Montana Survey of Appellate Bar and Trial Bench

The Montana Supreme Court last month became the first high court and only the second state appellate court (see the Oregon Court of Appeal’s 2007 Bench and Bar Survey) to survey members of the state’s appellate bar and trial bench about how well they believe the state high court is performing. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, it made a summary of the survey results public almost immediately.

As explained by Montana Chief Justice Karla M. Gray in a cover letter posted on the Supreme Court’s website yesterday ( see Montana Bar and Bench Survey Results), the Court asked nearly 1,000 appellate lawyers, as well as all of Montana’s District Court Judges and the University of Montana Law School teaching faculty, for their thoughts on the Court’s performance.

Respondents rated the Court’s performance in areas central to its primary obligations, including whether the Court’s decisions are based on facts and applicable law, whether the Court’s published opinions explain deviations from established law and the adoption of new developments in law, and whether the Court treats judges and attorneys with courtesy and respect. The survey also inquired about the Court’s timeliness in completing its overall workload and issuing opinions.

On the one hand, over 90% of the respondents believed that the Court does a good job in providing information about its roles, procedures, and operations, and that it treats trial court judges with courtesy and respect. Eight out of ten said that the Court’s published opinions clearly state the appropriate rule of law, identity and apply standards of review, and provide instructions on remand; an even higher number agree that the Court treats attorneys with courtesy and respect. Regarding attorney discipline, nearly eight out of ten respondents agreed that the Court’s attorney disciplinary process is fair and that sanctions imposed on attorneys are proportionate to the misconduct.

On the other hand, survey respondents rated the Court lowest in the area of timeliness, an area that “obviously needs the Court’s earliest attention,” Chief Justice Gray acknowledged.

“The survey results provide us with valuable insights about our strengths and weaknesses,” Chief Justice Gray said in her letter. “We are convinced that by asking ‘How are we doing?’-- and learning from and acting on the responses -- the Montana Supreme Court will improve and provide an even stronger system of justice for Montana.”

The survey used by Montana is a close adaptation of Measure 1 Constituent Survey prescribed by the Appellate CourTools, currently under development by the National Center for State Courts (see working paper available at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddc3k4gt_14cpvjn2c2 ). Survey items are derived, in part, from published performance standards that are applicable to every state appellate court system including the standards articulated in the Appellate Court Performance Standards (1995) and the Appellate Court Performance Standards and Measures (1999) developed by the Appellate Court Performance Commission and the National Center for State Courts.

For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

© Copyright CourtMetrics 2008. All rights reserved.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more