Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The year 2023 marks the 36th time the National Center for State Courts has published its annual “Trends in State Courts” report. This yearly collection of data, surveys, articles and peer-reviewed analyses has long been an invaluable resource for judges everywhere, and its unique standing makes it worth reading every year. Over time, there have been various generations of thought and perspective about courts, judges and what changes, if any, should be made. Sometimes, a “new and shiny” idea seems less worthy upon further consideration. Other times, a lesser known but more tried-and-true, better practice takes root and has real purpose. There are examples of valuable court reforms, like specialized efforts for drug treatment, veterans, domestic violence and protective orders, that arose from the experience and commitment of judges and their community partners. The 2023 “Trends” publication shows how courts all over the country are working on common issues — some of which now originate from circumstances outside the court system — and making a difference.
Does the new world of remote courts mean new rules?
In a section called “Measuring Access and Fairness in Remote Court Proceedings,” “Trends” acknowledges what we all know: Zoom is here to stay. Everything everywhere all at once is now changed. While the merits of working at home are still being debated, the court system has recognized real benefits from remote technology. The appearance of criminal defendants and low-income unrepresented civil litigants clearly improved as the pandemic made remote proceedings mainstream. Many counsel and clients are similarly in favor of such convenience. So how does the new remote court world affect our court rules and procedures? Or should it? “Trends” decided that finding answers to such questions should start with the user. It gathered data and studied how court system users felt about remote access, and how they felt looking forward.
Previous data showed generally positive reactions regarding the experience of remote proceedings. In 2021, a majority of surveyed Americans wanted remote access to be permanent (with some caveats — only 31% of people over age 65 favored it). The new study refined CourTools Measure 1, an available survey format designed to measure in-person court users to apply to online court users. After partnering with the courts of Kansas, Ohio and Vermont, three primary lessons emerged:
1. People think remote proceedings are at least as accessible and fair as in-person, or even more so.
2. Presenting a choice between remote and in-person access creates the perception that the courts are accessible and fair.
3. Most remote users access the court with laptops or smartphones.
Before judges and courts decide whether new remote rules are necessary, this initial study suggests the better approach will be to ask their own users first. Whether or how to continue remote access, what range of choices should be afforded or how to manage mobile users can be better addressed with some basic data.
Are we destined for a future of chatbots?
The Self-Help Assistant Navigator for Digital Interactions, or SANDI, was developed for the Miami-Dade County, Florida, court system with various grants. Anyone reaching the court website meets SANDI, an “avatar” that looks at the user and also at wherever the pointer is heading. In the “Trends” section on “Improving Court Access and Service in Miami With an Advanced Artificial Intelligence Chatbot,” we learn SANDI can speak English and Spanish, can converse and relay info on court cases (even Zoom links), court directions and other valuable information — and can help you whether you are speaking or typing. And it works around the clock. The artificial intelligence design for SANDI allows it to enlarge its database as it receives more requests. It knows that “divorce” and “dissolution of marriage” are the same. It finds and helps write the form pleading needed for the user. It directs the user to a live person when needed. The in-person self-help office at the Miami-Dade County courthouse was fielding 950 phone calls a month. Since July 2022, when SANDI started, it now receives only 55 per month, so more time is spent with in-person customers. Miami judges say SANDI is a real game-changer. They plan to continue to improve it and develop kiosks in the community with SANDI on the screen.
Whether we like it or not, the future of the courts is remote and includes artificial intelligence. The value of a live person will hopefully remain as important as ever. There is no substitute for the human ability to balance competing considerations, to find credibility, to measure intangible parts on a party’s burden of proof. May the day never come when our jury rooms are not full of real people, when a courtroom does not continue its magic quality of real-life drama or when there is no one there to rise.•
__________
Senior Judge David J. Dreyer presided as a judge of the Marion Superior Court from 1997-2020. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School and a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.