2006 Public Court Users and Judicial Branch Members
Talk About the California Courts
Commissioned by the Administrative Office of the Courts on behalf of the Judicial Council of California, December 2006.
Phase II: Focus Groups and Interviews
Trust and Confidence
in the California Courts
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
This report was produced for the Judicial Council of
California, Administrative Office of the Courts. The
Judicial Council recognizes the need for surveys of the
public and for reporting regularly and publicly on the
courts— as well as determining the most effective ways
of communicating with the public and other stakeholders.
To that end, the Judicial Council has indicated that
comments on this report will be welcomed.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Dianne Bolotte, Assistant Director
Executive Office Programs Division
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102- 3688
Dianne. Bolotte@ jud. ca. gov
415- 865- 7633
COMPANION DVD AND STUDY REFERENCES
As a helpful reference, the Administrative Office of the
Courts has prepared a companion DVD to accompany
the phase II report. The video on the DVD and copies of
the phase I and phase II reports can also be viewed on
the California Courts web page at:
www. courtinfo. ca. gov/ reference/ 4_ 37pubtrust. htm
Copyright © 2006 by Judicial Council of California/ Administrative Office
of the Courts. All rights reserved.
Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise
expressly provided herein, no part of this publication may be reproduced in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including the use of
information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing
from the copyright holder. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit
institutions to reproduce and distribute this publication for educational
purposes if the copies credit the copyright holder.
Copyediting: Rebecca Pepper
Design: Sundberg & Associates Inc
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
During the course of conducting the research for this report, Public Agenda and Doble
Research Associates were very impressed with the high level of commitment from all the
people participating in this project who willingly gave their time to our inquiries. Their
insight and candor were everything we could have hoped for.
In addition, we wish to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. David Rottman of the
National Center for State Courts and his colleagues for their work on phase I as well as
their substantive contributions to phase II, especially with the strategic and tactical
recommendations that emerged from the research findings.
We also wish to acknowledge a number of organizations and people who made this
work possible. The Judicial Council of California and the Administrative Office of the
Courts ( AOC) originated this project, and it was the Administrative Director of the
Courts, William C. Vickrey, whose vision and leadership guided it. We were grateful that a
number of Council members came to observe the focus groups conducted with the public.
We thank the Executive Office Programs Division of the AOC for its unwavering support,
its guidance, and its patience in directing our work. We are particularly grateful to
Dianne Bolotte, Assistant Director of the AOC’s Executive Office Programs Division, and to
Douglas Denton, Court Services Analyst, for their management of the project. We would
also like to thank those community leaders and court administrators who contributed their
time to participate in our focus groups and interviews. We would especially like to thank
the judicial officers for their openness and for their willingness to strive for continuous
improvement in their service to the people of California. Most of all, we would like to
thank the many court users from California whom we encountered during this research.
Finally, we would like to thank Ana Maria Arumi and our colleagues at Public Agenda
and Doble Research Associates, in particular Amber Ott, Laura Kelsky, and Janay Cody, for
their commitment to this work. We are honored to have participated in this project, and
we hope that our efforts have helped the Judicial Council and the AOC in their mission
of serving justice for the citizens of California.
Ruth Wooden John Doble
President President
Public Agenda Doble Research Associates
Introduction 2
Executive Summary 4
I. Confidence in the California Courts 8
II. Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts 12
III. Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences 17
IV. Barriers to Taking a Case to Court 21
V. Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population 26
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern 31
VII. Expectations and Job Performance 37
Appendixes
A. Tactical Recommendations 41
B. Methodology Used in Phase II 43
Table of Contents
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
2 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
A Changing California Requires Strategic Forethought
When it comes to innovation and progress, California always has been a leader. For
decades, and of necessity, the state has been on the leading edge of social, economic, and
governmental change— a global trend- setter in every field of human enterprise. Californians
are motivated to drive these innovations, to be leaders of forces that demand careful
planning and strategic forethought.
Since 1990, California's population has more than doubled, and the diversity of
California's more than 36.5 million residents is staggering. The state is home to immigrants
from over 60 different countries. Figures from the 2000 census show that Latinos, Asians
and Pacific Islanders, African Americans, and other minorities already account for more
than half of California's population. By 2021, Latinos will be the single largest racial or
ethnic group in the state.
For those serving in California’s government, these realities warrant careful attention
to the needs of an ever- changing and diverse population. The facts demand careful
planning, and that must encompass listening to Californians, hearing what they have to
say about their institutions of government— and giving due consideration to their
thoughts and feelings. In 2004, California’s judicial branch, led by the Judicial Council,
began laying the groundwork for a six- year strategic planning cycle by doing just that—
deciding to commission a survey to listen to the people of California and solicit a diverse
stream of stakeholder input.
For the nation’s largest court system, the impetus for such public outreach was obvious.
With nearly 9 million case filings annually, and with 9 to 10 million persons summoned
for jury service in the California courts each year, understanding how its residents perceive
the courts, how best to serve the needs of the public, and how to make the best use of
limited public resources was good common sense. A key component of the California
judicial branch’s outreach effort has been the Public Trust and Confidence public opinion
research assessment, phases I and II, sponsored by the Judicial Council. The report that
follows, Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II: Public Court Users
and Judicial Branch Members Talk About the California Courts, represents a significant
milestone toward ensuring that Californians have a voice in shaping the strategic priorities
and policies that guide their court system.
The Judicial Branch Listens to Californians
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE, PHASE I: A SURVEY
In 2004, the Judicial Council engaged the National Center for State Courts ( Williamsburg,
Va.) and the Public Research Institute ( PRI) at San Francisco State University to undertake
phase I of an assessment of trust and confidence in the California court system— the
first such large- scale assessment since 1992. The resulting phase I report, Trust and
Confidence in the California Courts: A Survey of the Public and Attorneys, 2005, presented
the findings of a survey that involved more than 2,400 members of the public and more
than 500 practicing attorneys. This survey revealed that 67 percent of the public has a
positive attitude about the courts, compared to less than 50 percent in 1992. The landmark
survey also showed that the key predictor of public trust and confidence is that court
procedures be perceived as fair to all parties. The phase I report became the foundation
for phase II of the assessment.
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE, PHASE II: A SERIES OF DIALOGUES
In 2006, Public Agenda ( New York, N. Y.), together with Doble Research Associates ( Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.), was pleased to undertake phase II on the Judicial Council’s behalf. Charged
with delving more deeply into key issues raised by judicial branch stakeholders in phase I,
our researchers sought information from court users with direct experience in court— new
information that could yield specific, effective strategies for addressing the customer
concerns identified by the 2005 survey.
Phase II also solicited input from two previously untapped stakeholder groups— judicial
officers and court administrators— to yield an insiders’ perspective on the California
courts, as well as to identify possible means of improving the delivery of justice. We were
particularly attuned to identifying any gaps in attitudes between these varied audiences.
PROCESS AND PARTICIPANTS FOR PHASE II
To establish an in- depth dialogue with members of the public who have actual court
experience in an array of court venues, the phase II researchers relied primarily on an
in- depth focus group methodology ( a full description of the research methodology is
found in Appendix B of this report). The focus groups, as well as lengthy one- on- one and
group interviews, revealed why stakeholders feel the way they do about the courts.
Group participants also discussed how the courts might better serve public needs.
“ To maintain the strength of our state and our nation, we
must ensure that we have a court system with integrity— one
that is fair and objective, that hears and resolves disputes in a
timely fashion, that is open and truly accessible to all, and
finally that is worthy of the respect and confidence of the public
we strive to serve.”
– Ronald M. George, Chief Justice of California
Introduction
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 3
The phase II assessment engaged the public in 15 focus groups. These three- hour- long
groups involved a demographic cross section of people who have direct court experience,
either through jury service or a high- volume court venue such as family, juvenile,
traffic, or small claims. These are the venues where the public is most likely to encounter
the courts and to form their opinions based on that experience. The focus groups were
conducted in varied locations around the state in order to capture California’s regional
diversity; seven of the groups directly engaged court users from the state’s three
largest minority groups— African Americans, Latinos, and Chinese Americans.
In addition to focus groups, other stakeholders provided input in individual interviews.
By interviewing judicial leaders, alternative dispute resolution ( ADR) specialists, and business
and community leaders, the phase II researchers gained valuable insights into issues specific
to these areas of practice and expertise. To ensure that California’s diversity was properly
represented in the phase II findings, the researchers also conducted interviews with
community leaders from the Filipino, Vietnamese, and Korean- American communities
( representing the three most prevalent languages spoken after English, Spanish, and
Mandarin/ Cantonese), as well as with leaders of other Asian- American communities,
including residents of Southeast Asian descent ( Hmong, Cambodian, Lao, Vietnamese,
and Mein), and American Indians.
Finally, phase II charted new stakeholder territory not explored in phase I. Members
of the judicial branch— both judicial officers and court administrators— were added to the
study and met in seven separate focus groups. They listened to and responded to court
users’ views and experiences and helped identify other legitimate and important concerns
that should be addressed by the branch.
PHASE II AREAS OF FOCUS
The following six thematic areas emerged from the 2005 survey results, and each is
further explored in phase II:
n Receiving and seeking information on the courts
Fewer than one person in five believes that they are “ intimately” or “ broadly” familiar with
the courts. In undertaking phase II, the Council sought to discover not only what the public
already knows about the courts, but what they need to understand— as well as how the
judicial branch could best respond.
n Experience in a court case: incidence and consequences
Direct experience with a court case is common, largely through jury service. Serving on a jury
is associated with distinctly higher approval, and involvement in a family, juvenile, or traffic
case is associated with distinctly lower approval. The Council wanted to understand the public’s
experience in each of these court venues and explore ways of improving their court experience.
n Barriers to taking a case to court
The cost of hiring an attorney is the most commonly cited potential barrier to court access.
Phase II sought to learn how people found attorneys, what it was like to have or not have an
attorney, and what other barriers might make it difficult for people to bring a case to court.
Tapping the perspectives of judicial branch insiders, phase II researchers investigated various
approaches to removing barriers and making the courts more accessible for all Californians.
n Diversity and the needs of a diverse population
The diversity of the public served by California’s trial courts is striking— 31 percent of the
phase I survey respondents were born outside the United States. The Council resolved to
reach out to all citizens of the state in phase II. Community and court leaders were asked
to provide insights into the complexities, challenges, and potential rewards of collaboration
among various justice system partners.
n Fairness in procedures and outcomes
Procedural fairness— the sense that decisions have been made through processes that are
fair— is the strongest predictor by far of whether members of the public approve of or have
confidence in the California courts. Listening to the public recount their experiences with
the courts, their perceptions of the fairness of court procedures and processes— and how
effectively the courts present those procedures and processes— is crucial to the development
of improved branchwide policy.
n Expectations and job performance
Reporting on job performance was the number one unmet need cited by phase I survey
respondents. The Council sought clarification— from internal and external stakeholders—
regarding the nature of public expectations in this regard. Thus, phase II researchers set
out to learn what court performance means and what can be done not only to improve
court performance but to report on performance to the public.
DELIVERY OF REPORT
The preliminary findings from phase II were delivered to the Council in June 2006 at its
annual planning meeting, held at the Presidio of San Francisco. Joining the Council in June
were other branch leaders, including representatives from the State Bar. Major phase II
findings and recommendations have been integrated into the Council’s 2006– 2012 strategic
planning cycle, including its reassessment of the branchwide strategic plan, Justice in
Focus: The Strategic Plan for California’s Judicial Branch, 2006– 2012, which will be made
public in 2007. The plan will establish a sound strategic course of direction for California’s
judicial branch and provide a vehicle to improve the quality of justice for all Californians.
This report contains major findings and recommendations from phase II of the public trust
and confidence assessment, and includes a detailed appendix of tactical recommendations
for consideration by members of the California state court system.
Introduction ( cont’d)
Executive Summary
4 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
Findings: Confidence in the California Courts
n Mirroring phase I, court users in the phase II focus groups hold generally high levels of
confidence in the state’s courts; court users have an especially high regard for judges.
n Judicial members in the phase II focus groups express high confidence in the dedication
and commitment of all court workers, from front line court staff to judges.
n Mirroring phase I, court users in the phase II focus groups believe that the state courts
strive to provide justice for every citizen; further, they believe the state’s judges are
honest, impartial, judicious, and expert in their duties.
n Confirming public responses received in the phase I survey, the phase II focus groups
found that court users often confuse the roles and responsibilities of the courts with
such justice system partners as law enforcement and corrections, and this confusion
appears to negatively affect public trust and confidence in the courts.
n Judicial members in the phase II focus groups confirm a lack of public understanding
of the judiciary as a distinct, third branch of state government, and call for greater
public education and community outreach.
Recommendations
1. Recognize that judges are the courts’ best asset when communicating with the public—
they should be featured prominently in any communications about the courts.
2. Review judicial branch programs, policies, and practices to identify opportunities for
informing the public about how the courts’ functions differ from those of executive
branch law enforcement agencies like the police, prosecution, and corrections.
3. Partner with education stakeholders to improve public understanding of the courts
and the role of the judiciary as a third branch of government.
Findings: Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts
n Confirming responses received in the phase I survey, both court users and judicial branch
members in the phase II focus groups agree that disseminating clear information to the
public in accessible, user- friendly language is a priority.
n Court users in the phase II focus groups are often frustrated when court staff do not
give legal advice; judicial members in the phase II focus groups say that court staff
often have trouble balancing permissible information with legal advice.
n Court users and judicial members in the phase II focus groups overwhelmingly favor
more self- help centers inside the courthouse; court users in the phase II focus groups
also favor newsletters and mobile self- help centers in key community locations.
n Mirroring phase I, relatively few court users in the phase II focus groups have used
court Web sites; however, those who have visited the Web sites are very positive about
their content and helpfulness.
Recommendations
1. Provide court staff with training in the appropriate language and explanations to use when
answering general questions from the public about the role of the courts and judges.
2. Continue to develop and provide information in plain English as well as in the languages
most commonly spoken by court users.
3. Establish a branchwide working group to identify the lessons learned from the existing
self- help centers and to recommend a strategy for making self- help centers available
in all counties.
4. Create a coordinated branchwide plan for disseminating information on how to use
the courts that builds on the respective strengths of on- site information kiosks, self- help
centers, mobile self- help centers, periodic newsletters, and the branch’s Web site.
Executive Summary ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 5
Findings: Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences
n The way Californians are treated in court can dramatically affect their opinion of
the courts.
n Californians who use some of the highest- volume courts often report feeling stress and
confusion. These court users are more likely to give the courts a less favorable rating.
n Although some want more information, most of those with jury experience give the
courts high ratings. Further, they appreciate recent changes in the jury system.
Recommendations
1. Evaluate and improve court operations to improve the court user experience, particularly
to reduce delays; be more sensitive to court users’ discomfort in the public forum of
the courtroom.
2. Support efforts to improve the quality of service to users in family court, as well as
the desirability and value of family court assignments for bench officers.
3. Leverage the positive views most former jurors have of the courts by providing them
with information they can use in explaining their experiences and the role of the
courts to friends, colleagues, and family.
Findings: Barriers to Taking a Case to Court
n As in phase I, the phase II focus groups cited finding a good, affordable attorney as
the main barrier preventing Californians from taking a case to court.
n One consequence of this barrier has been the rise in the number of pro per litigants who
represent themselves in court. This increase has led to court delays and a drain on the
court system’s resources, according to judicial branch members.
n Court users also mention inconvenient hours, a lack of childcare, and safety concerns
as barriers to taking a case to court.
n To alleviate these issues, judicial branch members support expanding court hours,
finding ways to help Californians locate low- cost legal services, encouraging attorneys
to unbundle legal services, and making other types of legal advisers and alternative
means of resolving disputes available.
Recommendations
1. Partner and work with the bar and other legal service providers to increase pro bono
services, reduced- fee assistance, and lawyers who will unbundle their services.
2. Develop and expand innovative court programs, such as family law facilitators, that
will meet the current and increasing number of pro per court users.
3. Increase, to the extent feasible and appropriate, court- provided and court- affiliated
alternative dispute resolution ( ADR) opportunities in family, small claims, and other
court venues.
4. Partner with ADR providers to identify ways to expand the availability of ADR to meet
the needs of business and a broader constituency of court users.
5. Establish guidelines for individual courts to use in deciding when night and weekend
calendars might be needed for some of the highest- volume court venues. These
guidelines should involve surveying local court users to determine the desirability of
expanding court hours.
6. Ensure adequate safety in the courts to protect all individuals who come to court.
Executive Summary ( cont’d)
6 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
Findings: Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population
n California’s diverse population creates many challenges for the courts in terms of meeting
the needs of court users.
n In our focus groups, Asian Americans express positive views of the courts, bearing out
the findings of the phase I survey. However, Latinos express a lower level of confidence
in the courts than they did during the phase I survey. African Americans express the
lowest levels of confidence of any group.
n Many minorities and recent immigrants try to avoid the legal system altogether.
n Language and translation issues are becoming increasingly prevalent in the courts.
Court users and judicial members agree that the courts need more interpreters.
n Court users, community leaders, and judicial branch members alike believe that more
diversity on the bench would strengthen confidence in the courts among minorities. Court
users also state that they would like to see juries that reflect the diversity of the state.
Recommendations
1. Expand the availability of court interpreter services; evaluate the use of special calendars
for cases requiring a court interpreter, weighing the potential gains in efficiency
against the possibility that court users and court staff will regard those calendars as
being of lower priority than other calendars.
2. Collaborate with ethnic and immigrant organizations to develop and translate concise
statements that juxtapose commonly held “ myths” about what is involved in going to
court with the facts about how the California courts operate.
3. Design judicial education programs to reflect specific cultural differences that commonly
lead to miscommunications.
4. Concentrate efforts and work with local bar and other stakeholders regarding a specific
action plan for increased diversity on the bench.
5. Increase local and community efforts regarding public education and encouragement
of full and meaningful participation in the jury process.
Findings: Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern
n On three of the four essential elements of procedural fairness— respect, trust, and
neutrality— the majority of Californians say the courts do an outstanding job, according
to both the phase I survey and the phase II focus groups.
n On the fourth element of procedural fairness— voice, or the sense that those in authority
listen to the people involved in a court case— Californians are less likely to say that the
courts are doing a good job. Pro pers, Latinos, and African Americans are especially
likely to feel this way.
n Many court users perceive a cultural bias in the justice system, with Latinos and especially
African Americans less likely than Caucasians and Asian Americans to feel that people
receive fair results in court.
n Public confidence in the courts depends more on whether people perceive court
procedures to be fair than on the specific legal outcome of individual cases. Many
judicial branch members, however, believe outcomes shape court users’ perceptions
of the courts’ fairness.
Recommendations
1. In evaluating new programs aimed at improving job performance and customer service,
study how the programs will affect the four key components of procedural fairness:
courts and judges that are respectful, neutral, and trustworthy, and that take into account
the views of court users.
2. Encourage judges to take responsibility for ensuring that litigants leave their courtroom
with a clear understanding of what is expected of them as a result of the case outcome.
3. In response to the request of judicial officers and court staff, provide culturally
responsive programs and trainings. These professional development components would
enhance understanding of the diverse cultural needs of Californians, as well as provide
insights into the ways that litigants from various ethnic groups perceive the courts.
4. Create best practices through which judges can appropriately meet public expectations
of having a “ voice” in court proceedings, the element of procedural fairness on which
the courts are seen as weakest.
5. Convey to court staff that they are regarded as important ambassadors for the judicial
branch through their day- to- day interaction with the public, and that they affect public
approval of the courts.
6. Assume a leadership role in initiating statewide policies and actions that address
issues of systemic bias within the entire justice system.
Executive Summary ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 7
Findings: Expectations and Job Performance
n In both the phase I survey and the phase II focus groups, the unmet expectation identified
most often by Californians was the desire for the courts to be accountable to the public.
n Increased contact between the public and the courts would make it easier for the public
to assess and provide feedback on the performance of the courts while enabling the
courts to better understand and communicate with various communities. Community-focused
court planning offers a strategy for this contact to take place.
n Judicial branch members say that improved communication with the public as well as
with others on the bench will allow the courts to better serve the public.
n Court users are critical of the backlog in some of the high- volume courts. Judicial
members agree that the courts are overburdened and point to the courts’ limited
resources. The crowded caseloads result in lowered confidence for both court users
and judicial members.
Recommendations
1. Make consistent efforts to communicate about the ways in which the judicial branch
is accountable to the public and other branches, as well as the limits on court
resources that lie beyond the control of the judiciary.
2. Continue to promote and support implementation of community- focused court planning
across the state.
3. Initiate a process to review the experience that other governmental and private sector
organizations have in processing consumers through high- volume transaction points
for applicability to family, traffic, and small claims courts, as well as to jury selection
procedures.
4. Recognize that resource allocations affect the courts’ ability to perform well and to meet
public expectations. Ensure that all court venues— particularly those most commonly
accessed by the public— receive adequate resources.
I. Confidence in the California Courts
8 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
OVER THE LAST HALF- CENTURY, PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE in many
governmental and social institutions have declined sharply. However, the
users of California’s courts still hold generally high levels of confidence in the
state’s court system, particularly their local courts, and they have an especially
high regard for judges. Both the public and members of the judicial branch
believe that the state courts strive to provide justice for every citizen, and
that the state’s judges are honest, impartial, judicious, and expert in their duties.
At the same time, many Californians confuse the roles and responsibilities of
the courts with such justice system partners as law enforcement and corrections,
and this confusion appears to negatively affect public trust and confidence
in the courts.
“ Things could be done better. We could have more judges and commissioners.
But by and large, the people I see are doing a very dedicated job, really trying to
do the right thing, working hard. I think it’s a very functional system.”
– Judicial officer
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
I. Confidence in the California Courts ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 9
In the Courts We Trust
Despite reports in the media and polls showing a general feeling among Americans of
cynicism toward political and governmental institutions, most Californians express
confidence in the state’s court system. As reported in the phase I survey, 79 percent of
the public was very confident or somewhat confident in the state courts, a rating that is
“ substantially higher now than when the last comparable statewide survey was conducted
in 1992.” Further, confidence in their local courts among members of the public was
even higher, at 82 percent. Our focus groups confirm this finding. As will be discussed
later in this report, perceptions regarding the fairness of court outcomes vary by ethnic
group. However, most court users express a substantial level of trust and confidence in
the courts of California.
For their part, judicial members express great confidence in the courts’ fairness and
integrity, and in those on the bench. Judicial members who feel “ very confident” about
the state court system generally cite the dedication, integrity, and good work of the
individuals administering justice as their main inspiration. The participants who are
“ somewhat confident” are more likely to focus on the system itself, saying no system is
perfect and that many parts of the system are experiencing stress and strain due to the
high volume of cases they are processing.
Judges Get High Marks
California court users overwhelmingly have
confidence in the state’s judicial officers,
saying they are honest, impartial, judicious,
and expert in their duties. In administering
justice, judicial officers act in the public
interest, court users say. Focus group
members with experience in a variety of
cases and venues describe positive
encounters with the judges presiding over
their cases.
Although also expressing a high regard
for California’s judicial officers, many Latinos
and, to a greater extent, African Americans
report lower levels of confidence than Asian
Americans and Caucasians in the workings
of the criminal justice system as a whole,
including the courts. This finding suggests
that people’s assessment of judges is not
being affected by wavering public confi-dence
in the system. Given the overall high
regard Californians have for them, judicial
officers have an excellent opportunity to
build even more credibility when commu-nicating
with citizens in a variety of venues,
including community meetings as well as
in the courtroom.
Judicial members also express high
confidence in the performance of the state’s
judges. They are also very aware of the
constituents served by their courts on the
local level, and, as will be discussed later,
they express an interest in learning more
about specific cultural differences and needs
in order to improve court performance.
“[ The judge] knew that I was ignorant
to the whole law situation. He explained
how the whole court proceeding was
going to go. . . . I had a very positive
experience.”
– Court user
Phase I survey: Public trust and confidence in the
California state court system ( 2005)
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
20
59
15
Very confident
Somewhat confident
Not very confident
Not at all confident
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
7
I. Confidence in the California Courts ( cont’d)
10 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
Court Users Often Misperceive the Role of the Judiciary
Court users often confuse the courts with other justice system partners such as law
enforcement, corrections, probation, and parole, a misperception that may decrease their
confidence. In our focus groups, when those with lower or middling levels of confidence
in the courts were asked why they feel as they do, many described experiences with other
agencies such as law enforcement or expressed displeasure with the laws themselves.
Such negative experiences appear to carry over into their attitudes toward the court system.
Even people with court experience often have only a vague understanding of the judicial
branch. Many misunderstand the role of the judicial branch in government, failing to grasp
that it is co- equal with the executive and legislative branches. They also often misunder-stand
the courts’ purpose and their role as administering, rather than enacting, the
laws. This finding may present an opportunity for judicial officers to focus on the role
and responsibilities of the courts when they speak at community meetings and events.
Prior studies in Oregon, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Vermont, among other states,
found the same broad- based public confusion about the criminal justice system and its
functions. Since such perceptions are so widely held, this confusion about the judicial
branch will most likely continue into the foreseeable future.
For their part, judicial branch members voice a great deal of frustration with the public
school curriculum, repeatedly calling for more civics education in the schools, with special
attention to education about the role and responsibilities of the judicial branch.
Additionally, since people’s experience with any one part of the criminal justice system
affects their views of all the others, any contact with the courts, including everything
from official notifications to the condition of the courthouse itself, can affect public
trust and confidence.
“ My concern is that people won’t have confidence in the system if they’re not
comfortable with it and if they don’t know about it.”
– Retired judicial officer
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
I. Confidence in the California Courts ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 11
PHASE I SURVEY FINDINGS
n Confidence in the California courts is
substantially higher now than when
the last comparable statewide survey
was conducted in 1992.
n The public and attorneys today are
moderately positive about their courts.
Attorneys tend to be the most positive.
n Local courts attract greater public
confidence than the overall state
court system.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Court Users
n Express overall confidence in California
courts.
n See judges as honest, impartial,
knowledgeable, and expert in their
duties.
n Have little understanding of the role
of the judiciary. Confusion exists about
the role and responsibilities of the
courts, which may negatively affect
public confidence.
n Confirm that justice is local and have
specific court experiences.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Judicial Members
n Have great confidence in the courts’
fairness and integrity, and in those on
the bench.
n Want schools to teach students more
about the role and responsibilities of
the judicial branch.
n Recognize that court users often do not
understand what is happening in court.
n Focus on local communities served by
their courts.
Key Findings: Confidence in the California Courts
Recommendations
1. Recognize that judges are the courts’ best asset
when communicating with the public— they should
be featured prominently in any communications
about the courts.
2. Review judicial branch programs, policies, and
practices to identify opportunities for informing
the public about how the courts’ functions differ
from those of executive branch law enforcement
agencies like the police, prosecution, and corrections.
3. Partner with education stakeholders to improve
public understanding of the courts and the role
of the judiciary as a third branch of government.
II. Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts
12 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
BOTH COURT USERS AND JUDICIAL BRANCH MEMBERS agree that disseminating
clear information to the public in accessible, user- friendly language is a priority.
They overwhelmingly favor self- help centers inside the courthouse and mobile
self- help centers in key locations within the community. These centers would
provide clear information, accessible forms, and other resources to better help
people prepare for their all- important day in court. Although the vast majority of
court users also favor court- published newsletters as a means of getting
information to the public, judicial branch members are concerned that such
newsletters might not be cost- effective. Court users who have used court Web
sites to obtain information are positive about the experience, though both court
users and judicial members concur that some individuals do not benefit from
these sites, due to language barriers or a lack of access to the Internet.
“ One of the things that I think is real interesting is what happens when you try
to create a culture of ‘ How can I help this person get through the system?’ That
is a real cultural change that I think the courts have to make.”
– Court administrator
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
II. Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 13
Court Users are Unsure of How to Get Court Information
Court users say that getting the information they need inside the courthouse can be very
difficult. They express frustration when the answers they get from courthouse staff are
unclear or inconsistent. Others report becoming exasperated with staff members who
refused to answer certain questions because it might constitute providing legal advice,
which they are not allowed to do.
Similarly, many administrators are all too aware that Californians have trouble
navigating both the system and the courthouse, greatly frustrating citizens trying to
conduct court business. Our judicial member focus groups report that certain staff get
impatient when, in the words of one court administrator, “ one question leads to ten
more.” Moreover, court administrators point out that clerks and staff find it difficult to
know what types of information they can legitimately provide, and what types cross the
line into legal advice.
Some court administrators acknowledge that court staff who deal with the public
could use much more training in explaining exactly how they can help court users, as
well as in how to answer common questions. Rather than training staff to focus on finding
problems with court users’ paperwork, they would like to see them trained to help people
navigate the system. Having courthouse staff who effectively exercise their professional
responsibilities as ambassadors for their courts would clearly help maintain and strengthen
public trust and confidence.
Both court users and judicial branch members feel that more information about the
courts— including very basic information about how to navigate the system— should be
more readily available to the public. They also agree that such information should be
written in plain, clear, nonbureaucratic language. As California’s foreign- born population
grows, the courts will increasingly be asked to provide clear information in plain English
as well as in numerous other languages. Given concerns about literacy issues, consideration
should also be given to video in addition to printed materials. The 2005 trust and confidence
survey found that people with more education are more likely to seek information about
the courts. Providing clear information geared toward those with lower levels of education
and toward non- English- dominant speakers may help reduce the barriers to receiving
court information reported in both phase I and phase II.
Self- Help Centers Help Court Users Help Themselves
To assist litigants, including pro per or self- represented litigants, a number of California
courts provide self- help centers where people can find forms and information about
basic procedures. Very few of the court users in our focus groups were familiar with
these self- help centers, suggesting that the existing centers could be more visible. But
those who have used them are enthusiastic, and when others learn about self- help centers,
they too express enthusiasm. They say such centers would inform and help prepare litigants,
who then would feel more confident and perhaps achieve better results in court. Some
court users even suggest that self- help services might make it more likely that people
without an attorney would turn to the courts for help.
In the focus groups, court users also liked the idea of mobile self- help centers, modeled
after local library “ bookmobiles.” An attractive feature of this service, they say, is that mobile
centers “ bring the courts into the community” by providing court- related information to
those who find the courthouse intimidating or difficult to get to. Court users also say
that, like the in- court self- help centers, mobile units would increase public awareness of
and confidence in the courts.
“[ Self- help centers] would take a lot of intimidation out of the legal system.”
– Court user
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
II. Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts ( cont’d)
14 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
Some court users express reservations about self- help centers. These individuals
stress the need to have capable bilingual or even multilingual staff for the centers. This
was a particular concern in the Latino, African- American, and Chinese groups. Others
want to ensure that someone is available to help those who use the self- help centers—
they say they should not just be unstaffed kiosks.
Community leaders across the state also strongly endorse the idea of more self- help
centers, calling them a major step in the right direction. However, a number of community
leaders point out that existing centers are now geared mainly toward English- speaking
court users. Forms and other material in languages other than English, as well as bilingual
and multilingual staff, would better serve some of those in greatest need of assistance—
Californians who are not English- dominant.
Judicial officers and court administrators are just as interested in creating more self-help
centers and expanding existing ones. They note the importance of helping people
prepare for court and point out that those who are more informed use less of the courts’
time and resources. A few administrators with self- help centers in their court report that
staff not only endorse these centers but often volunteer to staff them.
The implication is clear: Self- help centers are a win- win idea. In addition to building
public trust and confidence in the courts, they make better use of court resources while
building staff efficiency, effectiveness, and morale.
Court Users Endorse a Court- Published Newsletter,
but Judicial Members Express Concerns
In the focus groups, court users reviewed a newsletter published and distributed by the
Superior Court of Ventura County in 2002. They overwhelmingly endorse the concept of
the newsletter, saying anything that provides easy access to information about court
hours, venues, locations, services, and phone numbers would be an invaluable resource
to the people of California.
After reviewing a Spanish- language version of the newsletter, Latino Californians
also strongly endorse the idea, praising its content, while Chinese- speaking court users
add that it is essential to publish a newsletter in Mandarin and Cantonese as well as in
other Asian languages and make it widely available in immigrant communities.
Additionally, some court users, especially ethnic minorities, are concerned that those in
greatest need of a newsletter might not be likely to receive it and suggest that it be
distributed widely, including in the offices of public defenders, community groups, and
even in prisons.
The Ventura newsletter also provides information about how the public’s fines, fees,
and tax dollars are spent, information that court users note would interest Californians
and help address misconceptions about court resources. Indeed, a fair number of people
mistakenly believe that far from being strapped for resources, the courts are flush with
them. Importantly, however, court users emphasize that the most important function of
such a newsletter is providing people with the basic information they need to navigate
the court system.
The views of judicial branch members on the subject of a newsletter are somewhat
at odds with the public’s sense. While they endorse the concept of a newsletter, some
question the idea’s cost- effectiveness, saying a newsletter would be expensive to produce
and difficult to distribute. Some also question whether the public would really benefit
from a newsletter or make much use of it.
“ This [ newsletter] prepares you in case you ever have to go [ to court].”
– Court user
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
as well as courtroom procedures— while also helping them accurately fill out court
paperwork— would be a major step forward. Court administrators indicate that self- help
Web sites might also be cost- effective, since they allow court users to print their own
forms. Still, most judicial branch members acknowledge that Web sites are of little utility
to those who lack access to computers or the Internet. Consequently, branch members
also endorse making computers available to the public right in the courthouse. These
findings strongly suggest that helping Californians learn about and use court Web sites
would help those court users who are seeking information and would also help to improve
and enhance public trust and confidence in the courts.
Those Who Use Them Find Court Web Sites to Be a Great Resource
Few court users are aware that court Web sites exist. But those who have used one find
it to be helpful, informative, and easy to navigate. When asked about the idea of a Web
site that provides court information, forms, services, and phone numbers, court users
strongly endorse the concept, with many seeing Web sites as a convenient way to get
information. This result is consistent with the 2005 trust and confidence survey, which
found that Californians who accessed information on the courts via the Internet were
“ very satisfied” with the service.
While recognizing the benefits of court Web sites, court users and community leaders
point out that they are least likely to be used by lower- income groups, adding that Web
sites in different languages are still an inadequate means to accommodate the millions of
Californians who are not proficient in English. Chinese- American court users interviewed
in two focus groups in San Francisco and Los Angeles strongly urged that Web site
information be made available in both Mandarin and Cantonese.
Judicial officers and court administrators also strongly endorse the idea of court Web
sites, seeing them as an efficient means of providing much- needed information to the
general public. Judicial officers note that taking steps to inform people about their rights
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 15
ONLINE SELF- HELP CENTER
www. legalselfhelp. ca. gov
www. sucorte. ca. gov
The bilingual California Courts Online Self- Help Center provides quick access to
hundreds of tools, resources, and links to help Californians find legal assistance,
learn about state law, work more knowledgeably with an attorney, and represent
themselves in some legal matters. The site provides easy- to- understand
descriptions of court procedures, step- by- step guides for selecting and
completing court forms, and links to local legal service organizations and
lawyer referral programs.
Very useful
Somewhat useful
Not very useful
Not at all useful
Phase I survey: How useful was the information provided by the
court Web sites and courthouse personnel?
25% 50% 75% 100%
57
Court Web site
45
37
43
6
7
1
5
Courthouse personnel
II. Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts ( cont’d)
16 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
II. Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts ( cont’d)
PHASE I SURVEY FINDINGS
n Self- rated familiarity with the California
courts is low for the public, unchanged
since 1992.
n Knowledge of the courts increases
with exposure to court information in
newspapers, the Internet, televised trials,
and, most importantly, the court itself.
n Members of the public and attorneys
accessing information via the Internet
are very satisfied with the service.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Court Users
n Those who are non- English- dominant
are even less familiar with the court
system.
n Are often frustrated when staff do not
give legal advice.
n Strongly support courthouse and
mobile self- help centers.
n Strongly favor a court- published
newsletter.
n Most are unaware of court Web sites.
n Those who used one found it helpful.
n Low- income and non- English- dominant
court users are least likely to use court
Web sites.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Judicial Members
n See the need to provide simple, written
documents to explain court procedures.
n Say that staff have trouble balancing
permissible information with legal
advice.
n Favor more self- help centers.
n Favor a newsletter but question its
efficacy.
n Feel that Web sites are effective and
cost- efficient.
n Believe it is difficult to reach low-income
groups via court Web sites.
n Favor computers in the courthouse.
Key Findings: Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts
Recommendations
1. Provide court staff with training in the appropriate
language and explanations to use when answering
general questions from the public about the role
of the courts and judges.
2. Continue to develop and provide information in
plain English as well as in the languages most
commonly spoken by court users.
3. Establish a branchwide working group to identify
the lessons learned from the existing self- help
centers and to recommend a strategy for making
self- help centers available in all counties.
4. Create a coordinated branchwide plan for
disseminating information on how to use the
courts that builds on the respective strengths
of on- site information kiosks, self- help centers,
mobile self- help centers, periodic newsletters, and
the branch’s Web site.
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 17
III. Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences
THE ENDURING IMPRESSION of a court experience can hardly be overstated.
From the moment Californians walk in the courthouse door, they find
themselves in an unfamiliar, intimidating setting that may dramatically change
their lives. Even those who enter for mundane reasons may be tense, beginning
with security clearance and counter service and lasting until their case is
resolved and they walk out of the courtroom. The way they are treated during
this stressful time— which Californians often recall in great detail— can
dramatically affect people’s opinion of the courts.
In alignment with the 2005 trust and confidence survey, our focus groups
found that those who have served on a jury often describe their experience
as both gratifying and educational, saying they find the courts filled with
knowledgeable, serious- minded, competent judges and attorneys. Former
jurors appreciate recent changes in the jury system that make jury duty more
convenient. However, Californians who use some of the state’s highest- volume
courts— family, juvenile, civil, small claims, and traffic— are among those most
likely to give the courts a less favorable rating. In the focus groups, users of
these courts often report feeling stress and confusion.
“ People who are going through a divorce or fighting over custody of their kids
may come to court on some of the worst days of their lives.”
– Judicial officer
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
18 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
III. Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences ( cont’d)
Court Experiences Make a Strong Impression
The imprint of a court experience can be indelible. Californians are able to recount in
minute detail what happened to them when they went to court decades ago. In addition
to being influenced by the outcome of their case, Californians’ trust and confidence in
the courts are shaped by long lines, delays and postponements, confusion about procedures,
and treatment by courthouse staff. People report difficulties finding the courthouse or
learning where to go once they get there, describing signage that was missing or hard to
understand. Californians with disabilities also find it difficult to get around a courthouse,
especially in older buildings. Court users also talk about impersonal treatment, especially
in traffic court.
These complaints do not surprise judicial branch members. Many judicial officers
and court administrators are all too aware that Californians have trouble navigating
both the system and the courthouse, greatly frustrating citizens trying to conduct
court business.
Litigants Can Feel Drained by Long Lines and Drawn- Out Cases
In the 2005 trust and confidence survey, litigants in traffic, small claims, family, and
juvenile court cases were found to be less approving of the courts than other litigants,
a result corroborated by the phase II focus groups. Defendants in traffic court and small
claims litigants complained about long lines and delays in court, overcrowding with
other court users, parking cost, and inconvenient court hours.
Those court users with experience in family or juvenile court say that cases can
take months or years to resolve. Many describe a “ long, drawn- out” process before their
case was resolved. Beyond any delays and the resulting financial burden of accumulating
attorney fees, these litigants must also deal with emotional stress and even trauma
associated with their highly personal and often urgently important cases. Any measures
to speed up the process in the court venues most frequented by the public will likely
be met with much approval from court users.
Judicial branch members, including court administrators, recognize the emotionally
trying nature of family and juvenile court cases. This reality, they offer, may significantly
contribute to the comparatively low satisfaction with the courts found among these
litigants. They also say that presiding over family and juvenile court is challenging or even
undesirable. As a result, family court judges are sometimes among the least experienced
in the system. As will be discussed later, in the section “ Expectations and Job Performance,”
the resources the courts devote to the venues most frequented by the public may have
an impact on the trust and confidence of all participants, from litigants to judicial officers.
“ In our county we have a lot of people who are not literate in any language.
They’re totally intimidated coming into the court. . . . [ And] the very first person
they see is the person who is searching their pocketbook or whatever.”
– Court administrator
Family Court Poses Unique Challenges for Court Users
The public nature of court proceedings adds another complication to the court experience.
After listening to the “ dirty laundry” of other people’s domestic battles, some people
report leaving court feeling very troubled and upset. Others favor private proceedings when
it comes to dealing with family or juvenile proceedings, saying they are embarrassed or
uncomfortable discussing their personal business in open court. The implication here is
that judicial officers and members of the bar should advise litigants well in advance
that a family or juvenile proceeding, including a contested divorce case, will be heard in
open court.
Some judicial officers and alternative dispute resolution ( ADR) practitioners suggest
that Californians can avoid resolving a divorce case in public by using mediation and
arbitration. As discussed in the next section, these procedures are more private and tend
to be less stressful than open court. Furthermore, some ADR practitioners suggest that
sliding- scale ADR services should be made available for the resolution of other case types.
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 19
Most Jurors Give the Courts High Ratings,
but Some Want More Information
The courts’ highest ratings come from Californians with jury experience. Those who have
served on juries say they found the judge and attorneys to be capable and serious about
their responsibilities. Their fellow jurors, they add, were earnest and diligent about jury
duty service. Jurors also frequently report that judges and court staff treated them with
respect and courtesy, adding that they came away from their service with a deeper
understanding of the law and a sense of satisfaction in fulfilling a civic duty. The results
suggest that Californians’ trust and confidence may be directly related to the depth of
their knowledge of the courts acquired during jury service.
However, many jurors who were summoned but not selected for a jury have a different
take, complaining that they received little information about the selection process. They
asked ( 1) why so many people were summoned when so few were needed, ( 2) why they
were dismissed if they had gone through voir dire ( the process by which prospective
jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being invited
to sit on a jury), and ( 3) why the process took so long.
Phase I survey: What was your role in a court case?
( among 56% of Californians with experience in a court case)
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
36
31
11
7
5
4
4
3
III. Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences ( cont’d)
JURY SERVICE
“ Jury Service lies at the heart of our American judicial system. It is the duty
and responsibility of all qualified citizens, but it is also an opportunity to
contribute to our system of justice and to our communities. For many, serving
as a juror is a memorable and even a profound experience. Although voting
is a privilege of citizenship, jury service is a civic obligation and is often the
most direct participation that individuals have in their government.”
– Ronald M. George, Chief Justice of California
Called for jury duty,
but not selected
Selected to sit on a jury
Defendant
Person filing the lawsuit
or action
Witness in a case
Victim
Other
Person being sued
Some judicial branch members recognize that prospective jurors feel they are not
being kept informed, while others seem less aware of the adverse effects of the jury
selection procedures. The judicial branch may not fully realize just how confused people
are and what the impact of such confusion may be on the trust and confidence of those
who are summoned but not selected as jurors.
Jurors Appreciate Recent Improvements in the System
Each of our 15 focus groups with court users had at least several people who had served
as jurors in California’s courts. Many of these court users praise recent improvements in
the jury system, saying the information they receive during their jury service is much
clearer than it used to be.
Others praise the phone system, which allows jurors to call in to learn whether they
must report for duty that day. The courts have clearly made a major visible change that
Californians recognize and appreciate, which may well be contributing to the improvement
seen in public trust and confidence in the courts.
Judicial members also favor these innovations and note that technical and service
improvements in the jury duty system ( such as “ one day or one trial,” in which prospective
jurors need appear for only one day unless they are selected for a trial), help make court
proceedings more efficient, allow more focused time for juror education, and have led to
increased public approval of the courts.
20 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
III. Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences ( cont’d)
PHASE I SURVEY FINDINGS
n The majority of Californians
( 56 percent) have been involved in a
case that brought them to a courthouse,
mainly through responding to a jury
summons or serving as a juror.
n Defendants in traffic cases and litigants
and attorneys in family or juvenile
cases are less approving of the
California courts.
n Only service as a jury member increases
average approval of the courts.
Otherwise, court experience tends to
be associated with a slightly lower
level of approval.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Court Users
n All courthouse experiences affect trust
and confidence.
n Courthouses are difficult to navigate,
and older buildings are especially
difficult for those with disabilities.
n Litigants feel drained by family court
cases that can take months or years
to resolve.
n They are frustrated by delays and find
the loss of privacy unsettling.
n Jurors have a positive view of the courts.
n They complain about waits and lack of
information regarding the selection
process.
n They commend recent changes such as
“ one day- one trial” and the juror
phone system.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Judicial Members
n May be unaware that all court contacts,
including security screening, can cause
uneasiness.
n Say that presiding over family and
juvenile court is challenging or even
undesirable.
n Say that ADR may offer more privacy
for sensitive family cases.
n Favor recent jury changes.
Key Findings: Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences
Recommendations
1. Evaluate and improve court operations to improve
the court user experience, particularly to reduce
delays; be more sensitive to court users’ discomfort
in the public forum of the courtroom.
2. Support efforts to improve the quality of service
to users in family court, as well as the desirability
and value of family court assignments for bench
officers.
3. Leverage the positive views most former jurors
have of the courts by providing them with
information they can use in explaining their
experiences and the role of the courts to friends,
colleagues, and family.
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 21
IV. Barriers to Taking a Case to Court
IN THE STATEWIDE SURVEY CONDUCTED IN 2005, Californians named the cost of
hiring an attorney and spending time away from work or home as the two main
barriers preventing them from taking a case to court. In our 2006 focus groups,
court users echo these concerns, citing the difficulty of finding affordable legal
representation as the number one barrier to access. They also point to inconvenient
court hours, a lack of childcare, and safety concerns, as well as a particular fear
among undocumented immigrants of being deported, as reasons for not taking
a case to court. Judicial branch members are aware of these concerns and
support solutions such as expanding court hours, finding ways to help Californians
locate low- cost legal services, encouraging attorneys to unbundle legal services
to provide specialized assistance in more complex legal matters, and making other
types of legal advisers and alternative means of resolving disputes available.
“ The cost of paying for an attorney is a barrier for low- income and middle- income
people. Fees are huge and out of control.”
– Community leader
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
22 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
Finding a Good, Affordable Attorney Is a Challenge for Court Users
The challenge of finding legal representation is seen as the greatest barrier preventing
Californians from taking a case to court, according to both the 2005 statewide survey
and the 2006 focus groups. Court users repeatedly describe the difficulties they encountered
in trying to choose an attorney, with many saying they had no idea how to look for one.
A number of court users note that they resorted to the Yellow Pages.
Beyond the problem of knowing where to look for quality legal representation,
Californians face the added difficulty of finding affordable representation. Many court
users and community leaders question the fees charged by attorneys and paralegals and
point to a shortage of low- cost legal assistance for those who can’t afford to pay the
IV. Barriers to Taking a Case to Court ( cont’d)
prevailing rate. Judicial members note that some people doing legal work claim to be
paralegals when they are not. Court users seeking affordable legal help can be taken
advantage of by these unqualified individuals.
Although many court users are not familiar with any low- cost alternative, others
have tried agencies such as Legal Aid, often without much success. Court users in the
focus groups describe long waits for an appointment and a general sense that Legal Aid
cannot help them. People in the middle income brackets may not qualify for Legal Aid,
and thus find themselves with few options. Noting that Legal Aid is seriously overburdened,
a prominent community leader confesses, “ I don’t know where to tell people to go to get
quality, low- cost legal assistance.”
Californians who are not English- dominant may face additional problems due to
language barriers. Although bilingual attorneys are available, relatively few offer low-cost
legal services.
These findings have a number of implications. First, Californians would welcome
information from the courts ( or any other reputable source) telling them where to find
quality legal representation, especially on a pro bono or reduced- fee basis. Second, many
Californians who cannot find affordable representation decide to represent themselves
in court. Therefore, helping people find affordable, quality representation or alternative
dispute resolution ( ADR) services might reduce the overall percentage of self- represented,
or pro per, litigants. It also might increase the percentage of those willing to take their
case to court among two groups— foreign- born Californians and those with less education.
The phase I survey identified these two groups as having comparatively less direct con-tact
with the courts.
The Increase in Pro Pers Presents Challenges for the Courts
One consequence of the difficulty in finding affordable legal representation is the rise in
the number of pro per court users— people who represent themselves in court. Many of
these litigants feel that representing themselves in court put them at a disadvantage.
For example, they believe they would have been treated differently and their cases would
have had a different outcome if they had retained legal representation. As a result, pro
per litigants are less likely to feel confident that justice was served in their cases.
The increase in the number of pro per litigants over the last several decades has led
to court delays and a drain on the court system’s resources, according to some judicial
branch members. They also concur that pro per litigants are outmatched when arguing
against attorneys and say that an inherent imbalance exists when skilled and fully
trained lawyers represent one party against individuals who lack the most rudimentary
knowledge of legal procedures or even their rights.
Cost of hiring
an attorney
Time it takes away
from work/ home
Availability of another
way to solve problem
The court fees that
are required
Time it takes to get
a court decision
Uneasiness about what
might happen at court
The hours or days
court is open
Lack of childcare
facilities at courthouse
Travel distance to
court from home
Physical problems make
using court difficult
Difficulty with
English language
Phase I survey: Reasons Californians chose not to take cases to court
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Did not consider taking a case Considered taking a case
The question posed was “ Did ( or might) the following factors keep you from taking a case to court?”
69
69
50
49
60
46
42
43
44
43
35
40
29
27
20
15
25
12
21
12
20
11
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 23
IV. Barriers to Taking a Case to Court ( cont’d)
An Expansion of Affordable Legal Services May Help
Many of the judicial officers in our focus groups are all too familiar with Californians’
struggle to find affordable legal representation, and with the challenges presented by
the increase in pro per litigants. They call for a number of measures to help Californians
find either less expensive legal representation or alternatives to taking a case to court.
They suggest that increasing cooperation between the courts and the bar will help
improve the ability of people who need legal services to find a lawyer who will work pro
bono or for a reduced fee.
Another suggestion is for lawyers to offer “ unbundled” legal services. Unbundling
allows lawyers to limit their involvement in litigation in the same way that they often
contractually limit their involvement in business transactions. Under such an arrangement,
a lawyer might, for example, advise clients of their rights in a divorce, help them fill out
forms, confine court appearances to child custody issues, and review the judgment.
Other than that, the clients would be on their own, if they wanted to proceed in that way.
Judicial proponents of efforts to formalize the unbundling of legal services point out
that it would help in a number of ways: ( 1) having at least partial representation would
help ensure that litigants are informed of their legal rights; ( 2) lawyers would be willing
to accept partial cases if they knew they would not be liable to face malpractice suits for
parts of the case they were not involved with; and ( 3) judicial officers could more easily
assess the merits of the case because documents and arguments would be presented in
accordance with legal protocols.
Another strategy to help court users who don’t have lawyers is to make other types
of legal advisers available. For example, family law facilitators— neutral attorneys with
experience as mediators in family law cases— can provide basic information, help people
fill out forms, and guide them through various standard procedures such as spousal
support, custody and visitation rights, and maintenance of health insurance. Those who
have used court- based family law facilitators describe them as helpful and, if offered for
no fee or a reduced fee, much more affordable than engaging a private attorney.
Initially, most court users were not familiar with this idea, but once they understand it,
they overwhelmingly praise this approach, saying that the facilitator’s neutrality is an
especially attractive aspect of this practice.
Many of the judicial branch members in our focus groups also support this strategy,
saying family law facilitators help expedite the processing of the large volume of cases
heard by family courts. At the same time, a few judicial branch members point out that
increasing the availability of family law facilitators may have the unintended consequence
of increasing the number of pro per litigants, as Californians may feel more confident
about taking a case to court or going to court without legal representation.
The Business Community Faces Barriers
The business leaders we interviewed cite several barriers facing the business community
in navigating the California court system. Like other court users, they point to the cost
of litigation and the time required to pursue a court case as the two primary barriers
they face. They also say that the difficulty of finding juries that understand the technical
complexities of a business dispute makes it virtually impossible to resolve a dispute fairly.
In such situations they would like to be able to use predispute jury waivers, in which
business litigants mutually agree to sign pretrial agreements or waivers allowing them
to take a dispute to court without a jury. However, members of the judiciary express
concern about the increasing use of predispute jury waivers, especially when the bargaining
power of the parties is unequal.
More Strategic Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution May Help
to Remove Barriers
One proposed way to overcome the various barriers just discussed is to make greater use
of alternative dispute resolution ( ADR) methods such as mediation and arbitration. These
methods can offer less expensive and less adversarial alternatives to going to court.
Many of the court users in our focus groups, upon learning about these methods,
“[ Mediation is not] as intimidating as going to court. I would feel more comfortable
in that environment and sitting down and talking if somebody can be civil and
not get carried away.”
– Court user
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
24 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
IV. Barriers to Taking a Case to Court ( cont’d)
express overwhelming support for them. Further, they say that ADR would enable people
to tell their side of the story in some detail and could also free up the court docket.
A number of the judicial branch members in our focus groups strongly endorse ADR,
for the same reasons that court users favor it. They also point out that ADR can offer a
measure of privacy that is absent in open court. Such privacy is likely to be especially
welcome in family cases. Some judicial branch members, however, express reservations
about the widespread use of ADR. They point out that citizens have a right to have their
disputes decided in fair and open proceedings, adding that without them, there would be
no evolution in case law. In addition, since ADR services are privately provided, fee- based
arrangements, some also worry that the rate at which cases are moving out of the
courts and into private ADR is indicative of Californians’ inability to afford the courts.
Despite the advantages of ADR, some providers remark that private ADR services,
while generally less expensive than hiring an attorney and going to court, may still be
too costly for most Californians seeking to resolve disputes. Thus, attorneys and private
ADR providers recommend a partnership between local bar associations and the courts
to provide affordable ADR services.
Court Users Identify Additional Logistical Barriers
A number of court users report feeling inconvenienced by court hours, saying that they
must take time off from work because the courts are open only during weekday hours.
Judicial officers are well aware of the difficulty many people face in getting to court. A
number of them believe that traffic court hours should be extended. They favor
Saturday and evening hours along with other measures to reduce people’s waiting time,
such as directly scheduling specific traffic court cases.
Court users and a number of community leaders also note that a lack of courthouse-based
childcare is a barrier for some Californians, especially those in lower income
groups. Community leaders note that courthouse- based childcare would reduce people’s
reluctance to go to court, as it would reduce their financial burden while also making
them more comfortable.
Community leaders also report other, equally challenging barriers. Victims of domestic
violence who are undocumented immigrants may be very reluctant to take a case to
court, out of fear of being deported themselves or seeing their partner, perhaps the family
breadwinner, deported. One community leader also observes that the victims of domestic
violence often fear for their own safety, including worrying that the perpetrator might
retaliate in the courthouse immediately after the case. Judicial members state that their
own safety has become an issue as well. This points to the importance of adequate
security in court buildings that balances the public’s need to feel comfortable when
arriving at court with the need to maintain judicial members’ security.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
ADR programs may have several different goals, including offering litigants
dispute resolution options that fit their needs, saving time and money for
both the parties in the dispute and the courts, and reducing court congestion
and the number of cases going to trial. Two popular forms of ADR are
n Arbitration— In arbitration, the neutral party conducts a hearing, receives
evidence, and decides the outcome of the dispute.
n Mediation— In mediation, the neutral party does not decide the dispute but
helps the parties communicate so that they can settle the dispute themselves.
The parties have a greater chance to participate in resolving their own
dispute than they would in trial or arbitration.
“[ The courts] really don’t want children in there. They feel they’re too disruptive.
But everybody can’t afford a babysitter.”
– Court user
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 25
IV. Barriers to Taking a Case to Court ( cont’d)
PHASE I SURVEY FINDINGS Recommendations
n The cost of hiring an attorney, regardless
of the respondent’s income level, is the
most commonly stated barrier to taking
a case to court.
n Recent immigrants appear to be poorly
informed about formal alternatives to
court as a way of resolving disputes.
n Barriers include lack of childcare,
distance to be traveled, time away
from work, and unease about what
might happen if one became involved
in a court case.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Court Users
n Say the cost of affordable legal
representation is the number one barrier.
n Are unaware of how to find an
attorney or reduced- fee legal help.
n Pro per litigants tend to have less
confidence in the fairness of court
outcomes.
n They say their case would have been
won with an attorney.
n Californians express broad support for
ADR, upon learning about it.
n They say ADR might reduce costs and
give people a chance to talk.
n Confirm that time, distance, and the
need for childcare are barriers.
n Victims of violence may avoid court
due to fear for their safety.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Judicial Members
n See the difficulty people have getting
affordable legal help.
n Say Legal Aid is not as available as in
the past.
n Favor improving the ability of reduced-fee/
pro bono lawyers to reach those in
need.
n Favor unbundling legal services.
n Confirm the increase in pro pers and
say that pro pers may be mismatched
in court if facing a party represented
by an attorney.
n Most have great hope for ADR.
n Say ADR could lower costs, increase
access, and relieve the burden on the
courts.
n Some wonder whether ADR’s growth
indicates that the courts are too
expensive or rigid.
n Are aware of the difficulty court hours
may cause.
n Express some support for night and
weekend hours and for allowing
defendants to schedule traffic
appearances.
n Say that safety is a concern for judges
as well.
1. Partner and work with the bar and other legal
service providers to increase pro bono services,
reduced- fee assistance, and lawyers who will
unbundle their services.
2. Develop and expand innovative court programs, such
as family law facilitators, that will meet the current
and increasing number of pro per court users.
3. Increase, to the extent feasible and appropriate,
court- provided and court- affiliated ADR opportu-nities
in family, small claims, and other court venues.
4. Partner with ADR providers to identify ways to
expand the availability of ADR to meet the needs
of business and a broader constituency of court
users.
5. Establish guidelines for individual courts to use in
deciding when night and weekend calendars might
be needed for some of the highest- volume court
venues. These guidelines should involve surveying
local court users to determine the desirability of
expanding court hours.
6. Ensure adequate safety in the courts to protect all
individuals who come to court.
Key Findings: Barriers to Taking a Case to Court
V. Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population
26 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
CALIFORNIA’S DIVERSE POPULATION CREATES MANY CHALLENGES for the courts
in meeting the needs of court users. Trust and confidence in the courts vary
widely among the state’s ethnic groups. For example, Asian Americans and recent
immigrants express high confidence in the state courts, but Latinos and especially
African Americans have lower levels of confidence. These low levels of trust can
cause some groups to avoid any contact with the legal system. Undocumented
immigrants also tend to avoid the legal system because they fear being deported.
Language and translation issues are increasingly prevalent in the courts. Some
court users and judicial branch members express concern about the availability
of and quality of court- provided translation. Although it is beyond the courts’
capacity to provide interpreters in every court for all of the major languages
spoken in the state, their inability to do so affects public trust and confidence.
The need for greater diversity within the judicial branch itself is an issue that
resonates strongly with court users, community leaders, and judicial branch
members alike. According to many court users and community leaders, more
diversity on the bench would strengthen confidence in the courts among
minorities. Court users also state that they would like to see juries that reflect
the diversity of the state.
“ Our big issue right now is we don’t have enough interpreters. You’re dealing with
fewer resources than you like to have, and [ with] the fact that [ interpreters are]
mandated for criminal cases and not for civil, not for family.”
– Court administrator
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
V. Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 27
California’s Diversity Is Staggering
The sheer size and diversity of California makes for a unique situation requiring particular
attention from the state courts. Among the survey respondents to the phase I trust and
confidence report, 31 percent were born outside the United States. In addition, more
than half of the state’s population belongs to an ethnic minority group, as of the 2000
census, with the three largest groups being Latinos, African Americans, and Chinese
Americans. For the California court system, the largest in the nation, earning and keeping
the trust and confidence of this diverse population poses a challenge.
To gauge the levels of confidence among California’s largest minorities, we conducted
separate focus groups involving Latinos, African Americans, and Chinese Americans.
We also interviewed community leaders from the Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean- American,
and other ethnic communities. These discussions point to the need for better communi-cation
with minority and non- English- dominant court users and a greater degree of
cultural sensitivity.
Asian Americans Tend to Have a Positive View of the Courts,
but Other Minority Groups Are Wary
In our focus groups, Asian Americans express positive views of the courts, bearing out
the results of the phase I survey. Chinese court users in particular say they believe the
court system is designed to provide a fair trial to all people. Our research found several
possible reasons why certain ethnic groups, and in particular recent immigrants, might
rate the courts highly: ( 1) they may come from a less confrontational culture and may
therefore be more willing to accept rules by courts and other authorities; ( 2) those who
have language difficulties also have minimal legal knowledge and may therefore rely
more on their attorney; ( 3) recent immigrants may view the California courts more
favorably than the courts in their native country.
Latinos and African Americans report markedly lower levels of confidence in the
entire criminal justice system, including the courts. Latinos in particular showed a lower
level of confidence in the focus groups than they did during the phase I survey. In this
section, we discuss the reasons immigrants and minorities have for avoiding contact with
the system, language issues in the courts, and the need for diversity and cultural sensitivity
on the bench and among court staff. We explore the cultural and systemic issues behind
this lower level of trust in Section VI, on the perceived fairness of the system.
Many Recent Immigrants and Minorities Avoid Any Contact
with the Legal System
Court users in our focus groups say that many minorities and recent immigrants try to
avoid the legal system altogether. Some fear that having a record of any sort will make
them more likely to encounter legal problems with the system in the future. In addition,
undocumented Californians, especially Latinos and Asians, fear that any contact with the
legal system will reveal their immigration status, and they are very fearful of being
deported. One community leader comments that if immigrants knew that “ nothing bad”
would happen to them, they might be less reluctant to go to court.
This lack of trust and the fear of becoming caught up in the system appears to be one
powerful reason why minorities and recent immigrants are less likely to take a case to
court. Civic and community leaders therefore support close collaboration between trusted
community organizations and the courts to disseminate information designed specifically
to address the most serious fears of these groups, especially worries about immigration
matters. This information could include what one community leader calls a “ myths versus
facts” document to increase people’s understanding of what exactly happens in court.
Lacking this kind of information about the role of the courts, however, many minorities
and recent immigrants will continue to be reluctant to use the courts for any purpose.
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
V. Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population ( cont’d)
28 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
Language Difficulties Are Formidable in the Courts
The ever- increasing number of foreign- born Californians means that language and
translation issues are becoming more and more prevalent in the courts. Many Californians,
but especially minorities, express concern about the treatment of those who do not
speak English. Some report seeing court staff, particularly counter personnel, lose their
patience with these non- English speakers.
Court users who rely on a translator cannot always be sure that they will be given a
clear, accurate picture of the proceedings. For example, bilingual court users report problems
related to court translations, saying that court interpreters do not always accurately
translate what is said. In addition, some community leaders point out problems involving
the literal translation of what is happening in court, which often includes legal terms in
Latin without an explanation of what the terms mean. Another issue relates to the
difference between formal Spanish taught in universities and the vernacular language
and dialects people use in their daily lives.
Many court users also report seeing a significant shortage of court interpreters.
Chinese court users confirm this view, reporting that there are not enough court
interpreters in either Mandarin or Cantonese. Leaders from the state’s Latino and Asian
communities note that the shortage of translators is a major problem that prevents
many Californians from receiving or even seeking justice from the courts. A community
leader notes that some immigrants simply give up rather than “ go through a lot of
middlemen to tell their story to the court.” A number of civic and community leaders
also call for the courts to provide interpreters in venues where they are not currently
mandated, especially civil court ( including small claims) and traffic court.
Another issue involves court users who bring untrained translators with them.
Judicial officers serving in family court point out that litigants sometimes have to use
their own children as translators. One community leader says that women in family court
cases, perhaps involving domestic violence or divorce, sometimes have no recourse but
to use their children as translators in court, forcing a child to relive what may have been
a terrifying experience. The implication here is that the courts, which otherwise take such
care to look out for the interests of children, may need to do more in these instances to
protect children from further harm.
A number of judicial branch members agree that the courts need more interpreters,
a shortage that some feel directly affects access to the courts and the fairness of the
proceedings. Others note that while it is the court user’s responsibility to provide his or
her own interpreter in civil cases and small claims matters, this is simply not happening
in many cases.
“ California’s courts are challenged with serving a growing population that is
one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse in the nation. Individuals
of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds will soon compose the majority of
the state’s population. California residents speak 224 different languages and
innumerable dialects.”
– Leading Justice into the Future ( March 2000)
“[ The gap between the courts’ ability to meet the translation needs of the
public] raises the question of whether public trust and confidence are shaken
somewhat . . . right or wrong, no matter how hard you try.”
– Judicial officer
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
V. Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 29
Some judicial officers report using makeshift solutions, such as pulling bilingual court
staff from other areas to interpret in court. Many call for more interpreters in some of the
highest- volume venues, especially family court, but others say that it is well beyond the
courts’ capacity to provide interpreters in every court for all the major languages spoken
in the state.
In sum, a gap exists between what court users and community leaders need in terms
of court- provided translation services and what the courts provide or may be able to
provide. But regardless of how unrealistic the public’s expectations may be, the fact that
a gap exists negatively affects public trust and confidence.
More Diversity on the Bench Would Increase Trust and Confidence
Among Minorities
Court users and community leaders alike call for greater diversity on the bench, saying
this change is key to increasing trust and confidence among minorities. They note that
greater diversity would increase what one leader calls the “ cultural competency” of the
bench, suggesting that judicial branch members with relevant cultural backgrounds are
more likely to understand the history, norms, and behavior of various ethnic groups.
Judicial officers generally agree that the state needs to increase diversity on the
bench and throughout the court system. Some talk about their own past efforts in this
direction— such as doing outreach to encourage minority judicial applicants— while others
point to the need for more minority lawyers, to create a larger pool of commissioners and
potential judges. Judicial officers affirm the need for greater representation on the bench
as an issue of fundamental fairness and justice. Moreover, members of the judicial branch,
especially judges, express interest in learning more about specific cultural differences,
understanding that not knowing specific cultural cues may lead to miscommunications.
Many report that they need to rely on experience on the bench, education programs, or
self- directed investigation to understand the varied needs and behavior of the diverse
court users they encounter.
The Diversity of Jurors Can Affect Trust and Confidence in the Courts
In the phase I survey, certain ethnic groups, including Latinos and Asian Americans, reported
that they served on juries less often than other groups surveyed. In the phase II focus
groups, a number of court users, including a number of Latinos and African Americans,
state that juries do not reflect California’s population in terms of ethnicity and income.
Some court users see inadequate juror compensation as the root cause and express
concerns that the resulting juries are less likely to empathize with low- income and minority
defendants. Judicial members feel that juries are representative of local communities,
and that what is needed is more public education and encouragement of full and mean-ingful
participation in the jury process. Regardless of the underlying issues, the fact that
court users perceive juries as being nondiverse may have an effect on public trust and
confidence in the California courts. Court users in the focus groups, especially ethnic
minorities, believe strongly that minority and low- income defendants in criminal cases would
be better understood by a jury that was more reflective of their ethnic and income status.
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
“ Even though I know I’m supposed to communicate in English, I sometimes
do both [ English and Spanish], and I think that helps. It’s just being sensitive to
that cultural heritage, whatever it is, whether it’s Korean or Arab.”
– Judicial officer
V. Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population ( cont’d)
30 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
PHASE I SURVEY FINDINGS Recommendations
n The diversity of the public served by
California’s courts is striking: 31% of
all respondents were born outside of
the United States.
n Immigrants, especially recent
immigrants, tend to hold highly
positive views of the California courts
but have low levels of contact with
the courts.
n The positive opinions of immigrants
do not appear to fade away, remaining
overall strong after ten, twenty, or
more years in the United States.
n Language difficulties appear to be
more formidable in court than in other
settings: immigrants resident in the
United States for more than ten years
typically chose to be interviewed in
English, but many expressed concern
that language would be a barrier to
their taking a case to court.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Court Users
n Court users and community leaders say
that more diversity on the bench will
increase understanding.
n Court users would like to see more
diversity in the jury process.
n Asian Americans have positive views
of the courts.
n Other minorities have less confidence.
n Express concern about treatment of
non- English speakers.
n Say that staff are sometimes impatient
with those who speak English haltingly
or not at all.
n Are concerned about the accuracy
of translations.
n See a shortage of court interpreters,
especially for Asian languages.
n Minorities and immigrants are wary
of getting caught up in the system.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Judicial Members
n Support greater diversity so the bench
more closely reflects California’s
population.
n Believe that more education and
outreach is needed to encourage jury
participation.
n Members of the judicial branch,
especially judges, express interest in
learning more about specific cultural
differences, understanding that not
knowing specific cultural cues may
lead to miscommunications.
n See a shortage of qualified court
interpreters.
n Say that differences in dialect and
interpreters’ more formal language
can lead to miscommunication.
1. Expand the availability of court interpreter services;
evaluate the use of special calendars for cases
requiring a court interpreter, weighing the potential
gains in efficiency against the possibility that court
users and court staff will regard those calendars as
being of lower priority than other calendars.
2. Collaborate with ethnic and immigrant organizations
to develop and translate concise statements that
juxtapose commonly held “ myths” about what is
involved in going to court with the facts about
how the California courts operate.
3. Design judicial education programs to reflect
specific cultural differences that commonly lead to
miscommunications.
4. Concentrate efforts and work with local bar and
other stakeholders regarding a specific action plan
for increased diversity on the bench.
5. Increase local and community efforts regarding
public education and encouragement of full and
meaningful participation in the jury process.
Key Findings: Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 31
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern
“ PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS”— HAVING A SENSE THAT COURT DECISIONS are made
through processes that are fair and understandable— is a crucial factor in
determining public trust and confidence in the court system. California state courts
are perceived to be doing well on three key elements of procedural fairness: ( 1) the
courts are seen as neutral and unbiased, ( 2) the courts are viewed as treating people
with dignity and respect, and ( 3) the courts have earned the public’s trust by
taking people’s needs into consideration. But on a fourth element, giving voice or
participation, many California court users, especially ethnic minorities and those
without legal representation, say the courts could do better. Latinos and especially
African Americans are much less likely than Caucasian and Asian- American
Californians to say that court outcomes are fair. Significantly, however, public
confidence in the courts, even among minorities, actually depends more on
whether people perceive court procedures to be fair than on the specific legal
outcome of individual cases.
“ I just want to be treated the same, like you treat anybody else that has money. . . .
You got a tie, I don’t. I’m still a man, a human being.”
– Court user
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
32 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
As we state earlier in this report, there is a general unfamiliarity with the courtroom
process on the part of the public. The court user focus groups confirm the finding in the
phase I survey that a great many Californians are so unfamiliar with the courts that they
do not understand their rights and have difficulty understanding even the simplest court
terms or procedures. Pro per litigants in particular frequently report having trouble
understanding legal terminology and court procedures. There are times when, to quote
one community leader, “ People don’t understand the decisions that are made.” This
confusion among court users may have the unintended consequence of contributing to
a lower sense of procedural fairness.
Many judicial branch members are aware that court users feel confused when in
court. For example, they are not surprised to hear that people do not know the difference
between the district attorney and the prosecutor. Other factors discussed earlier in this
report, such as the invasive nature of security screening, court staff who appear unhelpful
because they cannot provide legal advice, and delays in traffic or family court, may also
have the unintended consequence of making the courts seem less neutral or respectful.
Court Users, Especially Minorities, Feel They Are Not Given a Chance
to Tell Their Side of the Story
When it comes to the fourth element of procedural fairness— voice, or the sense that
those in authority listen carefully to the people involved in a court case— the results of
both the phase I survey and the phase II focus groups show that Californians are far less
likely to feel that the courts are doing a good job. Many court users, especially pro pers,
Latinos, and African Americans, express frustration that they did not have a chance to
fully explain their side of the story to the judge. Additionally, some say that when they
are permitted to speak, a judge expects them to communicate in legal language. Even
some court users who had legal representation report that their attorney misconstrued
or misrepresented their views.
Some judicial officers recognize the importance of letting people tell their story, even
when it is both time- consuming and difficult. One judge gives an example of spending
up to two hours with a pro per, and then having the litigant tell him, “ You know, I’d really
like a judge like you to try my case, because you listen to me; you understand my position.”
The judge adds that the courts cannot “ let these people become numbers.”
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
The procedures within the courts that lawyers, judicial officers, and court
staff utilize can have a profound effect on how the public— particularly those
litigants who are self- represented— view the courts. Four elements of procedural
fairness are key:
n Respect— People react positively when they feel they are treated with
politeness, dignity, and respect and believe that their rights are respected.
n Voice— People want the opportunity to tell their side of the story or have
their stories told to an authority who listens carefully.
n Trust— People observe behavior to look for actions indicating that they can
trust the character and sincerity of those in authority, and that those in
authority are sincerely concerned with their needs.
n Neutrality— People are more likely to accept court decisions when they feel
the court is neutral, they have been treated like everyone else, the impor-tance
of the facts is clearly emphasized, and the reasons for a decision have
been clearly explained.
Most Court Users Say the Courts Are Respectful,
Trustworthy, and Neutral
On three of the four essential elements of procedural fairness— respect, trust, and
neutrality— Californians say the courts do an outstanding job. In the phase I survey,
79 percent said that the courts treat people with dignity and respect. A large majority
of focus group participants agree that the courts take people’s needs into account, and
many add that judges pay special attention to the needs of children. Most court users
find the courts to be neutral and impartial, with many people asserting that a California
judge would never take a bribe.
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 33
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
Many judicial officers, however, see difficulties with letting litigants speak up in
court. Such communication may be time- consuming because litigants rarely ask just one
question— one usually leads to another. Judicial officers also note that litigants who are
unfamiliar with legal procedures may talk or argue with each other instead of speaking
only to the judge. Finally, some judicial officers cite the danger of embroilment— that is,
inappropriate involvement in a case— especially when pro pers do not understand basic
legal procedures or recognize their rights.
One clear implication of these findings is that there may be a nearly inescapable tension
between litigants’ desire to tell their story in court and judicial officers’ sense that
adjusting courtroom procedures to accommodate this desire will dramatically slow the
wheels of justice and overburden the courts. However, public trust and confidence in the
courts— and especially the confidence of pro pers, Latinos, and African Americans— will
continue to be negatively affected to the extent that procedures do not permit them to
tell their story at some length and in their own words.
Many Court Users Perceive a Cultural Bias in the Justice System
The phase I trust and confidence survey found significant differences in the views of the
state’s largest ethnic groups. Caucasian and Asian- American Californians were much more
likely than other groups to believe that people received fair results in court. By comparison,
Latinos and especially African Americans were far less inclined to voice this view. In the
focus groups, a number of males said that the family courts— as well as social service
agencies— tend to favor the needs of women over men. But on balance, most court
users, including Latinos and African Americans, continue to say that the judges themselves
are honest, impartial, and well qualified, and that the courts generally strive hard to be fair.
The focus groups discussed their perceptions of racial and ethnic bias in the courts
at great length. During these discussions, it became apparent that their views were quite
complex and involved beliefs about cultural differences as well as a larger systemic view
of California’s justice system. Many feel that appearance and cultural factors influence
how a member of a minority group is treated in court. Court users, especially minorities,
feel that income plays a major role in determining how people are treated in the
California courts. Many also say that African- American and Latino court users who are
well educated or have light skin receive better treatment. Finally, some believe that the
Phase I survey: Overall approval of the courts, by race
3.0
African American
Asian American
Latino
Caucasian
Greater approval
The African- American and Asian- American averages are lower or higher than other groups, respectively, to a
statistically significant degree. Scales from 2.0 to 3.0 are used to draw attention to variation in the data. The
actual scales used were from 1 to 4.
2.5
“ A lot of language is lost between you, your attorney, and then to the judge.
And then when you want to clarify something between the attorney and judge,
you’re automatically out of order. . . . That’s why a lot of people lose cases.”
– Court user
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
34 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
Court Users Base Their Confidence on the Fairness of Court Procedures,
Not the Outcome
It is important to note that there is a gap— and perhaps a significant gap— between the
assumptions of judicial branch members about how the public perceives the fairness of
the courts and the actual opinions of the public. Many participants in the judicial member
focus groups assume that court users’ confidence in or approval of the courts depends
on whether their case outcome was favorable. However, both the phase I and phase II
research shows that Californians’ trust and confidence in the courts depend less on the
outcome of individual cases than on their treatment and the fairness of the procedures
they see at work in court. Court users who did not win their case may well express
satisfaction with their experience if they feel that most of the court procedures were
fairly administered and that they had their day in court. Thus, many judicial branch
members may underestimate the critical importance of the perception of procedural fairness
to the public.
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
YOUR RIGHTS IN COURT
Every Californian has rights that are guaranteed by the constitutions and
statutes of the United States and California. These rights include:
n The right to sue for money owed and for other relief;
n The right to defend yourself against a lawsuit;
n The right to be presumed innocent if charged with a crime;
n The right to defend yourself against all criminal charges;
n The right to a public and speedy trial by jury if you are charged with a
felony or misdemeanor; and
n The right to an attorney at public expense if you are charged with a felony
or misdemeanor and cannot afford an attorney.
Phase I survey: Relative importance of significant factors
on overall court approval
Fair procedures
Fair outcomes
Relative influence is determined after differences due to race/ ethnicity, age, gender, and education have
been taken into consideration. A scale from 2 to 3.5 is used to draw attention to variation in the data.
The actual scale was from 1 to 4.
treatment of minorities can depend on whether they express themselves well in the
courtroom. They suggest that certain minority court users feel that they have to put on
the proper clothes and behave differently in court than they would in the settings they
are accustomed to.
Judges repeatedly state their appreciation for the cultural sensitivity training they
have received and request training that covers even more cultures. They recognize that
the more they understand litigants from their own cultural perspective, the more they
can administer cases fairly. At the same time, both court administrators and judges
point out that there are significant differences in the training bench officers receive and
the training received by bailiffs, and they strongly recommend better cultural sensitivity
training for all employees who interact with the public in courthouses.
“ In most counties, [ with small claims] you get a piece of paper with a box
checked “ You lose,” no explanation, no understanding. Yes, somebody’s got
to win, somebody’s got to lose, but I think, at least when I did [ orders] with
explanations, we had far fewer appeals.”
– Judicial officer
2.75 3.5
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 35
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
Phase I survey: How often do you think people receive fair results
from courts in your county?
Never Once in a while Less than half the time More than half the time Nearly every time
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
African American
Asian American
Latino
Caucasian
The Branch Believes It Is Fair
In general, the California courts get high marks for procedural fairness from judicial branch
members, with many recognizing that those without legal representation may find it more
difficult to make their voice heard in court. However, many judicial branch members also
acknowledge that the court experiences of Latinos and African Americans may indeed be
quite different from those of Caucasian and Asian- American Californians.
In responding to some of the perceptions and incidents described by the focus group
members, some judicial officers point out that court users’ perceptions are largely shaped
by the stress of going through a legal procedure. Family court users are particularly likely
to be under enormous stress during court proceedings. Judicial branch members also
recognize that being on the front line with the public may sometimes try the patience
of courthouse staff. However, the stress involved in taking a case to court makes the fair
and patient treatment of court users even more crucial in gaining the public’s trust and
confidence. In the words of one court user, “ The court system is there to protect you.”
Cultivating that belief among court users, including pro pers and ethnic minorities, would
help more people feel that justice is being served.
“[ Court users need to know that] everyone is on a level playing field. That is the
crux of communicating fairness and access to everybody equally. It’s achieved
just by the way that you conduct yourself in the court, and your staff is an
extension of you, as the bench officer.”
– Judicial officer
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
36 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
PHASE I SURVEY FINDINGS Recommendations
n Having a sense that court decisions are
made through processes that are fair is
the strongest predictor by far of whether
members of the public approve of or
have confidence in California courts.
n Californians rate their courts highest
on the “ respect and dignity” element
of procedural fairness and lowest on
the “ participation” (“ listen carefully”)
element.
n Californians consider that outcome
fairness is least for people with low
incomes and non- English speakers.
n African Americans tend to perceive the
highest level of outcome unfairness for
Latino/ Hispanic Americans, African
Americans, and low- income people.
They are only slightly less likely than
Latinos and more likely than Asian
Americans to perceive unfair outcomes
for non- English speakers.
n The incidence of court experiences varies
among racial and ethnic groups and
increases markedly with level of education.
n Litigants in family and juvenile cases
and defendants in traffic cases perceive
less procedural fairness than do litigants
in other kinds of cases.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Court Users
n Give judges high marks for treating
people with dignity and respect.
n Many do not understand terms or
procedures.
n Many, especially pro pers and ethnic
minorities, are frustrated by an inability
to tell their story.
n Say that judges respond only to legal
language.
n Say that those with fewer resources
are less likely to prevail.
n Latinos and African Americans have
less confidence in fair court outcomes.
n Believe that fairness stems from
treatment, not outcome.
n Believe that judges take the needs of
children into consideration.
n Some male court users believe that
women get better treatment in family
court.
PHASE II FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS:
Judicial Members
n Are aware that court users often feel
confused in court.
n Find that letting pro pers speak is
time- consuming and difficult.
n Say that court decisions are not biased.
n Universally hold that bias is
unacceptable.
n Many say that minorities often have
negative experiences.
n See a need to learn more about cultural
differences but are unsure about what
to do.
n See negative experiences as systemic,
cultural, and complex.
n Are aware that cultural differences
might prevent full court usage.
n Feel that outcome, not procedural
fairness, determines public confidence.
n May not be aware of the importance
to the public of a sense of procedural
fairness in all contact with the courts.
1. In evaluating new programs aimed at improving job
performance and customer service, study how the
programs will affect the four key components of
procedural fairness: courts and judges that are
respectful, neutral, and trustworthy, and that take
into account the views of court users.
2. Encourage judges to take responsibility for ensuring
that litigants leave their courtroom with a clear
understanding of what is expected of them as a
result of the case outcome.
3. In response to the request of judicial officers and
court staff, provide culturally responsive programs
and trainings. These professional development
components would enhance understanding of the
diverse cultural needs of Californians, as well as
provide insights into the ways that litigants from
various ethnic groups perceive the courts.
4. Create best practices through which judges can
appropriately meet public expectations of having a
“ voice” in court proceedings, the element of
procedural justice on which the courts are seen
as weakest.
5. Convey to court staff that they are regarded as
important ambassadors for the judicial branch
through their day- to- day interaction with the
public, and that they affect public approval of the
courts.
6. Assume a leadership role in initiating statewide
policies and actions that address issues of systemic
bias within the entire justice system.
Key Findings: Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 37
VII. Expectations and Job Performance
CALIFORNIA’S COURT USERS ARE GENERALLY QUITE SATISFIED with the courts’
performance. However, the focus groups reconfirm the phase I finding that
the courts fall short of meeting Californians’ expectations in certain areas. At
the top of the list of unmet expectations is the need to report to the public
on job performance.
Many court users state that it is especially important to hold the courts accountable
for the way they treat those they serve. They also urge the courts to step up their
public communications efforts by reporting on their overall job performance and
their efforts to improve the public’s experience with the court system. Judicial
branch members say that improved communication with the public as well as
with others on the bench will allow the courts to better serve the public.
Court users are critical of the backlog of cases in the high- volume courts. Judicial
officers say the courts are overburdened and lack the resources to handle the
high volume of cases they must process each year. The crowded caseloads result
in lowered confidence for both court users and judicial members.
“ I think the future is going to be a greater emphasis on the collaborative
approach to the work of the judiciary and less on what some years ago was the
traditional approach [ to civil and family litigation]. I think that is something that
the judicial branch is doing well. Are we there yet? No, but we’re headed there.”
– Judicial officer
PHOTO: JASON DOIY
MEASURING COURT PERFORMANCE
To help measure court performance, a national commission of judges and court
managers developed trial court performance standards to identify the funda-mental
goals and responsibilities of the courts within five performance areas.
n Access to justice— Trial courts should be open and accessible. Location,
physical structure, procedures, and the responsiveness of personnel affect
accessibility.
n Expedition and timeliness— Unnecessary delays cause injustice and
hardship and are a primary cause of diminished public trust and confidence
in the courts.
n Equality, fairness, and integrity— Integrity refers not only to the lawfulness of
court actions but also the results or consequences of its orders.
n Independence and accountability— Independence and accountability permit
government by law, access to justice, and the timely resolution of disputes
with equality, fairness, and integrity.
n Public trust and confidence— Justice should not only be done, but should be
seen as it is being done.
38 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II
VII. Expectations and Job Performance ( cont’d)
Court Users Want the Courts to Be Accountable to the Public
Although California court users are generally quite satisfied with the courts’ performance,
they also have certain expectations of the court system that they say aren’t being met. In
both the phase I survey and the focus groups, Californians identify the most significant
unmet expectations. Earlier sections of this report have covered many of these, including
the need to have local courts open at convenient times and the feeling that the courts
should give more help to pro per litigants who are representing themselves in court. The
one expectation that remains to be discussed— and the one that tops the list of unmet
expectations— involves how the courts report on their performance to the public.
When asked directly what they want to hear about the job performance of the
courts, many court users are initially perplexed. After more discussion, however, many
say that they definitely want to know that judicial branch employees are being held
accountable to the public. A number of court users call for exit surveys as people complete
their jury service or when their cases are resolved, to gauge how people feel about the
courts and their treatment in the courthouse.
Judicial branch members agree that the courts should be accountable to the public,
but they do not agree on how best to achieve this. Some suggest monitoring courtroom
activity by rotating judicial officers through courtrooms to observe the behavior of
those on the bench. Others call this monitoring approach invasive and suggest that
judicial officers already receive more than adequate education and training in order to
perform their duties as officers of the court, and are further held accountable by an
independent state agency— the Commission on Judicial Performance— that oversees
judicial performance.
Stronger Connections with Local Communities May Help the Courts
Understand Public Expectations
Increased contact between the public and the courts would make it easier for the public
to assess and provide feedback on the job performance of the California courts. In focus
groups, court users strongly support the idea of community- focused court planning, a
strategy employed by a number of courts around the state that involves seeking direct
input from the public on how the courts might better meet community needs. Court
users say it would improve communication between the courts and the public while
enabling the courts to better understand and communicate with various communities.
Phase I survey: Unmet expectations
Expectation Percentage who feel it is not met
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 45% 50%
46
37
32
30
21
Report to public on
job performance
Local courts open at
convenient times
Local courts conclude
cases in timely manner
Protect constitutional rights
Assist those who want
to act as own attorney
Ensure public safety
40%
39
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase II 39
Community and civic leaders also endorse community- focused court planning, saying
it would help people understand legal procedures while informing the courts about local
issues. One community leader notes, however, that this approach could unduly raise
community expectations that might not be met. Although judicial branch members gen-erally
favor connecting with their constituencies in this way, some express concerns
about a possible low rate of participation by the public.
Limited Resources Have an Impact on Expectations and Performance
Some judicial branch members say a major barrier to higher performance is that the
courts are overburdened and lack the resources to handle the high volume of cases they
must process each year. Several suggest that more judicial officers are needed, especially
for family and juvenile courts and in areas where population growth has been greatest.
It should be noted that when judicial members in the focus groups express less confidence
in the courts, it is often because of the crowded