Resources
Challenges for Judicial Branch Educators
by Ellen Marshall

Judicial Branch Educators (JBEs) not only plan training programs to support performance enhancement, but also to prepare judicial employees for litigation trends and re-engineered processes that keep pace with societal expectations.  Like Janus of Greek mythology, we must look forward and backward simultaneously.  This article will discuss tools that can make the forward-facing JBE more effective in spotting job demands. It will also identify some of the training topics courts must address in this increasingly technology-driven world.

The Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections publishes data on employment trends.  Its most current publication analyzed occupational data from 25-44 year olds in “High Wage, High Growth Occupations” taken from the Current Population Survey or CPS (See Note 1). These figures apply to public and private sector employment.

Within this data set are some occupations found in many of our court systems.  The growth projections span the years 2004-2014.  Consider the following:

1. It is projected that there will be a 25.9% growth in the occupation Training and Development Managers from 2004-2014.
2. There will be a 24.1% increase in HR and Training Specialist occupations during this period.
3. Lawyers will increase by only 15%.
4. Network systems and data communications analysts will grow by 54.6 %. Court reporters will increase by 14.8%.

Court budgeting and planning is traditionally driven mainly by caseloads.  Although this driver works for clerk of court operations, it is not always the best fit for budgeting for support occupations within the court system. Courts should consider other data, like occupational growth, to project how to allocate its fiscal and human resources.

These projections carry some alerts also for judicial branch educators and human resource professionals in our state, local and federal courts. While JBEs will be concerned about allocating a portion of their training budgets for these faster growing job classifications, human resources professionals might also be considering retention strategies for those professions so as not to risk losing experienced staff to private companies paying higher salaries and offering better benefits.

While many government entities, including court systems, cut back on money allocated to training during the past two decades, corporate America is recognizing that continuing professional education and workplace training is worth the investment. At the 2003 American Society for Training and Development’s conference, Sandra Price, vice president of human resource development at Sprint, cited

her organization’s philosophical shift from viewing the learning department as an operational, revenue-making center to one that is value-driven.  Investment in education for the company’s 72,000 employees has steadily risen over the past decade to $120 million.  The shift, Price recalled, “rocked our foundation” and changed how the learning function operated (See Note 2).

Another major influence on the JBE budget is the increasing use of technology in trials. Counsel more frequently use multi-media to demonstrate a scenario similar to one introduced by counsel as evidence in a medical malpractice case or major tort litigation.  How do JBEs prepare courtroom personnel – judicial officers, courtroom clerks, bailiffs and court reporters – for their use and introduction as evidence?  What instructions, if any, does a trial judge give to a jury when one well-financed party uses multi-media demonstrations to reinforce its case, in order to balance the positive effect of its use against its value for truth-telling? Do media techniques such as animation and introversion place new demands upon the trier of fact and courtroom personnel?  Is it reasonable for a judge to bar such exhibits and how does the judge or jury evaluate their similarity to the situation it is intended to demonstrate? How does a court reporter capture the demonstration on the transcript?  How does a bailiff maintain security in a courtroom where lights are dimmed for viewing such exhibits?  What court rules must be in place to allow such demonstrations? Short of a visit to the Courtrooms of the Future in Williamsburg or Reno, how does the facilitator of these programs bring these technologies to a court audience?

Reproductive and DNA technology has advanced more rapidly than the law has been able to address its effects upon litigation.  Courts have already grappled with the property and human issues these cases raise, and many state courts have been forced to turn to national and regional providers to meet training needs in these highly complex trials.  Specialty courts and dockets grow as judges try to comprehend the scientific underpinnings.

Federal court JBEs continue to witness a rise in class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies as well as environmental and workplace litigation involving complicated scientific evidence.  And, they will continue to grapple with the constitutional questions arising from federal detention and immigration questions since September 11, 2001.

It seems as if the entire educational landscape has moved from the more classic issues of search and seizure and hearsay to those involving a special set of knowledge and skills for which undergraduate and law school education has not prepared judicial branch personnel.  JBEs must fill in those gaps.

For the past three decades, JBEs have grappled with the need to allocate increasing dollars on technology training for information technology and communications personnel working for the courts. Often those programs drink heavily from an education budget’s consultant font, sometimes at the expense of leadership training and procedural updates.  When there is intense competition for these funds, how does the manager of judicial branch training make a fair allocation of the money set aside for education? 

In a court system dedicated to strategic planning, the disbursement of education funding, as posed above, becomes easier.  Any of these training needs becomes a priority when it contributes to achieving the court system’s strategic goals. 

However, in the absence of strategic planning, JBE managers have become increasingly dependent upon the advice or direction of their boards or curriculum committees for investment in training.  Many have walked the thin ethical line of accepting training provided by the industries that litigate these cases against the need to bring these cutting-edge courses to their state judges.

To avoid the labor of Sisyphus, state, local and federal court systems must recognize the importance of investing in attracting and retaining a talented professional pool and training those individuals for the demands of this technology-driven society.

RESOURCES

NOTE 1 Source: “High Wage, High Growth Occupations…” Table 1-5 derived from the Current Population Survey, Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections. Survey sample from 25-44 year olds, 2000-2004.

NOTE 2 “Training budgets said to be withstanding companies’ economic troubles”, HR Magazine, July 2003.

Ellen Marshall has worked as director of both the Maryland and District of Columbia Court Education and Training Divisions.  She was inspired to do international work for the Hope Fellowship Program in Kosova from 2003-2005 and to start her own adult education company, Eureka. Contact Ellen with questions or ideas for future international articles in this series at Eurekacompany@aol.com.

Return to Top

Copyright 1999-2010, National Association of State Judicial Educators
Contact Web Developer

This Website is updated quarterly by NASJE.
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Association of State Judicial Educators.