2006-08 Aug

Judiciary’s FY 2007 Funding OK’d by Senate Appropriations Committee

The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved its version of H.R. 5576, the Transportation, Trea-sury, Housing and Urban Develop-ment, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia and Independent Agen-cies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007, with $6.098 billion for the Judi-ciary. The House already has passed its version of H.R. 5576, giving the Judiciary $6.063 billion.

August recess began before the full Senate could vote on the appropria-tions bill. The Senate will reconvene the first week of September, but it is not expected that the House and Senate will be able to conference their differing versions of the appropria-tions bills before the fall elections. The Judiciary will most likely begin FY 2007 under a continuing resolution.

The level of funding provided by the Senate Appropriations Committee is a 6.9 percent increase over the Judi-ciary’s FY 2006 appropriations and $35.2 million above the House level. The Judiciary requested $6.207 in funding for FY 2007.

The Fees of Jurors account was fully funded at both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee

The Federal Courts and Communications Disabilities

on Court Administration and Case Management. “But access may be most critical for those individuals with communications disabilities. After all, the courtroom is all about communication. We want everyone to be able to fully participate in the adjudicative process.”

Policy also requires that each court identify a specific office or individual to serve as the contact point for anyone requesting aids or services.

There’s more than one way to communicate a Miranda warning, or a judge’s questions or jury instructions. They can be spoken, written, or—for people with communica-tions disabilities—they can be delivered through sign language interpreters (SLI) or assistive listening devices (ALDs). Since 1996, when the Administrative Office began to track the types of interpreter services offered, federal courts have provided SLIs or ALDs in over 420 events in federal courts.

Judicial Conference policy requires that courts provide, at Judiciary expense, “sign language interpreters or other appro-priate auxiliary aids and services to participants in federal court proceed-ings who are deaf, hearing-impaired, or who have other communications disabilities.”

“It is Judicial Conference policy to provide reasonable access for anyone with a disability,” said Judge Julie Robinson (D. Kan.), a member of the Judicial Conference Committee

THIRDNewsletter

of the

Federal

Courts

Vol. 38

Number 8

August 2006BRANCH

INSIDE

THE

Report Details Action on Accountability .............................pg. 2Senior Judges are Essential Volunteers ................................pg. 6Executive Committee Chair Sees Change Coming ...........pg. 10 See Appropriations on page 2

See Disabilities on page 9

The Third Branch n August 2006

2

Report Details Action On Judicial AccountabilityIn August 2006, the Executive Committee of the Judicial Confer-ence sent to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. a status report detailing the Conference’s action on judi-cial ethics and accountability. The following report was distributed to federal judges.

mark. The Court Security account was not fully funded by either the House or the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Defender Services account received $761 million: $11 million above the House mark, but $21.7 million below current services.

The Committee’s report stipu-lates that for FY 2008 and thereafter, “the Judicial Branch’s annual budget submission shall include a detailed five-year plan for courthouse construction projects with a yearly update of total projected future funding needs for rent payments and construction costs.”

The Judicial Conference estab-lished a Five-Year Plan for court-house construction in the late 1990s. The plan follows a prioritization process in which all courthouse requests are scored based on four criteria: the year the building is projected to be out of space; secu-rity; operational problems at existing court facilities such as the building’s physical condition; and the number of judges needing space. The Judi-cial Conference in March approved a list of new courthouse construction projects for FY 2008, but has not yet updated the most recent Five-Year Plan.

Appropriations continued from page 1

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., directed the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States to report on actions taken and in process by the Confer-ence’s relevant committees and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) in response to the recent reports of instances in which federal judges may not have complied with established ethical obligations. Specifically, several judges may have participated in matters in which they had a finan-cial interest, and some did not report their attendance at private educa-

tional seminars for which their expenses were paid. This is the first report in a series to be made by the Executive Committee. The second and third reports will be made following Executive Committee and Judicial Conference meetings.

First, the Executive Committee has undertaken a comprehensive review of all Judicial Conference policies on ethical obligations, and will be meeting in August and September to assess efforts already underway to aid judges’ compliance with those obligations, and to consider whether further action is necessary.

FY 2007 Judiciary Appropriations($000)

AppropriationAccount FY2007 FY2007 FY2007 Judiciary Request H.R.5576 Senate

Committee MarkU.S.SupremeCourt

Salaries&Expenses $63,397 $63,405 $63,405

CareofBuilding&Grounds 12,959 12,959 12,959

U.S.CourtofAppealsfor theFederalCircuit 26,291 26,000 25,273

U.S.CourtofInternationalTrade 16,177 16,182 16,182

CourtsofAppeals,DistrictCourts&OtherJudicialServices

Salaries&Expenses 4,639,791 4,560,066 4,587.312

DefenderServices 807,716 750,033 761,051

FeesofJurors 63,079 63,079 63,079

CourtSecurity 405,334 400,334 397,737

Subtotal $5,915,920 $5,773,512 $5,809,179

AdministrativeOffice 75,333 73,800 74,333

FederalJudicialCenter 23,787 23,500 23,390

JudicialRetirementFunds 58,300 58,300 58,300

U.S.SentencingCommission 15,740 15,500 15,340

Total,TheJudiciary $6,207,904 $6,063,158 $6,098,361


3

See Ethics on page 4

Access As Easy As Tuning In

The next time you see someone pop on the headphones and get that far-away look in his or her eyes, don’t be so sure it’s a tune that’s beguiling them. It just may be the latest oral arguments from the Seventh Circuit. The circuit is the first federal court of appeals to make RSS feeds of opinions and audio recordings of oral argu-ments available from its Web site (www.ca7.uscourts.gov/ca7_rss.htm).

The webpage helpfully explains that RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication. “It works like a subscription,” said Clerk of Court Gino Agnello, the man responsible for the circuit Web site’s latest addi-tion. Once a user subscribes to a particular topic (called an RSS feed), an RSS reader periodically polls servers to see if there are any new items of interest. If there are new items, the RSS reader notifies the user. The RSS reader can be a stand-alone program or an extension of a standard browser.

As the Seventh Circuit’s Web site announces, “Now the content you want can be delivered directly to you

Second, the Judicial Conference Committees on Financial Disclosure and Codes of Conduct are consid-ering additional administrative rules and reporting requirements for recusals and seminar attendance. Furthermore, these committees are providing to judges additional training sessions, video presenta-tions, written reminders, and regular updated information on current ethical obligations.

Third, judges who have been cited in the above reports are taking appro-priate steps to address the concerns that have been raised and put proce-

dures in place to avoid any errors.Fourth, the AO recently deployed

conflict-checking software in almost every district and bankruptcy court, and is in the process of doing so in the courts of appeals. Moreover, the AO is continuously working on improving the software by, among other things, refining the name-matching function to increase the accuracy of results and thereby assist judges in identifying poten-tial recusal situations. The AO and the Federal Judicial Center are also devoting substantial resources to educate judges on how to use the

without cluttering your inbox with e-mail messages.” In this instance, the news is the circuit’s latest oral argu-ments and opinions.

While most RSS news items refer-ence text, the news items can also reference podcasts. A podcast is a recording of audio or video files that can be downloaded to an iPod or other portable MP3 player. The Seventh Circuit’s Web site makes a combination of feeds available: an RSS feed of opinions to read on your computer, and RSS feeds of argu-ments as a standard audio MP3 podcast and an i-Tunes optimized audio podcast.

Over a decade ago, the Seventh Circuit was the first federal circuit with a bulletin board, a type of pre-Internet system that allowed users to exchange messages and read news over a phone line. The circuit was the first to require attorneys to submit briefs on floppy disks. They also were one of the first to make audio of arguments available on-line. With the addition of an RSS feed, audio of oral arguments is now available the same day, and the Seventh Circuit is again leading the way. The circuit also plans to add more “how to” information about rules and proce-dures to their Web site.

“I think having the briefs and arguments up on the Web makes for a much better-educated bar,” said Circuit Executive Collins Fitzpatrick. “They can listen to arguments, and see what happens. They can be better prepared.”

When compared to other circuits, the Seventh Circuit may be out front when it comes to the acces-sibility of opinions and arguments, but they are not alone. Most courts of appeals make audio files of oral arguments available to the public. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal Circuit make audio files of oral arguments available in MP3 format. The Ninth Circuit posts audio files of arguments on its Web site. (The Second and Ninth Circuits also permit camera coverage of their proceedings.) The D.C., First, Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits all provide audio files on a CD upon request.

Reaction to the Seventh Circuit’s latest innovation is hard to judge; it was barely a week old when The Third Branch spoke with Agnello, but the goal was clear. “The RSS feed is aimed at the public and the bar,” Agnello said. “We’re just trying to make it easier for folks to get what they need.”

conflict-checking technology. Addi-tional measures to promote, track and utilize the CM/ECF conflict-checking application are expected.

Fifth, the Judicial Branch Committee of the Judicial Confer-ence is working on an expanded disclosure policy for private seminar attendance by judges, which is expected to be considered by the Judicial Conference in September.

Sixth, the AO has been working with Congress to include in the tax laws a capital gains rollover provi-sion that will enable judges who sell


4See Disabilities on page 9

property in order to avoid conflicts of interest to defer capital gains taxes until the substitute financial inter-ests are subsequently liquidated. Members of the executive branch are already covered by such a provision. Language extending it to the Judi-ciary has been passed by the House of Representatives and is under consider-ation by the Senate, and such a provi-sion would significantly assist judges in avoiding conflicts of interest.

Seventh, the special committee established by the late Chief Justice Rehnquist to examine the implemen-tation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, chaired by Justice Stephen Breyer, will deliver its report to Chief Justice Roberts in the fall.

The federal Judiciary has a long record of high ethical standards and continuing efforts to assure that all

judges comply with those standards. The great increase in workload and multiplication of detailed reporting obligations make occasional slips inevitable, but the Judicial Confer-ence is committed to achieving compliance by all judges with all obli-gations and reporting requirements relating to ethics.

To preserve the independence of the Judiciary, Congress has tradition-ally agreed that the responsibility for enforcement of ethical conduct should be that of the Judiciary itself, and the Conference continues firmly to oppose deviations from this wise principle. Proposals in Congress to create an inspector general to oversee the Judiciary are unneces-sary, unprecedented and may violate judicial independence and the separa-tion of powers. Ethical violations of the nature recently reported are, and should be, managed, regulated and

addressed by the Judiciary itself. We take these matters very seriously and will continue to do everything we can to assure that the conduct of all judges remains above reproach.

The Judicial Conference of the United States will meet on September 19, 2006, at which time it will consider the actions taken and proposed by its committees.

Thomas F. Hogan, ChairmanPaul R. MichelMichael Boudin David L. RussellCharles R. Breyer John M. Walker, Jr.Joel M. Flaum James C. Duff

August 3, 2006

Ethics continued from page 3

Law Day 2006

Courts across the country have original ways of introducing teens to the Constitution, the federal Judiciary, and careers in the legal system, extending the reach of Constitution Day throughout the year. For Law Day 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California welcomed hundreds of students to its Los Angeles Courthouse. One class is shown in the photo above. Throughout the day, judges hosted court-room simulations and encouraged student participation. For Groundhog’s Day, the court’s job-shadowing program allows students to follow employees for a morning, then discuss career options over lunch. Every fall the district court sponsors a contemporary topics institute that helps teachers make the federal courts come alive for their students.


Five Bankruptcy Judges Top 35 Years of Servicejudge. Drake is the longest non-continuously serving active bank-ruptcy judge. He left the bankruptcy court in 1976 and returned to private practice before being named a bank-ruptcy judge in 1979.

Votolato, the only bankruptcy judge in Rhode Island, sits in Provi-dence and “never got into the habit of wearing a robe on the bench.” Local bankruptcy lawyers “now are used to seeing a guy without a robe preside,” he explained.

Peterson, whose offi cial duty station is Butte, said he enjoys “the excellent relationship among bank-ruptcy judges across the nation.”

“Many get together once a year at the National Conference of Bank-ruptcy Judges meeting,” he said. “It’s always informative and a pleasure.”

Lee also cited “the camaraderie formed with other bankruptcy judges over the years” as one of the joys of the job. Others include “a dedicated group of bankruptcy court employees and attorneys who, with few exceptions, are civil and profes-sional in their practice before the court.”

Drake, who sits in Atlanta and his hometown of Newnan, also looks forward to reporting for work each day. “I’m 73, and am enjoying my job as much as when I started,” he said.

The fi ve longest-serving bank-ruptcy judges, each with more than 35 years in his respective court, share a love for the job and the opinion that 1978 was a pivotal year for bankruptcy law.

“The Reform Act of 1978, for the fi rst time in history, established a functional, independent bankruptcy court,” said Bankruptcy Judge Alex-ander Paskay (M.D. Fla.), who has served since 1963.

Previously, those who in 1973 had their job titles changed from referees in bankruptcy to bankruptcy judges had little of the authority they wield today. “In 1978, the jurisdic-tion of bankruptcy law was greatly expanded,” said Bankruptcy Judge John Peterson (D. Mont.), whose service also began in 1963.

Paskay and Peterson are joined by Bankruptcy Judges Joe Lee (E.D. Ky.), Arthur Votolato (D. R.I.), and W. Homer Drake (N.D. Ga.) as the fi ve currently longest-serving bankruptcy judges. Voto-lato’s court service began in 1968; Drake’s in 1964; and Lee’s in 1961.

The all-time longest-serving bankruptcy judge (then a referee) may have been the late Ole E. Wyckoff of Grafton, West Virginia He was appointed in 1906 and served until 1969 – 63 years.

Bankruptcy judges are appointed to 14-year terms by the 12 regional courts of appeals. Those terms can be renewed, and once a bankruptcy judge retires he or she can be recalled on an ad hoc or extended basis for periods of up to three years. Addi-tionally, recall periods are subject to renewal.

Lee, Paskay, and Peterson are retired but have been recalled by their circuit’s judicial council more than once. Votolato and Drake are active judges, having never retired.

Votolato is the longest continu-ously serving active bankruptcy

“Many get together once a year Wyckoff of Grafton, West Virginia He

The all-time longest-serving

bankruptcy judge (then a

referee) may have been

the late Ole E. Wyckoff of

Grafton, West Virginia. He was

appointed in 1906 and served

until 1969 – 63 years.

5

Joe Lee (E.D. Ky.)

Arthur Votolato (D. R.I.)

Alexander Paskay (M.D. Fla.)

W. Homer Drake (N.D. Ga.)

John Peterson (D. Mont.)


6

Senior Judges: Essential Volunteers Helping Federal Courts

In the federal courts, senior judges are the essential volunteers.

“Their work is invaluable,” said Chief Judge Harvey Bartle III (E.D. Pa.), whose court is among those that most utilize senior judges. “Without them, we couldn’t possibly stay on top of our case-load. We pride ourselves in getting the court’s work done in a timely manner. That wouldn’t be possible without the help our 13 senior judges provide for our 22 active service judges.”

The same is true for many other federal district and appellate courts. Year in, year out, senior judges—those who opted for that status instead of retiring at full pay—do more than 15 percent of the work of the federal Judiciary.

In fiscal year 2005, 322 senior district judges—32 percent of all

sitting federal district judges— termi-nated 16.5 percent of all civil and criminal cases and conducted 17.2 percent of all trials. In the appeals courts, 91 senior judges—33 percent of all circuit judges— handled 18 percent of all participations in oral hearings and submissions of briefs.

Congress in 1919 first autho-rized judges to retire at age 70 after 10 years of service, and continue to retain the judicial office and perform duties in retired status. In 1948, Congress provided that judges retiring from active service would continue to receive the full judicial salary. Six years later, the minimum retirement age became 65, with 15 years of service.

Although a rising percentage of federal judges in recent years have left the bench before retirement age to earn much more money as lawyers, very few opt for full retirement instead of senior status when they are eligible.

A senior judge must do at least 25 percent of the work of an active service judge to keep staff and office space, but some judges continue carrying a full caseload after taking senior status.

Judge Jan DuBois (E.D. Pa.) is one. “I saw no need to cut back because

I was just as able to decide cases, and I still enjoy the work,” he said in explaining his 2002 decision. “I thought it was appropriate to take senior status so our court could receive the help of an additional active service judge.”

Chief Judge James Holderman (N.D. Ill.) said that senior judges do more than just help move cases. “We are blessed with an outstanding group of 11 senior judges,” he said.

“Our new judges often seek out the sage advice of these seasoned judges. In addition to their tremendous work on the cases over which they preside, our senior judges continue to contribute by their work on committees of the Judicial Confer-ence and serve the legal commu-nity through their speaking appearances at bar association meetings, articles for publica-tion in legal journals, teaching law students, and participating in continuing legal education programs.” He added, “Each judge possesses a great deal of wisdom and experience collected through many years of service.”

United States Courts of Appeals and District Courts Work of Senior Judges

During the 12 Month Period Ended June 30, 1996 - 2005

Type of Activity 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 CourtsofAppeals1 AllParticipationsinOralHearings andSubmissionsonBriefs.............................. 82,132 79,791* 75,656 80,313 82,471 85,701 86,200 83,028* 83,199 86,126SeniorJudgesOnly2…..........….…......…. 11,420 11,512* 12,032 12,144 13,529 13,589 13,655 14,067* 14,274 15,527PercentofAll……………………....... 13.9 14.4* 15.9 15.1 16.4 15.9 15.8 16.9* 17.2 18.0 DistrictCourts3 AllCivilCasesandCriminalDefendants Terminated..................................................... 284,021 289,431 302,840 316,882 308,543 296,809 297,066 318,344 302,607 336,936SeniorJudgesOnly.................................... 41,323 48,543 51,646 54,498 55,913 52,401 53,115 56,574 52,433 55,444PercentofAll..…….............................. 14.5 16.8 17.1 17.2 18.1 17.7 17.9 17.8 17.3 16.5

1DatawereobtainedfromTableS-2,JudicialBusinessoftheUnitedStates.

2IntheCourtsofAppeals,“SeniorJudgesOnly”representsresidentseniorcircuitjudgesonly.3DatawereobtainedfromJudgeActivityandSeniorJudgeActivityreportsforyearendingJune30.“SeniorJudgesOnly”totalsdonotincludetheworkofseniorcircuitjudgesinthedistrictcourts.*revised


7

Advantages of Videoconferencing Grow with Use

A recently released study by the Federal Judicial Center shows there’s a lot to like about videoconferencing. The survey is particularly interesting for what it says about how comfort-able judges can become with this courtroom technology.

The FJC surveyed 14 appellate court judges on their use and opin-ions of videoconferencing technology. The judges represented five different circuits and all had some prior experi-ence with videoconferencing. Their findings were compiled in “Report of a Survey of Videoconferencing in the Courts of Appeals.” While the small sample size argues against broadly applying these opinions to all judges and courts, the survey does reveal some interesting views.

Videoconferencing permits partic-ipants at different locations to see and hear each other via audio and visual transmission. Videoconfer-encing is essentially a televised tele-phone call.

The Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits use videoconfer-encing to conduct oral arguments. It has also been used to discuss cases that are not scheduled for oral argu-ment in the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. Judges in the Ninth Circuit use videoconferencing for motions and screening panels and certificate of appealability hearings. Court business, such as committee or court meetings, has been conducted by videoconferencing in the Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits. Judges throughout the circuits also use videoconferencing to interview potential law clerks and participate in training sessions, among other uses.

According to the report, almost all of the surveyed judges liked the

way videoconferencing saved travel time and money. Several mentioned scheduling flexibility; videocon-ferencing can help judges or attor-neys work around an unexpected health problem or emergencies that might interfere with travel. Video-conferencing also promotes access to the court, according to the survey responses, by permitting litigants to appear who might not otherwise be able to afford to attend oral argu-ments. The survey quoted one Ninth Circuit judge: “There are many liti-gants, especially Social Security liti-gants, who can’t afford to come for oral argument, but would be able to via videoconference.”

The report also notes that video-conferencing can promote a more timely hearing of cases in the Bank-ruptcy Appellate Panels. According to one Eighth Circuit BAP judge, “We have so few cases that we tend to save them up until there are enough to justify traveling to a court. When you have to fly all judges and staff to [the appeals] location just for one case, it’s expensive and time consuming.”

There was less consensus on videoconferencing’s disadvantages. Technical difficulties—dropped or bad connections—were most frequently cited.

But could the technology influ-ence interactions, for better or worse, between judge and attor-neys? It appears that familiarity with videoconferencing breeds content-ment. The decreased ability to make personal connections with the other participants was a commonly mentioned disadvantage among the judges with less videoconference experience. However, the more expe-rienced judges did not mention this as a downside.

The audio delay that accompanies remote transmissions also might be considered a disruption; the audio track does not always match the visual picture so it may be difficult to tell when participants are begin-

ning a question. “Surprisingly,” the report notes, “the audio delay was rarely cited as a problem by any of the judges, regardless of their level of experience with videoconferencing.’” Indeed, one court’s low-tech solu-tion to audio delays was for a partici-pant to raise his or her hand before speaking.

Neither audio delay or other technical problems stopped judges from asking questions of attorneys, or impaired their understanding of the legal issues. This was particu-larly true for the experienced judges. One judge noted, according to the report, “it may take more getting used to, but I ask the same number of questions.” And while the judges surveyed said they found it moder-ately more difficult to interrupt when someone else was speaking, it was not impossible. As one judge said, “In most arguments, there just isn’t that much interruption necessary.”

The report concludes that the appellate judges interviewed had positive experiences with videocon-ferencing. “On the whole, for the judges interviewed, the benefits of videoconferencing outweighed its disadvantages. . . Most were pleased with their court’s technology and had very few technical problems to report.” And with videoconferencing experience, judges simply become accustomed to this mode of interac-tion. Or as one surveyed judge said, “you tend to forget that you are doing it via videoconference, and just proceed as normal.”

The FJC survey can be found at www.fjc.gov/library/fjc_catalog.nsf.


For additional August milestones, visit The Third Branch on-line at www.uscourts.gov

8

THE

THIRD BRANCH

Published monthly by theAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Office of Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20544(202) 502-2600

Visit our Internet site at http://www.uscourts.gov

DIRECTORJames C. Duff

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFDavid A. Sellers

MANAGING EDITORKaren E. Redmond

CONTRIBUTORDick Carelli

PRODUCTIONLinda Stanton

Please direct all inquiries and address changes to The Third Branch at the above address or to [email protected].

JUDICIAL BOXSCORE

J U D I C I A L M I L E S T O N E S

As of August 1, 2006

Courts of Appeals Vacancies 14

Nominees 9

District Courts Vacancies 28

Nominees 14

Courts with “Judicial Emergencies” 20

For more information on vacancies in the federal Judiciary, visit our website at www.uscourts.gov under Newsroom.

Appointed: Sandra Segal Ikuta, as U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, July 9.

Appointed: Thomas M. Golden, as U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, July 6.

Appointed: Andrew J. Guilford, as U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Cali-fornia, July 7.

Appointed: U.S. Magistrate Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi, as U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, August 2. Judge Gelpi served as a U.S. Magis-trate Judge prior to his elevation.

Appointed: Roger L. Efremsky, as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bank-ruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, August 1.

Appointed: Daniel S. Opperman, as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bank-ruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, July 13.

Appointed: Randa Davis Doub, as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bank-ruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, July 28.

Appointed: George W. Emerson, Jr., as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bank-ruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee, July 1.

Appointed: Jean K. FitzSimon, as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bank-ruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, June 28.

Appointed: Teresa M. McKee, as a part-time U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, July 1.

Appointed: Linda R. Anderson, as U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, July 12.

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge William L. Edmonds, to Chief Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, succeeding U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Paul J. Kilburg, August 18.

Senior Status: U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Gerald W. Heaney, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, August 31.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Tim Leonard, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, August 21.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 27.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, August 2.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, August 1.

Retired: U.S. Senior District Judge William G. Bassler, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, August 31.

Retired: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James R. Grube, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, July 31.

Retired: U.S. Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, August 2.

Resigned: U.S. Magistrate Judge Leif B. Erickson, U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, June 9.

Deceased: U.S. Senior District Judge John M. Manos, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, July 6.


“If I needed to refer to a

bag of cocaine, I would need

to know its size in order to

use the right size and shape

specifi ers in American Sign

Language.”

9

Over the last fi ve years, SLIs have interpreted for participants in grand jury sessions, voir dire, initial hear-ings, trials, bankruptcy hearings, settlement conferences, and natu-ralization ceremonies—in short, for every federal court proceeding where citizens may be called for duty or participate as litigants or defendants, or occasionally as attor-neys. For example, Court Services Supervisor Rose Donaghue in the District of New Jersey provides court proceedings in real time to an attorney who is hearing impaired. A deaf state government attorney who frequently appears in the court is provided with an SLI.

Donna Gregory, chief deputy clerk of court for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, recently arranged sign language interpreting for a deaf man selected for grand jury service.

“After he received his jury summons, he contacted us using the TTY (telecommunications device for the deaf) service to advise us he would need a sign language interpreter. We also communicate with him by e-mail,” said Gregory. The grand jury meets every other week, and because it’s very taxing to sign, two sign language interpreters are used per session. The interpreters are sworn-in with the rest of the jurors.

Sign language interpreters may be certifi ed in Legal Sign. This Specialist Certifi cate: Legal (SC:L) signifi es the successful completion of both a legal written exam and a legal performance test developed by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. Candidates also must docu-ment eligibility through education, training and experience.

“Sign language interpreters won’t normally go into a courtroom until they have 10 years of experience with a general certifi cation and legal interpreter training,” said Carla Mathers, an attorney and former

Disabilities continued from page 1 legal SLI. According to Mathers, there are only 140 SC:L-certifi ed sign language interpreters in the country.

Sign language is not a word-for-word equivalent for the spoken word. Interpreters must convey concepts and they often use compar-ative forms.

“On occasion,” said Mathers, “this may give attorneys pause, because they may think the interpreter is giving legal advice.” Even something as simple as a greeting may be misin-terpreted. “In the deaf community,” Mathers said, “greetings are phys-

ical, even if you don’t know each other well. Some attorneys might assume you know each other and that there is a confl ict of interest.”

Unlike most spoken language interpreters, sign language inter-preters also must be familiar with cases. “For example,” said Mathers, “if I needed to refer to a bag of cocaine, I would need to know its size in order to use the right size and shape specifi ers in American Sign Language.” Interpreters also follow their juror-clients into delibera-tions. “To see the process all the way through,” said Mathers, “is amazing, but it’s very hard. Jury deliberations require two interpreters and some-times you’re there all night.”

In addition to sign language interpreters, most courts also make ALDs available. For example, the U.S. District Court for the Middle

District of Louisiana has ALDs in all the courtrooms and grand jury rooms. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York keeps a few dozen ALDs on hand all the time. “We have one judge who is hard of hearing who wears an ALD in the courtroom, and he is not shy about offering ALDs to anyone having diffi culty hearing,” said Jeanne Spampata, chief deputy clerk for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The district, which encompasses a large deaf population in the Roch-

ester, New York area, has an access coordinator in each division. The district also routinely uses sign language interpreters for every naturalization ceremony and any type of public ceremony.

Accommodating some inter-preting needs can be challenging. For Donaghue in New Jersey, it was a deaf woman who did not understand sign language and, it was suspected, could not read. “We found an interpreter who lip-reads poorly enunciated words—it’s actually a specialty fi eld,” said Donaghue. In the U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of California, Rebeca Calderon, manager of interpreter services, recently went in search of a Mexican Sign Language interpreter for a material witness in a criminal case. American Sign Language (ASL) is normally used for English-speaking individuals. According to Mathers, the need for interpreters who know Mexican Sign Language is more common in the border states and in inner cities where language issues are complex. Calderon eventually found an interpreter, “after spending a lot of time on the phone,” she said.


10

I N T E R V I E W

Chief Judge Hogan Sees Change ComingChief Judge Thomas F. Hogan (D. D.C.) was named chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference in 2005. He has been a member of the committee since 2001.

Q:What is the role of the Execu-tive Committee of the Judicial

Conference?

A:The Executive Committee keeps the day-to-day business

of the Conference running—between the March and September sessions of the Judicial Conference. We basically work on behalf of the Chief Justice, at his direction, to ensure the important policy issues are carried out by the Judicial Conference and its commit-tees and by the AO. We do not estab-lish or create policy—that’s the role of the Judicial Conference.

Executive Committee members serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice, who appoints seven members from the Judicial Conference. Right now we have four chief judges of circuits, and three district judges. The secretary of the Executive Committee is the Director of the Administra-tive Office, Jim Duff. The chair of the Executive Committee sometimes is looked upon by the Chief Justice and others as a spokesperson for the Judi-cial Conference on matters of Confer-ence policy.

Q:This has been a year of transi-tion for the federal Judiciary.

A:It really has been a year of tremendous transition for

the Judiciary. We have a new Chief Justice. We have a new director of the Administrative Office. We’re going to have a new deputy director of the AO, and the Chief Justice will have a

new administrative assistant, when Sally Rider leaves. The Executive Committee will have three new members after October 1. So there’s change all the way around.

That said, I don’t see any substantive changes immediately taking place, although there is bound to be some change in time. I think the Chief Justice, as he gets more involved and more familiar with the process, will put his own mark on the Judiciary. The Chief Justice is a very comfortable person to work with. He is very interested in the Judiciary and an extremely bril-liant man. He’s adapting well to his new role.

Jim Duff is new as Director of the Administrative Office; but he comes with a long history with the federal Judiciary. It’s amazing there was someone like him avail-able. Jim comes in as a person who worked with Chief Justice Rehnquist for several years, and with the Judi-cial Conference. He represented the Federal Judges Association, so he was intimately involved with the issues of the federal Judiciary.

Mr. Mecham did such a wonderful job in bringing us into the 21st Century, with new courthouses, auto-mation, and CM/ECF. I think Jim Duff is ready to move forward in his own style, which will be different from Mr. Mecham’s.

There will be changes on the Execu-tive Committee because Chief Judge John Walker (2nd Cir.) and Chief Judge Joel Flaum (7th Cir.) will be taking senior status and will no longer be members of the Judicial Conference. And Judge David L. Russell, the district court judge from the Western

District of Oklahoma, is finishing his term and will be replaced. It will be up to the Chief Justice to appoint new committee members. He’ll bring in well qualified judges who will have an opportunity to participate with us on the Executive Committee. It’s always nice to have a new perspective and different views.

Q:The issue of judicial ethics and accountability has been

in the media recently. Federal judges recently received a memo from the Executive Committee on the topic.

A:They did. We are obviously concerned with reports in the

media of occasional lapses—they’re rare but they do happen—of judges forgetting to report a trip they took, or judges not recusing themselves from a case when a family member may own stock.

I don’t think there’s any sugges-tion the judges did anything inten-tionally, but it has concerned us on the Executive Committee, as well as the Chief Justice, and we are going to take steps to be sure judges live up to what is expected of them.

Through the committees, we already have put some measures into effect. The Committee on Codes of

Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan (D.D.C.)


11See Interview on page 12

Conduct has developed many tools for the judges to keep up-to-date on matters. We have an ethics quiz on the Intranet for the judges to take. And the AO has developed very good conflict-checking software that works with electronic case filing; it’s much better software and its easier for judges to use than prior iterations. And once most of the courts are on CM/ECF, it will make it much easier to check for conflicts. It is very diffi-cult in today’s world where corpora-tions constantly change and merge, to keep track of all the changes. If the lawyers don’t advise you of the changes, you can inadvertently sit on a case. But the automatic conflict-checking software will help greatly.

Q:Why is public perception of judicial accountability so

important?

A:If we’re making rulings that affect people’s lives and well-

being, the public has to be confident that we are upholding the law impar-tially and fairly. They rely on us to give full and fair consideration to all the issues and rules according to the law. When we have judges in whom the public has lost confidence, it hurts the whole process.

I’ve been very concerned about attacks on the independence of the Judiciary, which causes, I think, misunderstandings by the public. These attacks may result in such laws as one now on the ballot in South Dakota called “Jail for Judges.” Or a bill in Montana that would amend their constitution to allow the recall of judges for any reason. There are some very draco-nian suggestions being made out there, which all go back to a lack of confidence in the Judiciary—and that’s why the perception by the public is so important.

Q:There is a growing disparity in judges’ pay when

compared to the private sector. Is

this a problem for the Judiciary and what can be done about it?

A:It’s true, federal judges haven’t had a real pay raise

since the mid-90s. We have had occasional cost-of-living increases—usually less than what federal employees get. The United States used to have the highest pay scale for federal judges, but no longer. Canada and England pay more to their top judges than we do. Perhaps as a result, an increasing number of judges are leaving to go into private practice.

You always hear that a first- or second-year associate in a major firm in a major city makes more than a federal district court judge—which is true. But I like to look at the obliga-tions and duties of a federal judge, and the nature of the cases they’re ruling upon. What you’re asking them to do is a tremendous respon-sibility. There’s something wrong when you handle a major antitrust case with a billion dollars at issue and the finest lawyers in the country are on the case, and the least lawyer there is making more than the judge. Or if you run a southwest border court and you work seven days a week with literally thousands of cases a month on your docket.

Still, everybody understands that we perform a public service; we don’t take the job to make money. We do it as dedicated public servants. But at the same time, we’re losing highly qualified judges who have to support their families. Or we risk not getting the quality judges applying for the jobs anymore. The Chief Justice has recognized this and he has indicated that improving judges’ pay is a top priority for him. We hope Congress will respond.

Q:Legislation is pending in Congress that would extend

to the Judiciary deferral of capital gains taxes. Why was this legislation needed?

A:The rollover provision in the Federal Tax Code allows high

officials in the Executive Branch, who have conflicts because of the nature of their business, to take the stock they own and roll it over into a mutual fund or other investments. When they do that, they do not pay capital gains tax, but delay or defer the tax until such time as they sell that investment. Because they have to sell the stock to avoid conflicts, they are not penalized.

The federal Judiciary does not have the same benefit. There was a recent newspaper article about a judge, with family stock in a busi-ness, who had been handling a very large antitrust case for several years. One of the defendants purchased that business through another subsidiary. To stay on the case, the judge had to sell the family stock and pay a large capital gains tax. This legislation would avoid that.

Q:The Judiciary’s FY 2007 budget is working its way

through Congress. What are your concerns about the level of funding for FY 2007?

A:I am very thankful both to the House and the Senate Appro-

priations Committee for their fair consideration of our needs. At the House and the Senate Appropria-tions Committee mark we should be able to maintain our existing staff levels in FY 2007, in contrast to a few years ago when we had to make dramatic cuts in staffing.

There are certainly new initiatives and programs that will not proceed. But if the committee mark is passed by the full Senate at least we are going to be able to maintain the status quo in the coming year.

Q:What is the status of the Judiciary’s cost-containment

efforts? Is this a continuing effort and priority?

Interview continued from page 11

Protected Property Rights Cases

FIRST CLASS MAILPOSTAGE & FEES

PAIDU.S. COURTS

PERMIT NO. G-18

FIRST CLASS

THE THIRD BRANCHAdministrative Office of the U.S. CourtsOffice of Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20544

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

U.S. Government Printing Office 2005-310-982-00031

A:It is. The Executive Committee is dedicated to it. All the

studies show that appropriations simply will not be able to keep up with our increased expenses—espe-cially the rent increases, which we’re working to try to control. We’re still asking each conference committee to review and update its cost-contain-ment efforts.

We have to continue to contain our costs internally and operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. We have some substan-tial on-going studies to introduce more cost-containment measures, such as the Judiciary’s compensation study, and information technology studies, which include the consolida-tion of servers and other such initia-tives that will limit our IT costs. We are trying to control our buildings projects as much as possible, and to evaluate the long-range planning process. We’re looking at budget caps in all areas. We are dedicated to an ongoing cost containment, even though it sometimes hurts. We have to be if we’re going to survive as the Judiciary.

F E D E R A L C O U R T S S N A P S H O T

Copyright Cases Spin Upward

Atotalof12,184copyright,patentandtrademarkcases,underthegeneralcategoryofprotectedpropertyrights,werefiledinfederaldistrictcourtsinFiscalYear2005,up27percentfromFY2004.

Thegreatestincreaseinfilingswasseenincopyrightcases,whichrose92.8percentfromFY2004toFY2005.Themajorityofthesecaseswerefiledbymusicindustrycompaniesagainstindividualdefendants.

Statisticsonprotectedpropertyrightsandothercivilfilingsinthefederalcourtsareavailableon-lineinthepublication,JudicialBusinessoftheUnitedStatesCourts,inTableC-2A,www.uscourts.gov/judbus2005/appendices/c2a.pdf.

Documents

2006-08 Aug