human Resources staff don hardhats to get in the spirit. The conferencetheme was “HR—Under Construction.”

Maintaining the effectiveness of judicial

branch employees through continuing

education and professional develop-

ment is one of the Judicial Council’s

primary goals.

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A16

2002 Reports to the Legislature■ “A Quick Reference Guide to the California Offices of the Family Law Facilitator”

(December)—www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/lowcost/documents/flfquickref.pdf

■ Report to the Legislature: California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program for

Enhancing Responsibility and Opportunity for Nonresidential Parents—The First

Five Years (March)—www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/a2v2002leg.pdf

■ Evaluation Report on the Drug Court Partnership Program

■ Report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee on the Effectiveness of the

Temporary Law Clerks Program in Reducing the Appellate Workload Backlog (last

of two mandated reports)

■ Report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee on the Effectiveness of the

Temporary Law Clerks Program in Reducing the Appellate Workload Backlog

■ Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules (effective January 1, 2003)—www.courtinfo

.ca.gov/reference/documents/2003bail.pdf

■ Report to the Legislature on the Use of Interpreters in the California Courts

(December)—www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/4_19interp.htm

■ Report to the Legislature Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170.45 (May)—

www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/pc1170-2.pdf

■ 2002 Judicial Council Annual Report (March)—www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference

/2_annual.htm

Other Reports and Studies■ “The Basics of Child Support for Incarcerated Parents”—www.courtinfo.ca.gov

/selfhelp/family/support/documents/incarceratedguide.pdf

■ Caregivers and the Courts: Improving Court Decisions Affecting Children in Foster

Care (January)—www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Caregivers&

CourtsFull.pdf

■ Peer Assessment and Compliance Review (PACR) Aggregate Report (July)—

www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/CASA-PACR02.pdf

■ Research Update: Domestic Violence in Court-Based Child Custody Mediation

Cases in California (November)—www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles

/resupDV99.pdf

■ 2002 Court Statistics Report—www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents

/crs2002.pdf

2003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

The total court system

budget represents only 2.1

percent of the state’s total

General Fund expenditures.

17

UTILIZATION OFJUDICIALRESOURCES

The downturn that has affected the nationaleconomy over the past three years has had adramatic and negative impact on state budg-

ets all across the country, with a majority of statesexperiencing operating deficits in the current fiscalyear. In nearly every state, executive branch andlocal government agencies face budget constraints,with state court systems being no exception. Califor-nia, the sixth largest economy in the world, faces aballooning deficit that is now estimated to be greaterthan the sum of all of the other states’ deficits.

The current situation stems from a variety of fac-tors, led first and most notably by the significantdecline in the stock market, which has resulted in asharp decline of those state revenues generated bystock options and capital gains taxes. Since the Cal-

ifornia State Budget relies heavily on revenues gen-erated from those sources to provide funding forstate programs and services, any appreciable declinein these revenues has a direct impact on the ability ofthe state to continue to provide these programs andservices. In California, most state and local govern-ment agencies began to feel these effects when the firstbudget reductions were announced toward the end offiscal year 2001–2002; the trial and appellate courtsand the administrative office of the judicial branchhave not been immune to these adverse conditions.

IMPACT ON COURTS

The judicial branch took a proactive role in con-fronting the state’s fiscal challenges by workingclosely with the Governor’s Office and the Depart-

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35

K–12 Education 39.7%Health and Human Services 28.4%

Higher Education 12.7%Youth and Adult Correctional 06.7%

Tax Relief 05.6%Other 02.1%

Courts 2.1%Resources 01.3%

State and Consumer Services 0.6%Business, Transportation, and Housing 0.5%

Environmental Protection 00.3%

$31.3 $22.4 $10.0 $5.3 $4.4 $1.7 $1.6 $1.0$0.5$0.4$0.2

How Does Spending for Courts Compare With Other Budget Categories?General Fund ExpendituresFiscal Year 2002–2003 (in billions of dollars)

ment of Finance and taking decisiveaction, which included, among otherthings, the voluntary deferral of numer-ous spending proposals totaling $213million in early 2001. While significantbudget reductions totaling $37.5 million

were imposed on the judicial branch infiscal year 2001–2002, they were one-time in nature.

In fiscal year 2002–2003, the branchabsorbed further reductions of $154.9million—6 percent of its total budget. InJanuary, the Governor proposed an addi-tional $44.5 million in midyear spendingreductions. If enacted, total fiscal year2002–2003 budget reductions for thejudicial branch would amount to a stag-gering $199 million—reducing the totalbudget of $2.6 billion by nearly 8 percent.

The court system has worked dili-gently to minimize the impact of budgetcuts on public services. In an attempt tobrace for the impact of budget reductions,trial courts have begun implementing avariety of cost-reduction measures. Theseinclude hiring freezes; voluntary furloughs;reductions in training, travel, and overtime

expenses; reductions in office supplies,subscriptions, and consulting services;and deferrals of equipment purchases andcontracts. To the greatest extent possible,every effort has been made to mitigatethe impact of budget reductions on thecourts’ ability to maintain the current levelof service.

The Judicial Council establishedbudget management guidelines for theappellate courts and the AOC, designedto reduce costs. These measures include ahiring freeze, a reduction in the numberof annual committee meetings, and trav-el restrictions. In addition, the AOC isreviewing various projects and trainingprograms for possible deferral, cancella-tion, or reduction so that funds may bediverted to lessen the impact on theoperating budgets of the trial courts.

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A18

“As we consider how to reduce our budget—and we shall

reduce the courts’ budgets—we must fulfill the public’s trust

to protect the values of our American justice system, which

make our system of government so unique. In making

appropriate, responsible decisions, the Judicial Council and all

decision-makers must guard against the temptation to make

swift, across-the-board decisions that may have unintended

consequences of loss far greater than this financial crisis.”

—Chief Justice Ronald M. George,

Judicial Council Business Meeting,

December 13, 2002

How Has Judicial Branch Funding Changed Since Last Year?Fiscal Years 2001–2002 and 2002–2003 (in millions of dollars)From All Sources

2001– 2002– Percent2002 2003 Change

Supreme Court $ 35.7 $ 36.3 1.7%Courts of Appeal 162.3 166.8 2.8%Judicial Council 138.8 140.5 1.2%Habeas Corpus

Resource Center 10.2 10.2 0.0%Commission on

Judicial Performance 4.0 4.1 2.5%Total—State Operations $ 351.0 $ 357.9 2.0%

Trial Court Trust Fund $ 2,052.7 $ 2,028.6 –1.2%Trial Court

Improvement Fund 134.4 136.7 1.7%Modernization Fund 44.1 43.9 –0.5%Total—Trial Courts $ 2,231.2 $ 2,209.2 –1.0%

Judiciary Total $ 2,582.2 $ 2,567.1 –0.6%

State Budget $96,199.8 $94,664.6 –1.6%

FiscalAccountabilityThe prudent management of the courts’resources is one of the Judicial Council’shighest priorities. Historically, trial courtsrelied on the counties for funding as wellas for administrative services and support.Since the state assumed responsibility fortrial court funding, many counties begansignificantly increasing the cost of county-provided administrative support or with-drawing their services completely from thecourts. In response to trial court needs andto satisfy the intent of Assembly Bill 233(Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court FundingAct), the Judicial Council and the AOCbegan to develop and implement variedstatewide fiscal accountability initiatives tomore effectively manage the finite publicresources supporting the judicial branch.Some of these initiatives include:

■ Trial Court Financial Policies and Proce-dures Manual

■ Internal Audit Program

■ Court Accounting and Reporting System

■ Trial Court Accounting ProcessingCenter

TRIAL COURT FINANCIAL POLICIESAND PROCEDURES MANUAL

Because many courts lacked the appro-priate infrastructure and staff resourcesto manage their own administrativefunctions, the AOC has worked in closecollaboration with the trial courts todevelop basic financial policies and pro-cedures. Implemented in every trial court

192003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

Judicial Salaries and Benefits(Restricted)7%

Local Assistance(Nonrestricted)5%

Nonjudicial Salaries, Benefits,and Operating Expenses andEquipment (Nonrestricted)21%

Security (Restricted)1%

Facilities—Rent (Restricted)10%

Court-Appointed Counsel andProgram Support (Restricted)25%

Nonjudicial Salaries, Benefits,and Operating Expenses andEquipment (Restricted) (includesdeath penalty cases, criminalcases, juvenile cases, AssignedJudges Program, rule making,mandated programs andreports, and Habeas CorpusResource Center)31%

What Does the General Fund Contribute to the Judiciary Budget?Fund 0250 includes the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, the Judicial Council,and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center.

Judges and Subordinate JudicialOfficer Salaries 13%

Nonrestricted (includes court employeesalaries and benefits, and operatingexpenses and equipment related toactivities such as administration andcivil and family law cases)39%

Rent and Utilities0%

Contract Interpreters3%

Probate0%

Traffic (includes court employeesalaries and benefits)5%

CourtReporters7%

Jury3%

Security13%

Criminal (includes transcriptsand court employee salaries andbenefits)11%

Family and Children (includescourt-appointed counsel andcourt employee salaries andbenefits)6%

What Does the General Fund Contribute to the Trial Courts’ Budget?Nonrestricted (39%) versus Restricted (61%)Fund 0450 includes funding for the trial courts alone.

throughout the state, the Trial CourtFinancial Policies and Procedures Manualbecame effective in August 2001 and willbe progressively revised on an annual basis.

INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM

An internal audit program was estab-lished in 2001 to assist the courts inhighlighting best practices and in moreeffectively managing their resources. Ini-tial services were limited to agreed-upon

procedural reviews (AUPRs), which arefocused reviews of specific functional orprogram areas in the courts. During 2001and 2002, AUPRs were conducted in 28trial courts and covered county chargesto trial courts as well as revenue and cashcollection activities. This was followedby the first full-scale audit reviews in2002. Current services now include thecoordination of existing external auditsby external contractors, the auditing ofrevenue collections, and internal audit-ing reviews in areas of high risk andexposure in the trial courts.

COURT ACCOUNTING ANDREPORTING SYSTEM

Working in close cooperation with thetrial courts over the past two years, theAOC developed and recently began imple-menting a new financial system known asCARS (Court Accounting and ReportingSystem). Although in its early stages ofimplementation, CARS will ultimatelyprovide a uniform accounting system toall trial courts and help to remedy theexisting lack of adequate infrastructure.The system will also produce the courts’quarterly financial statements and vari-ous other financial reports. In December2002, the AOC began the implementa-tion of CARS with a pilot in the SuperiorCourt of Stanislaus County. The rollout isnow scheduled to continue in all trialcourts over the next five years (based onavailability of resources).

TRIAL COURT ACCOUNTINGPROCESSING CENTER

Launched in conjunction with anddesigned to support the back-end process-ing requirements for CARS, the Trial CourtAccounting Processing Center (APC) wasrecently established in the AOC’s Northern/Central Regional Office in Sacramento.The mission of the APC includes provid-ing the trial courts with professionalaccounting processing support, includ-ing invoice payment processing, contractmanagement services, and maintenanceof trial court financial information.

Diligent management of the courts’limited resources has never been morecritical. Until the economic situation sta-bilizes, the judicial branch will continue

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A20

“This is an extraordinary time in California, as in other states,

and the fiscal planning process that lies before us will be very

difficult for the Governor, the Legislature, and the Judicial

Branch and its justice system partners. Owing to the

magnitude of the problem and the complexity of developing

a solution, we expect that hundreds, if not thousands, of

solutions will be offered in 2003.”

—William C. Vickrey, Administrative Director of the Courts

to work with all of its stakeholders andpartners in justice to resolve the chal-lenges resulting from the budget crisisand its potential impact on the Californiacourt system. At the same time, the judi-cial branch will fulfill its constitutionalduty to provide equal access to a fair sys-tem of justice for all Californians.

MORE BUDGET INFORMATION

For more information about the currentjudicial branch budget, the entire Cali-fornia State Budget, as well as State Bud-gets for previous years, visit the Web siteof the state Department of Finance at www.dof.ca.gov/html/bud_docs/bud_link.htm.

212003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

Salaries and Benefits 57%

Jury1%

Other (includes miscellaneous expenses suchas rent, janitorial services, phone and tele-communications, printing and postage,equipment, travel and training, legalsubscriptions and memberships, and fees for consultative and professional services)13%

Court Interpreters3%Security16%Court Reporting2%County Charges3%

Electronic Data Processing5%

How Is the Trial Court Budget Spent?Fiscal Year 2001–2002

Personal Services*31%

Revenue4%

Equipment10%

Operating Expenses26%

Reserves29%

How Are Trial Courts Absorbing Budget Reductions?Percent Reductions in Fiscal Year 2001–2002

Courts are reducing costs in a variety ofways, including reducing hours of opera-tion; instituting hiring freezes; reducingtemporary help and staff overtime costs;offering voluntary furloughs; closingcourt facilities; reducing major equip-ment purchases and deferring otherequipment needs; privatizing janitorialservices; reducing security (cost reductionfor sheriff/bailiff services and security over-

time); reducing staff training, travel, officesupply expenses, and professional/IT con-sulting services; and delaying or cancelingthe purchase of nonessential goods andservices.

*Personal Services include budgetedamounts for salaries by position, tem-porary help, overtime, required salarysavings, and associated benefits.

In 2001–2002, total California court system filingsstood at slightly over 8.1 million and dispositionsat 7.7 million.1

In recent years trial court filings have continuedto hold in the range of 8 million annually. Courtworkload increases are not apparent in this data,however. The factors affecting filing and workloadchanges are complex, vary by case type and fromcourt to court, and are influenced by population,demographics, the economy, and state and federallaws. In addition, the courts’ own initiatives to pro-vide a higher quality of public services play a largerole. Moreover, in developing a statewide picture oftrial court filings, the filings in the Superior Court ofLos Angeles County can influence trend analysis

significantly since filings there account for about athird of the state total.

CHANGING CASELOAD COMPOSITION

Between 1980–1981 and 2001–2002, the courts’caseload mix has changed. In fiscal year 1980–1981,general civil2 cases contributed 15.1 percent to thetotal caseload,3 but only 13.1 percent by 2001–2002.Criminal cases rose from 9.8 percent of the statewidetotal in 1980–1981 to 12 percent in 2001–2002.Traffic (excluding parking) contributed 69.6 percentto the statewide total in 1980–1981, declining to 66.8percent by 2001–2002. Case types related to family andjuvenile matters—family law, civil petitions, probate,mental health, delinquency, and dependency—

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A

Court workload is more complex than

can be seen in filings data alone. Many

cases are not easy to resolve. For example,

57 percent of all contested child custody

cases involve serious collateral issues,

such as substance abuse and violence

within the family.

22

TRENDS INCOURT

WORKLOAD

1The Court Statistics Report, the Judicial Council’s completeannual report on California court filing and disposition data,will be released in spring 2003. The report includes state-wide and county-by-county breakdowns for these categories.

2Includes all civil complaints and small claims as well as thesmall number of habeas corpus cases and appeals from lowercourts. California divides civil complaints into unlimited (valueof $25,000 and more) and limited (value of less than $25,000).Within civil complaints the causes of action include personalinjury, construction defect, defamation, and wrongful death.Small claims are claims under $5,000.3Includes traffic but not parking.

together increased dramatically from 5.4percent of the total statewide caseload in1980–1981 to 8.2 percent by 2001–2002.

While total filings of all case typeshave declined 4.5 percent over this period,high-workload case types (such as feloniesand family matters) have increased. Thechart on page 26 illustrates the relation-ship between filings and workload.

IMPROVED PUBLIC SERVICEAFFECTS WORKLOAD

The improvements courts have made topublic service illustrate how workloadchanges are not apparent in the filingsdata. The growing number of collabora-tive justice courts—248 were operatingin California courts during 2002—corre-sponds to increases in high-workloadcase types and provides an excellentexample of improved public service. Col-laborative justice courts work in conjunc-tion with treatment and social servicesagencies to address the multifaceted

problems of cases involving family vio-lence, mental illness, and drugs.

COURTS AID SELF-REPRESENTEDLITIGANTS

Expanding public access to the courtsalso increases court workload as can beseen in the services courts now offer self-represented litigants. A study for theJudicial Council of child support casesindicates that in just five years (fiscalyears 1995–1996 to 1999–2000), thepercentage of cases in which both par-ents are self-represented when the dis-trict attorney brings a child supportaction has grown from 79 to 96 percent.

232003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

DRUG COURTS WORK

California drug courts, a groundbreaking alternative to

traditional courts, are an effective way to improve lives and

reduce drug use and criminal offenses, according to a state-

wide study by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs

and the AOC released in 2002. For those participants who

successfully completed the drug court program, arrest rates

decreased 85 percent during the two years after admission,

compared to the two years prior to entry. First established in

California in 1993, drug courts involve other community

agencies and were launched as a meaningful alternative to

incarceration in jail and prison for substance-abusing offenders.

Collaborative Justice Courts, 2002

No. of No. ofCourts Counties

Adult Drug Court 90 47

Community Court 2 2

Domestic Violence Court 30 26

Family Treatment Court 7 6

Homeless Court 6 6

Juvenile Drug Court 32 30

Dependency Drug Court 24 22

Mental Health Court 13 15

Reentry Drug Court 4 4

Youth/Peer Court 34 29

Other 6 5

The coordination effort required for collaborative justice courts to be effective, espe-cially in the initial period of development, increases workload over the traditionalcourt model. Partly, this is due to the complexities of these case types and partly tochanges in case processing. For example, these courts may be responsible for coordi-nation with agencies such as batterer intervention programs, substance abuse treat-ment, shelter services, mental health services, and probation services. Changes in caseprocessing include review hearings, team coordination, and coordination with serv-ice providers between court sessions. Some of these workload increases appear to beoffset over time by factors such as reduced recidivism, increased efficiencies, andfewer contested matters.

This growth in self-representation isnot limited to family law. The number ofself-represented litigants in general civilcases also has increased during this peri-od. In Alameda County, for example, thenumber has jumped by 26 percent.

For judicial officers, self-representedlitigants increase workload in several ways.Continuances increase because of incom-plete documents, missing documents,failure to provide information to thecourt in a timely way, failure to arrangefor needed witnesses, additional legalresearch needed because relevant law isnot cited or presented properly to thecourt, and the need to spend additionalcourt time explaining court procedures.

In addition, court staff must respondto questions normally addressed to anattorney and must review filed formsmore carefully to be sure all needed itemsare complete. Moreover, the courts haveinitiated a variety of programs—kiosks,family law facilitators, special publica-tions, and online self-help centers—toguide these litigants.

IMPACT OF DEMOGRAPHICCHANGES

Two demographic changes that appear tobe significantly influencing filing andworkload trends are immigration and theaging of Californians.

According to the Public Policy Instituteof California, one in four Californians is animmigrant. California has a higher shareof immigrants than the United States as awhole (26 percent versus 11 percent).Many new residents need the assistanceof interpreters when they go to court,which affects the length of court proceed-ings and, consequently, the workload ofjudges and their courtroom-based staff.A recent study conducted for the JudicialCouncil reports that from 1994–1995 to1998–1999, the number of service daysfor interpreters of all languages increasedby over 21 percent, an increase of over29,000 service days in five years.

The aging of the population is also afactor affecting workload. Between 1990and 2000, the number of Californians 50and older grew to 8.1 million and is pro-jected to increase to 11.6 million by 2010.This older population is likely to impactfilings for several case types, such astraffic, civil, and criminal. For example,studies, including those of the Departmentof Motor Vehicles, show that older driverspartially account for the 80 percent dropin the rate of arrests for both DUI andhit-and-run cases and may account forsome of the decline in automobile-relatedpersonal injury cases. The number of acci-dents per 100 drivers decreases steadilyafter age 20 through age 70. However,the data also shows that the number of

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A24

ASSIGNED JUDGES ASSIST WITH WORKLOAD

Pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution,

the Chief Justice has the authority to assign sitting and retired

judges to the courts to provide needed assistance arising from

vacancies, illnesses, and disqualification of judges, and to

relieve calendar congestion. The Assigned Judges Program

serves an important role in enabling the judiciary to perform

its work effectively and expeditiously. In fiscal year 2001–2002,

assigned judges provided more than 33,237 days of assignment

assistance to the trial and appellate courts—the equivalent of

approximately 133 full-time judges. (See the “Year in Review”

for more information about the Assigned Judges Program.)

at-fault fatal/injury collisions dramaticallyjumps between the ages of 75 and 85.

IMPACT OF STATUTORY CHANGES

Between 1990 and 2000, more than 1,000new laws increased court workload bycreating new or expanded crimes andviolations and by mandating changes incourt proceedings and processes. Inaddition, some federal laws expandedthe courts’ reporting requirements. Evenif the number of filings stays the same,the amount of work a court must do isincreased by statutory changes that, forexample, require additional judicial find-ings or create rebuttable presumptionsand new parties, witnesses, or hearingparticipants, as well as procedures thatextend courtroom time.

252003 AN N U A L RE P O RT

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

01–0200–0199–0098–9997–9896–9795–9694–9593–9492–93

Filings

Dispositions

Total Supreme Court Filings and Dispositions1992–1993 to 2001–2002

In fiscal year 2001–2002, Supreme Court filings increased slight-ly from 8,891 filings to 8,917, while dispositions declined 2.7percent from 9,047 to 8,802. The court filed opinions in a totalof 101 cases, compared with 103 the previous year. Petitions forreview from original criminal proceedings decreased from3,647 to 3,074. However, original habeas petitions rose from2,545 to 2,775 over this same period.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

01–0200–0199–0098–9997–9896–9795–9694–9593–9492–93

Dispositions

Filings

Total Courts of Appeal Filings and Dispositions1992–1993 to 2001–2002

Filings and dispositions held steady following a period of sig-nificant increase early in the last decade. In 2001–2002, filingstotaled 22,379, a slight decline from 23,382 the year before,and dispositions declined to 25,465 from 27,376. There were12,629 dispositions by written opinion.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

01–0200–0199–0098–9997–9896–9795–9694–9593–9492–93

Filings

Dispositions

Total Trial Court Filings and Dispositions1992–1993 to 2001–2002(In millions)

Trial court filings and dispositions held steady at 8.1 million and7.7 million, respectively. Of the total reported filings, the major-ity involved cases where litigants typically appear in court with-out attorneys, a key workload issue for the courts. For example,over 5.4 million filings were related to traffic misdemeanorsand infractions, 315,331 to small claims cases, and 291,547 tofamily law and juvenile dependency and delinquency cases.

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A26

Trial Court Filings by Case TypeFiscal Year 2001–2002

No. of PercentageFilings of Total

Motor Vehicle 52,693 0.6%

Other Personal Injury/PropertyDamage/Wrongful Death 29,094 0.4%

Other Civil Complaints 143,712 1.8%

Appeals 16,437 0.2%

Habeas Corpus 9,877 0.1%

General Civil 251,813 3.1%

Limited Civil 494,984 6.1%

Small Claims 315,331 3.9%

Limited Civil 810,315 10.0%

Family Law 160,854 2.0%

Juvenile Delinquency 91,947 1.1%

Juvenile Dependency 38,746 0.5%

Mental Health 10,595 0.1%

Probate 50,786 0.6%

Civil Petitions 308,683 3.8%

Family and Juvenile 661,611 8.2%

Felonies 242,390 3.0%

Nontraffic Misdemeanors 501,245 6.2%

Traffic Misdemeanors 652,301 8.0%

Felonies and Misdemeanors 1,395,936 17.2%

Nontraffic Infractions 226,015 2.8%

Traffic Infractions 4,766,839 58.8%

Infractions 4,992,854 61.5%

Statewide Total 8,112,529

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%WorkloadFilings

InfractionsLimited civil and

small claims

Felony and misdemeanor

General civil

Family and juvenile

8.2%

30.3%

3.1%

15.6% 17.3%

42.6%

10.0%8.6%

61.7%

3.0%

LOW-WORKLOAD CASE TYPESHIGH-WORKLOAD CASE TYPES

Translating Trial Court Filings Into WorkloadFiscal Year 2001–2002(As a percentage of total)

For an accurate understanding of court workload, filings must beconsidered together with an analysis of case types. For exam-ple, although family and juvenile cases represent 8.2 percent oftotal filings, they account for nearly one-third of a court’s judi-cial workload based on the Judicial Council’s adopted workloadstandards (see www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/stateassess.pdf). Conversely, infraction filings make up almosttwo-thirds of total court filings but represent only 3 percent ofthe courts’ overall workload.

2003 AN N U A L RE P O RT 27

CALIFORNIAJUDICIALBRANCH

THE COURTS

California Supreme Court

■ Hears oral arguments in San Francisco,

Los Angeles, and Sacramento;

■ Discretionary authority to review

decisions of the Courts of Appeal;

direct responsibility for automatic

appeals after death penalty judgment

(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts

/supreme/about.htm).

Courts of Appeal

■ Six districts, 19 divisions, 9 court

locations;

■ Reviews the majority of appealable

orders or judgments from superior

court (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts

/courtsofappeal/about.htm).

Superior Courts

■ 58 courts, one in each county with

from 1 to 55 branches;

■ State and local laws define crimes and

specify punishments, and define civil

duties and liabilities (www.courtinfo

.ca.gov/courts/trial /about.htm).

BRANCH AND ADMINISTRATION POLICY

Judicial Council of California

Administrative Office of the Courts

The Judicial Council is the constitution-

ally created 27-member policymaking

body of the California courts; its staff

agency is the Administrative Office of

the Courts (www.courtinfo.ca.gov

/courtadmin/jc/).

BRANCH AGENCIES

Commission on Judicial Appointments

Confirms gubernatorial appointments to

the Supreme Court and appellate courts

(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtadmin/other

agencies.htm).

Commission on Judicial Performance

Responsible for the censure, removal,

retirement, or private admonishment of

judges and commissioners. Decisions

subject to review by California Supreme

Court (www.cjp.ca.gov/).

Habeas Corpus Resource Center

Handles state and federal habeas corpus

proceedings; provides training, support

for private attorneys who take these

cases (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jobs

/jobshcrc.htm).

RELATED ORGANIZATION

State Bar of California

Serves the Supreme Court in adminis-

trative and disciplinary matters related

to attorneys (www.calbar.ca.gov).

The California court system, with more than 2,000 judicial officers, 21,000 court employees, and more

than 8 million cases in over 450 court locations, and a 2001–2002 budget of $2.58 billion, serves over 34

million people—12.5 percent of the total U.S. population.

JU D I C I A L CO U N C I L O F CA L I F O R N I A28

Goal I

Access, Fairness, and Diversity

All Californians will have equal access to

the courts and equal ability to participate

in court proceedings, and will be treated

in a fair and just manner. Members of

the judicial branch community will reflect

the rich diversity of the state’s residents.

Goal II

Independence and Accountability

The judiciary will be an institutionally

independent, separate branch of govern-

ment that responsibly seeks, uses, and

accounts for public resources necessary

for its support. The independence of

judicial decision making will be protected.

Goal III

Modernization of Management

and Administration

Justice will be administered in a timely,

efficient, and effective manner that uti-

lizes contemporary management prac-

tices; innovative ideas; highly competent

judges, other judicial officers, and staff;

and adequate facilities.

Goal IV

Quality of Justice and Service

to the Public

Judicial branch services will be respon-

sive to the needs of the public and will

enhance the public’s understanding and

use of and its confidence in the judiciary.

Goal V

Education

The effectiveness of judges, court per-

sonnel, and other judicial branch staff

will be enhanced through high-quality

continuing education and professional

development.

Goal VI

Technology

Technology will enhance the quality of

justice by improving the ability of the

judicial branch to collect, process, analyze,

and share information and by increasing

the public’s access to information about

the judicial branch.

Mission of the Judicial CouncilUnder the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California

Constitution, the law, and the mission of the judiciary, the Judicial Council shall be

responsible for setting the direction and providing the leadership for improving the

quality and advancing the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible

administration of justice.

Judicial Council Goals

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Access and Fairness Advisory Committee

Administrative Presiding Justices AdvisoryCommittee

Appellate Advisory Committee

Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee

Collaborative Justice Courts AdvisoryCommittee

Court Executives Advisory Committee

Court Interpreters Advisory Panel

Court Technology Advisory Committee

Criminal Law Advisory Committee

Family and Juvenile Law AdvisoryCommittee

Governing Committee of the Center forJudicial Education and Research (CJER)

Judicial Branch Budget Advisory Committee

Judicial Service Advisory Committee

Probate and Mental Health AdvisoryCommittee

Traffic Advisory Committee

Trial Court Presiding Judges AdvisoryCommittee

TASK FORCES

Appellate Indigent Defense OversightAdvisory Committee

Legal Services Trust Fund Commission

Probation Services Task Force

Reporting of the Record Task Force

Task Force on Judicial Ethics Issues

Task Force on Jury InstructionsCivil SubcommitteeCriminal Subcommittee

Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OFTHE COURTS

William C. VickreyAdministrative Director of the Courts

Ronald G. OverholtChief Deputy Administrative Director

Michael Bergeisen, General Counsel andDeputy Administrative Director

Office of the General Counsel

Christine Hansen, Chief Financial Officer and Director

Finance Division

Diane Nunn, DirectorCenter for Families, Children & the Courts

Karen Thorson, DirectorEducation Division

Pat Sweeten, DirectorExecutive Office Programs Division

Susan Hough, DirectorHuman Resources Division

Pat Yerian, DirectorInformation Services Division

Ray LeBov, DirectorOffice of Governmental Affairs

Regional Directors

Sheila GonzalezRegional Administrative Director,

Southern Region

Christine PattonRegional Administrative Director,

Bay Area/Northern Coastal Region

Michael M. RoddyRegional Administrative Director,

Northern/Central Region

Photo credits: page 2, Paul Sakuma; page 9, Brian Baer; page 22, Jason Doiy.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

455 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-3688WWW.COURTINFO.CA.GOV