Juslice0'Cmnol'

Spea[s 0ul

X d J S X R HN ***N

ffi#s1{rsxrs{R..sK &(s

llleul Directon nl the Adminisll'atiue 0llice lllamed

Leonidas Ralph Mecham, out-going Director of the Administratiae Office of the U.S. CoLtrts,

ruelcomes newly named Director lames C. Dt{f as Chief lustice lohn G. Roberts looks on.

Newsletter

of the

Federal

Courts

Vol.38

Number 5

May 2006

Justice Sandra Day O'Connorretired from the Supreme Court ofthe United States on |anuary 3L,2006,after 24 years of service. She wasinterviewed in April 2006,by The

Third Brnnch staff.

Supreme Court lustice Sandra Day O'Connor

Chief Justice John G. Roberts,

|r., has named James C. Duff as

the director of the AdministrativeOffice of the U.S. Courts (AO). TheChief justice made the announce-ment and introduced Duff toemployees on April 20, at the

AO's headquarters in the ThurgoodMarshall Federal judiciary Buildingin Washington, DC. Standing withDuff and the Chief |ustice was Leon-idas Ralph Mecham, the currentdirector of the AO who Duff will

See NEWDIRECTOR on page 2

See INTERVIEW on page 6

NEWDIRECTOR continuedfrom plge 1

succeed. Mecham will retire thissummer after nearly 21 years as

director.Duff, who has over 30 years of

legislative, litigation, and manage-ment experience in Washington,DC, comes to the position fromthe Baker, Donelson, Bearman,Caldwell, and Berkow iLz Law

firm, where he has served as the

managing partner of its Washington,DC office for six years.

"I look forward to good workingrelations with the other twobranches of government to effec-

tuate what justice jackson and laterChief justice Rehnquist referredto as the 'separate but interdepen-dent' nature of the branches of ourgovernment," Duff said in remarksdelivered to AO employees. "Those

of you who have labored here foryears know firsthand how interde-pendent our branches are, particu-larly those of you who work on thejudiciary's budget."

The director of the AO serves as

the chief administrative officer ofthe federal courts under the direc-tion and supervision of the |udicialConference of the United States, theprincipal policy-making body forthe federal court system.

Duff will be responsible for themanagement of the AO with approx-imately 900 employees, and forproviding legal counsel to the |udi-ciary and administrative support toapproximately 2,000 judicial officersand 30,000 court employees. Duffwill serve as advocate and liaisonfor the judicial branch in its relationswith Congress, including workingwith Congressional committees tosecure the Judiciary's annual appro-priation. He also will be respon-sible for executing the Judiciary's $6

billion dollar annual budget.In announcing his selection,

the Chief justice noted, "jim Duffis uniquely qualified to lead theAdministrative Office at this criticaltime. He has proven himself to be a

dedicated public servant on behalfof the judiciary. I am delighted thathe has agreed to take on this respon-sibility and certain that he will do an

excelleni job."Duff has served under two other

Chief justices. LIe was Chief JusticeWilliam H. Rehnquist's adminis-trative assistant fron 799 6-2000,

serving as the chief of staff at the

Supreme Court and as liaison tothe other two branches of govern-ment on behalf of the Chief |ustice.He began his career as an office andcourtroom assistant to Chief JusticeWarren E. Burger frorn7975-7979,while attending law school.

After graduating from theGeorgetown University Law Centerin 1981, Duff became an associate

and then a partner at Clifford &Warnke. There his practice focusedon antitrust litigation and legisla-tive matters until 1991 when mostof the firm merged with Howrey &Simon. He continued with Howrey& Simon until 1995 when Chiefjustice Rehnquist appointed him to

be his administrative assistant. He

loined Baker, Donelson, Bearman,Caldwell, and Berkowitz in 2000,

where he has represented clients inrrarious legislative, corporate, andlitigation matters. His clients haveincluded the Federal Judges Asso-ciation, the University of Kentucky,the NCAA, and The Freedom Forumand Newseum, Inc.

Duff graduated from the Unir.er-sity of Kentucky Honors Programin1975 where he was Phi Beta

Kappa, and received a J.D. frorn the

Georgetown Law Center in 1981.

He has taught Constitutional Lawat Georgetown Universitr- since

1999, and has served on ser-eral

boards, including the CapitalHospice Foundation, the SupremeCourt Historical Society, and the

Lawyers' Committee of the NationalCenter for State Courts. Chief

|ustice Rehnquist appointed him tochair the Supreme Court FellowsCommission in 2005. \

In recognition nnd appreciation of Leonidas Rnlph Mechnnis tettttrt ,ls Direct()t' of the Adminis-trntiae Office,ltLdge Alan B. lohnson (D. WVo.), on belutlf o.i tlte Federnl lutlges Association, pre-

sented Mecham nnd his zuife Barbara zuith a collector's editltttt oi tlrc Federnlist Papers. The pre-

sentntion wns made during the association's Mny 2006 nrcetittg itt Wnshirt,ortott, DC.

-itThc Third Bra.nch t Mntl 2006

Bills Wnuld Bl'inu Renl Reliel l0 Jtldicial'u Allnul Gameras in Curl$,

$hape Judicial $scut'ily nnd Reuiew, and Cl'eate Inspsclnr ffenel'al

Late last month the Senate ]udi-ciary Committee unanimouslyapproved 5.2292, a bill that would, inits own words "provide relief for theFederal judiciary from excessive rentcharges." The legislation, if enacted,would require that rents establishedby the General Services Administra-tion (GSA) for all courthouses andfacilities provided to the judicialbranch "not exceed the actual costs ofoperating and maintaining suchaccommodations." A similar bill, H.R.47L0, the Judiciary Rent Reform Act,is pending in the House.

The Judiciary's total rent obliga-tion to CSA is now approximately$1 billion, and yet the estimatedcost to CSA to operate and maintaincourt-occupied facilities is approxi-mately $450 million. From 1985 to2005, the ]udiciary's space inventoryhas grown by 766 percent, while rentobligations to GSA have increased585 percent.

Insruclol' 0eneral Prlposed

Also late last month SenatorCharles Grassley (R-IA) and Repre-

sentative F. james Sensenbrenner (R-

WI), chairman of the House judiciaryCommittee, introduced legislationthat would establish an inspectorgeneral for the judicial branch. Thebills, which are identical, are titledthe "Judicial Transparency andEthics Enhancement Act of 2006." Inthe past, the judicial Conference hasopposed such legislation, pointingout that the Judiciary is an inde-pendent branch of government andalready has in place numerous auditsand reviews of federal Judiciaryfunds, programs, and operations.

Courl$ llllotlld 0pen to Cfllnora$

Two bills that would open federalcourtrooms to cameras are headedto the Senate floor with the approval

of the Judiciary Committee. Onebill, S. 829, introduced by SenatorsCharles Grassley (R-IA) and CharlesSchumer (D-NY), would allowbroadcast coverage of proceedingsat all levels of the federal courts, atthe discretion of the presiding judge.Called the "Sunshine in CourtroomAct of 2005," the bill provides for theobscuring of non-party witnesses'voices and images upon request.A three-year sunset provision isincluded for the district courts.Similar legislation was introducedin the 105th Congress, and since thenthe Senate judiciary Committee hasreported favorably bills to allowcameras in courtrooms three times.

A second bill, S. 1768, introducedby Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA),

would require television coverage ofall open sessions of Supreme Courtproceedings unless a majority of thejustices decide that allowing suchcoverage in a particular case would"constitute a violation of the dueprocess rights of one or more of theparties before the Court."

Since 1995, |udicial Conferencepolicy has allowed aII federal appealscourts to permit their proceedings tobe televised, but only the Second andNinth Circuits voted to allow elec-

tronic media coverage. The Confer-ence has concluded that it is not in theinterest of justice to permit cameras infederal trial courtrooms. Electronicmedia coverage of criminal proceed-ings in federal courts is expresslyprohibited under Federal Rule ofCriminal Procedure 53.

A Federal judicial Center studyof a three-year Judicial Conferencepilot program allowing electronicmedia coverage of civil proceed-ings in two appellate and six districtcourts, found that 64 percent of theparticipating judges reported that, atleast to some extent, cameras make

witnesses more nervous than theyotherwise would be. In addition,46percent of the judges believed that, atleast to some extent, cameras makewitnesses less willing to appear incourt.

Judicial Secunily and Review lmlactsd

The House passed H.R. 4472, the"Children's Safety and Violent CrimeReduction Act of 2006" in earlyMarch and the bill is now pendingSenate |udiciary Committee action.The bill includes a provision thatwould require the U.S. MarshalsService to consult with the Adminis-trative Office regarding the securityrequirements of the judicial branchand a provision that would protectjudges from the malicious recordingof fictitious liens. In addition, thebill would allow judges who havereceived supervised training underregulations set out by the AttorneyGeneral, to carry firearms.

H.R.4472 also would amendthe habeas corpus procedures in28 U.S.C. 52264 and $ 2254 to barfederal court review of claims basedupon an error in the applicant'ssentence or sentencing that a courtdetermined to be harmless or notprejudicial, that were not presentedin state court, or that were found bythe state court to be procedurallybarred, "unless a determination thatthe error is not structural is contraryto clearly established federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court."The Judicial Conference has

opposed such limits on judicialreview, stating among other reasons,that they have the potential to under-mine the traditional role of thefederal courts to hear and decide themerits of claims arising under theConstitution \

Tht Th.irtl BrLtnch t Mav 2006

Ten Courls il Appeals

nllnue t0 CIt|l/tGtThe district courts are doing it. The

bankruptcy courts have already doneit. Now it's the turn of the federalcourts of appeals.

Ten of the 13 courts of appeals are

participating in the Judiciary's nationalrollout of the Case Management/Elec-tronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system

that is now in use in 89 district courts,92 bankruptcy courts, the Court ofInternational Tiade and the Court ofFederal Claims. Unlike those courts,the courts of appeals are still in the

implementation stage, which began in2005. During this time, functions havebeen added and kinks subtracted. Says

Gary Bowden, chief of the Administra-tive Office's Appellate Court andCircuit Administration Division, "The

10 courts of appeals are making steadyprogress and we expect the first courtsto go live with the CM/ECF system bylate 2006 or early 2007."

According to Bowden, this is thefirst time the AO has provided anational application supporting thecourts of appeals, including clerks'offices, staff attorneys, and circuitmediation programs, which histori-cally each have had separate systems.

The Second, Eleventh, and FederalCircuits, which support their ownunique case management systems, are

not implementing CM/ECF at thistime, but future transfer to the systemis a strong possibility in the Second

and Eleventh Circuits."The rollout of CM/ECF to the

more than 90 district and bankruptcycourts, was done in waves with proto-types and pilot courts," said Bowden."But with only 10 courts of appealsparticipating, the distribution is alittle different. A preliminary versionof the CM/ECF system is rolling outto all the courts at the same time."

The version the appellate courtsreceive is relatively complete, but up-dates and functionality will continueto be added as users gain familiarity

CM/ECF ln the CourtsNumber of Courts Live on CM/ECF:

91 District (& 0ther) Courts

92 Bankruptcy Courts

Number of Courts lmplementing CM/ECF:

10 Courts of Appeals

96 District (& 0ther) Courts

94 Bankruptcy Courts

Number 0f Cases Managed (in Millions): 26

Number of Attorneys who Have Filed (in Thousands): 230

with the system and suggest improve-ments. The final version will bedistributed to the courts in July 2006.

Development of the CM/ECFsystem for the courts of appeals has

been a cooperative effort between theAdministrative Office and the courts.

"There were few enough courts, so

that we could inr.olve them heavilyin developing and testing the system,

and providing feedback to the AO,"said Bowden. "It's a product of theirclose involvement."

In the Eighth Circuit, Clerk ofCourt Michael Gans and his stafftested how well data on the existingAppellate Information Managementsystem would transfer to the CM/ECF system.

"The AO asked us to take thelead," said Gans, "and we workedwith the Systems Deployment andSupport Division in San Antonio andthe CM/ECF development team toverify the conversion process. Othercourts will follow along."

"Before courts go live with CM/ECF," explained Project Director GaryBockweg in the AO's Office of CourtAdministration, "they work with a

version of the system that will letthem build their event dictionaries,experiment with local reports, trainstaff, and let their automation peoplesee how the system works on theirSCTVEI.,,

Although Clerk of Court MarciaWaldron, U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit, has worked withCM/ECF for only a few months, she

anticipa tes certain efficiencies."Appeals can be, by their nature,

paper-intensive," Waldron explains."With most case-related papersstored electronically in the systemand readily accessible, I expect CM/ECF to save us time."

The CM/ECF implementationis weicome news for the courts."The old case management systems

used by the courts of appeals," saidBockweg, "were built in the early1980s. Their components-both thehardware and operating systems-were no longer supported byvendors. The point had been reached

where new software wasn't compat-ible with old hardware and the oldsystem was becoming too expen-sive to maintain. The changeoverto the new CM/ECF is a matter ofmodernization."

As of May 2006, more than26million cases are on CM/ECFsystems, and 230,000 attorneys and

others have filed documents overthe Internet. In fiscal year 2005, over68,473 appeals were filed in thecourts of appeals, where filings haveincreased nearly 32 percent in thelast decade. _-l) t. -tt

'l'LttThird Brnnch. t Mnv 2006

0llender Wrrkful'ce

[euell[menl Aims ttCul Recidiuism

Men and women freed from federalprison into superwised release are

three to five times more likely to retumto prison if they don't have a job.

That reality is spurring a growingcottage industry within federalprobation offices across the countryto help ex-offenders turn their livesaround by preparing them to join theworkforce, and to attract employerswilling to give them that opportu-nity.

"Because nearly 97 percent ofthose sent to prison will return totheir communities, it is our obliga-tion to help those released becomeproductive cilizerLs," said DougBurris, chief probaiion officer for theEastern District of Missouri. "Thefoundation for successful reentry ismeaningful employment. "

His office was one of several spon-sors in April of the second annualNational Offender Workforce Devel-opment Conference, a three-dayevent in St. Louis attended by some400 federal, state, and local officials.

Replete with workshops thatoffered practical advice, the confer-ence also served as a rallying point."You stand with the poor and thevoiceless and the powerless," theRer-. Cregorv Bolrle, founder of theLos Angeles-based Jobs For a Future,told conference attendees. "Youchoose to stand lr.ith the demonized,so the demonizing r,n'ill stop."

U.S. Bureau of Prisons DirectorHarley Lappin, another keynotespeaker, said workforce develop-ment efforts, if successful, wili bringabout three desirable results:

r Fewer people returning to prison

r Less taxpayer monev spent toprosecute and incarcerate repeatoffenders.

o Fewer people victimized byrepeat offenders.

Citing shrinking financialresources, Lappin said, "We cannotafford to invest in programs that donot reduce recidivism."

He projected that the 190,000

inmates currently in the federalprison system will be joined by morethan 7,500 more per year over thenext three years. By 2077,he said, thesystem will hold 220,000 to 225,000

men and women. (About 2 millionprisoners currently are in state andlocal custody. Each year, more than650,000 inmates are released fromfederal and state prisons to return totheir communities.)

Convincing those inmates tobreak their personal cycle of failureby preparing for the foreign worldof 9-to-5 is a challenge. But so, too,is helping locate the type of employ-ment that will lift them to new lives.Not every minimum-wage positioncan do that.

"They want to talk about jobs butwe tell them about careers," said

|anie Propst, a probation officer inthe Western District of North Caro-lina. "At the same time, we're tryingto get business people in the commu-nities to understand the importanceof hiring ex-offenders. In workforcedevelopment, you often hear the

words'partnering,"collaborating'and'networking.' Probation officesneed to compile a list of second-chance employers in their communi-ties."

Kathleen Oakar, a probationofficer in the Northern District ofOhio, knows how difficult findingsuch employers can be.

"Holding a job fair can be a disser-vice if the jobs are not there," she

said. "We held a series of luncheonswith employers, explaining howex-offenders are bonded; howthose employees are going to havesomeone watching them. Gettingjudges involved is essential inattracting some employers."

Examples of enthusiasm abound:Several probation offices reportedcreating clothes closets-a collectionof donated business attire for ex-offenders to wear when they attendcareer fairs or job interviews. Otherprobation offices have partneredwith a national organization thatteaches people how to live within a

budget and to save.

Virtually all workforce devel-opment by federal probation andpretrial services offices is carried outby officers with full caseloads. Buthelp is available. The Administra-tive Office's Office of Probation andPretrial Services (OPPS) has joinedforces with the ]ustice Department'sNational Institute of Corrections,the Bureau of Prisons, the Depart-ment of Labor and the Legal ActionCenter's HIRE Network in an effortto enhance career-oriented employ-ment opportunities for ex-offenders.

"Developing partnerships withindustries and employers is a keycomponent," said Migdalia Baerga-Buffler, a probation and pretrialservices administrator in OPPS. "So

are conducting skill assessments andproviding industry-related training. "

To learn more about offenderworkforce development, visit theFederal judiciary's web site at www.uscourts. gov / ledpr ob / swpervise /employment.html. Sy _

TLte Third Brnnch t Marl 2006

Justice 0'Cmnnl' $peaks 0ut un Inlen-Bl'anuh Relalinns, Ciuit Educalinn,

and lhe slale il the tedeFal Judiciany

u You have expressed concernsa about the attacks against

federal courts and individual judges

and their opinions, compared withother times in our nation's history.Is there an explanation for why thedecibel level seems to be particularlyhigh at this time?

.,4,. - There is more intense criticismr :-. . and concern about judges in

the country than at any earlier timeduring my life. There was consider-able criticism of the Supreme Courtat the time that Earl Warren wasChief justice. I remember seeing

billboards and signs urging the

impeachment of Earl Warrenfollowing the Brorun a. Board ofF,ducation decision and some

of the decisions of the Warrencourt having to do with crim-inal cases. But that morrementdied down and the nation, overtime, accepted the Brotun decr-

sion as correct and appropriate.The American people eventuallyconcluded that our nation couldnot and should not discriminateon the basis of race.

Today, the criticisms of judges

perhaps are an outgrowth ofcontinued unhappiness about theholding in Roe u. Wade, which heldunconstitutional some early termstate restrictions on abortion. Morerecently, complaints have beenheard about judicial holdings onthe subjects of sodomy, the juveniledeath penalty, posting of the Ten

Commandments, and a few state

court decisions concerning gay orlesbian marriages.

In recent years/ there have been

proposals in Congress to use as

grounds for impeachment the cita-tion in judicial opinions of foreign

judgments. There have been callsfrom some members of Congress forretaliatory budget cuts for the Judi-ciary as a means of criticizing opin-ions that were unpopular.

There have been calls fordepriving federal courts of jurisdic-tion over certain types of cases. Atthe state level, there are efforts toeliminate merit selection of judges infavor of a return to popular electionsor nominations requiring legislativeapproval. In at least one state, thereis even a proposal to allow lawsuitsand even criminal sanctions against

state judges for certain decisions. The

proposal is called J.A.I.L. for judges.

Many judges and lawyers as wellas non-lawyers are expressingconcern with the various calls forretaliation against judges for specificdecisions. Clearly, judges do notalways make decisions with whicheveryone will agree. Indeed some

decisions can be justifiably criticized.

* Certainly the Framers of* the Constitution wanted to

preserve the right to free speech, butdid they envision the types and levelof attacks against the federal Judi-ciary that we are witnessing?

,.': No one, I ihink, believes,' .., ,, 1fin1 judges are above criti-

cism. We live in a country wherethe Constitution protects the rightof free speech, which certainlyincludes criticism of judges andjudicial opinions.

Nevertheless, when the Framersdrafted our national Constitution,they were very careful to providefor independence of the federal

Judiciary. The Framers understoodquite well that without judges whocould enforce the Constitutionalrights and guarantees without

fear of retaliation, the Consti-tution would be meaningless.That is why no term of officewas provided for federal judges

and that is why judicial salaries

for federal judges may not be

reduced during their service. The

many calls for retaliation againstjudges for rulings in particularcases, run directly counter to theconcept of the Framers of the

Constitution.It is important that Americans

understand and care about the

context the Framers had in mindin drafting the Constitution. It isvitally important that the otherbranches of government refrain fromtaking retaliatory action againstjudges. Ii is of course legitimaie thatethical standards be enforced anddisciplinary action is taken againstjudges who engage in malfeasance

or misfeasance in office.It is of course legitimate to criti-

cize judges and their rulings if thespeaker disagrees with them. But italso is my hope that citizens across

the country will think about how the

selection of judges can be improvedat both the state and national levelsand will think about the necessity to

&!{*$8.$$QS$:!{*$F

rq*$li.&.ti-Q$, t!&l

-*,tlh, t hird Bt.tntlt t Vny 2nn6

compensate judges adequately forthe service they provide.

d'3 - What can be done to improve

fu|'the unfortunate climate youdescribe?

..'- = It is very important that we

: ..= .: educate students at all levelsabout our Constitution, about thestructure of our Constitution,including the concept of judicialindependence. All of us should beconcerned with the knowledge thatschools are teaching much less, andin some cases nothing, about civicsand government to our students.There is no mandatory testing onthese subjects; there is no longer a

focus on these subjects. Our system ofconstitutional democracy will suffergreatly if this is not corrected. It isalso important that adults in thiscountry have an opportunity tounderstand the concerns about theneed for an independent Judiciaryand that they have a chance to thinkabout and discuss some of these

concerns ai public gatherings. I hopethat judges-both federal and state-will accept opportunities whenoffered to talk about these topics.

f,= - You have traveled abroad

Q] - extensively to work with andobserve foreign courts in action.Do these judges and courts experi-ence some of the same conflicts U.S.judges are confronting?

= _ For many years, the federal. :. .. courts in our country have

been greatly admired by leaders inother nations. They have been heldup as models for judicial indepen-dence and effectiveness. There isless of that today as people in othernations see attacks in this countryon judges in the circumstances Idescribed above.

Our country has been very muchfocused on encouraging newlyformed nation states to embrace therule of law and to develop strong,

fair, and able judiciaries. We haveprovided aid to many countries tohelp them achieve these goals. It isironic that at the same time we aresupporting other countries' efforts,we're seeing efforts in our country todamage or destroy our own system.

fl}- You know a lot of federal

Q| - iudges throughout the countryand hear them talk about their workand their lives. How has the declinein the value of judges' compensa-tion impacted the morale of federaljudges?

.. .,. = Historically, the federal judi-

: :. = ciary has been comprisedof people who demonstrated theirability and achievement in the legalprofession, and who for that reasonwere chosen to serve on the federalbench. In earlier times, the sala-ries paid to federal judges and thesalaries paid to people in similarpositions outside the judiciarywere comparable. Today, that is nolonger the case and there has beena steady erosion of the salary levelsfor federal judges compared to otherpositions. It is not uncommon for a

law clerk at the Supreme Court ora Court of Appeals to earn withinthe first year of private employmentas much or more than the judge forwhom the clerk worked. Salaries oflaw professors similarly exceed thatof federal judges.

What may happen and whatmay already have started is that ourjudges will become more like civilservants, starting at a very low salaryin lower positions on behalf of thecourts, and working up to judicialappointments in time. This is thesystem used by most countries inthe European Union today. It is notthe choice that we followed in thisnation previously, and I hope it willnot be the path we follow. It is notas attractive to be a judge today as itwas in the 1950s, 60s or 70s and I canunderstand the concerns that havebeen raised by those who serve onfederal courts at all levels. \

When Associrtte Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took her seat on the Burger Court in 1981, sheruas the first rr)onlan to serae on the Suprente Court of the Llnited States. She retired ott lanuary31,2006.

The Third Branch s Mny 2006

Appointed: Michael A. Chagares,as U.S. Court of Appeals Judge,U.S. Court of Appeals for the ThirdCircuit, April24.

Appointed: Timothy C. Batten, Sr.,as U.S. District ]udge, U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District ofGeorgia, April3.

Appointed: Thomas E. Johnston,as U.S. District ]udge, U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District ofWest Virginia, Aprll 17 .

Appointed: Jack Zouhary, as U.S.District judge, U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of Ohio,April5.

Appointed: Susan D. Barrett, as U.S.Bankruptcy judge, U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the Southern District ofGeorgia, March2Z

Appointed: Thomas J. Catliota, as

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bank-ruptcy Court for the District of Mary-land, April3.

Appointed: Wendelin I. Lipp, as U.S.Bankruptcy judge, U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the District of Maryland,April3.

Appointed: Neil P. Olack, as U.S.Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the Southern District ofMississippi, May 1.

Appointed: Claire C. Cecchi, as U.S.Magistrate ]udge, U.S. District Courtfor the District of New jersey,April26.

Appointed: Frederick F. Mumm, as

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. DistrictCourt for the Central District of Cali-fornia, April3.

Appointed: Diana Saldana, as U.S.Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of Texas,

March27.

Senior Status: U.S. Court of AppealsJudge jane R. Roth, U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit,May 31.

Elevated: U.S. District Judge JohnM. Roll, to Chief ]udge, U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Arizona,succeeding U.S. District JudgeStephen M. McNamee, May 1.

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy JudgeJ. Vincent Aug,Jr., to Chief ]udge,U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theSouthern District of Ohio, succeedingU.S. Bankruptcy ]udge Thomas F.

Waldron, May 1.

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy JudgePeter W. Bowie, to Chief BankruptcyJudge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe Southern District of California,succeeding U.S. Bankruptcy judge

Iohn J. Hargrove, lanuary 2.

Retired: U.S. Bankruptcy JudgeJames N. Barr, U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the Central District of Cali-fornia, April30.

Retired: U.S. Magistrate Judge FaithM. Angell, U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvnia,May 13.

Retired: U.S. Magistrate Judge PeterA. Nowlinski, U.S. Districi Courtfor the Eastern District of California,February 28.

Retired: U.S. Magistrate fudgeArnold C. Rapoport, U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania, May 3.

Retired: U.S. Magistrate JudgeO. Edward Schlatter, U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Colorado,February L4.

Retired: U.S. Magistrate JudgeCharles B. Swartwood, III, U.S.

District Court for the District ofMassachusetts, January 31.

TFIIRDBI1,i\C H

Published monthll' bl the

Administrative Offlce of the U.S. CounsOifice ol Public Affair>

One Columbus Circle. N.E.Washington, D.C. 205,1'+

(202) 502-2600

Visit our Internet site at

http://www.uscourts. gov

D]RECTORLeonidas Ralph Mecham

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFDar id A. Seller:

MANAGING EDITORKaren E. Redmond

PRODUCTIONLinda Stanton

CONTRIBUTORDick Carelli

Please dilect all inquiries and addresschanges to The Third Branch at theabove address or toKaren_Redmond @ ao. uscourts.gov.

177

3676

For additional April milestones, aisit The Third Branch on-Iine at www.trscourts.goa

JU0rcrAr B0l(sc0nr

As of May 1,2005

Courts of Appeals

VacanciesNominees

District Courts

VacanciesNominees

Courts with"Judicial Emergencies"

For more information on vacancies inthe federal Judiciary, visit our website at

www. uscourts. gov under Newsroom.

The Third Brnnch t Maa 2006

Russian Chiel Justice fUleels urilh lJnited $lales Cfiiel Justice

Truo Chief lustices met recently at the Supreme Cottt of the Llnited States. Anton Aleksnndrouich lzLnnoa, Chief ltrstice of tlrc StLpreme ArbitrazltCourt of the Russian Federation, (second from left) stood on the stelts of the Supreme Court, Jlanked to his riglLt bq Supreme Court lustice lohnPaul Steaens, and to his left by Chief lustice lohn G. Roberts lr. On Robert's left is ludge Vladimir Slesara, a lustice of the Supreme ArbitrnzhCourt of the Russian Federation and Chairman of the CollegitLm on Property Disputes, with Supreme Court ltLstice Stephen G. Breyer. In addi-tion to their ztisit to the Supreme Court, the Russinn Delegation zuns briefed bv stnff of the Administratiae Oft'ice and the Federal ludicial Centeron many aspects ofthe federal ludiciary, including cnse manngement practices, distance education, public relations, electronic access to records, tlrc

Cuurls'Complialtce uuith t-0ouerltlneltl Act llleal'ly TltalFor 2006, the |udiciary reports to

Congress that each of the nearly 200

federal courts have websites and thevast majority of those sites satisfy orexceed all of the currently applicablerequirements of the E-GovernmentAct of 2002. By statute, a report oncourt compliance with the Act mustbe submitted to Congress annually.

The E-Government Act, P.L. L07 -347, ts intended, in part, "to establisha broad framework of measures thatrequire using Internet-based infor-mation technology to enhance citizenaccess to Gor.ernment informationand sen'ices."

The Act requires each federalcourt to establish and maintain a

website rn ith information or links towebsites with information on courtIocation and contact informationfor the courthouse, loca1 rules andstanding or general orders of thecourt, access to docket information

for each case, access to the substanceof all written opinions issued by thecourt in a text-searchable format,and any other information, includingforms that the court determinesuseful to the public. Federal courtscomply with most of these require-ments through the Public Access toCourt Electronic Records (PACER)

system and the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF)system, which provide remote access

to electronic versions of documentsfiled with the courts.

A court unable to meet the Act'srequirements must submit an annualnotice with the reason for the deferral.In 2005, 21 courts filed notices ofdeferral with the AdministrativeOffice; in2006, only seven courtsasked to defer full compliance withthe Act. Courts'reasons for deferringinclude not yet being fully opera-tional on the CM/ECF system, web-

available opinions that are not textsearchable, and needing additionaltime to post general orders. All courtsexpect to be compliant with currentrequirements by the end of 2006.

According to the 2006 report,the majority of courts are not onlyin compliance, many are includingmore information on their websitesthan the Act requires. Specifically,courts are using their websites toprovide information on the historyof the court, information specificto potential jurors, and informa-tion needed by members of theirpracticing bars. They are also usingthe sites to allow the public greateraccess to more general informa-tion, including job opportunitieswith the federal government, access

to websites of other branches andagencies of the federal government,and general information about thefederal government structure. \

The Third Brtnch t Mnv 2006

Telephonic Court

Aprual'altce $eruices

0u lllationwideA 10-minute appearance in federal

court can mean hours caught in trafficor a long plane or train ride for lawyersand others involved in the litigation.Significant savings of time and moneycould be achieved in some non-eviden-tiary proceedings if an appearancewere, literally, phoned in.

"Telephonic court appearances arevery convenient for lawyers, and cansignificantly reduce their travel timeand costs," said Peter McCabe, Assis-tant Director of the AdministrativeOffice's Office of Judges Programs.

Some district and bankruptcycourts already employ that optionfor proceedings such as status hear-ings, but master license agreementsawarded by the AO to four vendors

made telephonic court appearanceservices more easily available nation-wide, effective March 20,2006.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe Eastern District of California hasused such a service for longer than a

decade. "It certainly has helped bank-ruptcy trustees and the attorneys whorepresent the parties, saving some ofthem from having to travel280 to 300miles for a brief appearance," saidClerk of Court Richard Heltzel.

"Overall, things have been runningvery smoothly," he said, adding thatusers have had to learn a certainetiquette. "Speaker phones are not agood idea, and cell phones can be aproblem at times."

Individual courts can select oneor more of the four teleconferencingvendors, who are charged with seam-lessly integrating services that resultin little or no disruption to a court'sdaily activities. No additional dutiesor responsibilities are created forcourtroom staff.

"Judges benefit from using tele-phonic court appearance servicesbecause it helps them run a moreefficient courtroom and expeditelaw and motions proceedings,"McCabe said. "Courts benefitfrom these services because all ofthe logistics are handled by thevendors, rather than by the courtstaff ."

The type of proceeding dictatesthe number of participants on acall, but the four vendors have theability to host a maximum of 100

participants on one call-a featureespecially important for bank-ruptcy cases in which many credi-tors can be affected.

Use of these services is subjectto each court's local policies andprocedures. To discover whethertelephonic appearance servicesare offered by a particular court,check with the clerk of court'soffice or visit that court's website.

\

Judge J. Clilfurd Wallace l0 Receiue Deuitt Auuardjudge J. Clifford Wallace (9th

Cir.) will receive the 2005 EdwardJ. Devitt Distinguished Service to

Justice Award. The award, named forthe late Judge Edward ]. Devitt (D.Minn.), honors Article III judges whohave made significant contributionsin their careers to the administrationof justice, the advancement of therule of law, and the improvement ofsociety as a whole.

Throughout his judicial career,Wallace has been influential in thefield of state-federal judicial rela-tions, in the improvement of rela-tions between the bench and bar, andin the pursuit of judicial efficiencyfor trial and appellate courts.

With Chief |ustice Warren Burgeq,

Wallace was an early advocate for theestablishment of the American Inns ofCourt, and he remains active in theassociation. Among his many contri-

butions to judicial administration washis work in_shaping the legislationthat authorized the present structurefor a judicial discipline system in thefederal courts.

Throughout his career, Wallacehas worked with foreign judiciaries.Since taking senior status in 1996,he has traveled extensively to devel-oping countries to teach the impor-tance of judicial education, efficiency,and excellence. His reputation as

a spokesman for the rule of law isknown by judges in Russia, EasternEurope, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific.

Wallace also has served as a

member of the Executive Committeeof the judicial Conference, and as amember of numerous Conferencecommittees.

He was appointed to the U.S.District Court for the SouthernDistrict of California tn1970 and was

elevated to the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit rn7972, servingas chiefjudge from 7997 to7996.

The 2005 Devitt Award recip-ient was chosen by a three-memberpanel chaired by Supreme Courtjustice Anthony Kennedy, with Chiefjudge |ohn M. Walker, jr. (2"d Cir.)and Chief Judge Barbara BrandriffCrabb (W.D. Wis.). The annual DevittAward is administered by the Amer-ican judicature Society. \ I

ludge l. ClffirdWnllttce

10lhc lltitJ Btntt,h t Mlry 200o

Fedel'al Courtfiuse'leal'ning Cenler' lo

0pen in $1, Luuis

Holr, does the work of the federalcourts differ from that of statecourts? What are the different typesof federal courts? What does "anindependent judiciary" and "the ruleof law" mean?

Visitors to the impressive Thomas F.

Eagleton U.S. Courthouse in St. Louishave a hands-on opportunity todiscover the answers to these ques-tions, and more, as a |udicial LearningCenter opens its doors in May.

"This is not a museum," explained|im Woodward, clerk of court for theU.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Missouri, as he walkedthrough the center's ground-floorhome. "When this building wasbeing planned, it was decidedthat a space should be devoted topresenting clear, objective informa-tion about the federal courts-aboutthe courts'roles, their structure, theirwork."

Senior Judge Edward L. Filippine(E.D. Mo.) was an early champion ofthe center. "His vision was to have aninviting space to accommodatestudent groups or members ofcommunity organizations who visitthe courthouse for scheduled tours,and to attract visitors who maysimply be curious about the building,"Woodward said.

A staple of the downtown St.

Louis skyline (it is the city's thirdtallest building), the 28-story court-house has about 650,000 squarefeet of usable space, making it thenation's largest federal court facilityand the only one that houses threedistinct federal courts. The U.S.

Court of Appeals for the EighthCircuit, the Eastern District ofMissouri, and the Eastern District'sU.S. Bankruptcy Court call the court-house home.

Although the court-house opened in January2001, build-out of the2,500-square- footlearning center did notbegin until January 2006.

"It is a space dedicatedto letting the public knowjust how much impor-tance our Constitution'sFramers attached to thefederal courts and to anindependen t J udiciar y,"said Judge CatherinePerry (E.D. Mo), whoserved on a committee ofjudges and lawyers whohelped bring the projectto completion.

"We want to inJormvisitors about the judicialprocess, to promote publictrnderstanding of theimportance of the rule of law in Amer-ican society, and to tell them why theFounders designed a separate butcoequal branch of government," she

said.

The judicial Learning Center, aprogram supported by the courtsof the Eighth Circuit, is a non-profit corporation whose boardmembers come from the St. Louis

Artist's renderittgs of the LenrningCenter, Thontas F. Eagleton U.S.Courthottse, St. Louis, Missotti.

See Learning on page 12

The Third Brnnch t Mau 2A06

ll

Learning contintLed front page 11

legal community. Content for thecenter has been developed by educa-tors, lawyers, museum experts, andjudges.

"A lot of brainstorming went intochoosing basic topics," Woodwardsaid.

Once the topics were identified,St. Louis resident Jason Schmidt, a

third-year law student at the Thomasjefferson School of Law in San Diego,was given a 10-week contract todevelop text material for the center'spermanent exhibits.

Until those exhibits are installed,the center will feature various trarr-eling displays with justice and lawthemes. The first is one showingthe role of the U.S. district courtsin immigration, naturalization anddeportation proceedings.

Nearly 2,000 immigrants are

sworn in as new U.S. citizens insome 25 naturalization ceremoniesheld each year in the Eastern Districtof Missouri. The center's first exhibit,expected to be on display until |uiy,was provided by the AmericanImmigration Law Foundation, andis entitled "America's Heritage: A

History of U.S. Immigration.""Once we'\re completed all the

permanent features, ihis will be a\rery interactive experience," Wood-ward said as he pointed out wherea flat-panel television with variousvideo capabilities will be located."The center will include a replica ofa judicial bench and a jury box. We

know that students love to sit in a

judge's or juror's chair. They under-stand the importance of what goes

on in a court. We also hope to harrea federal-courts-in-the-news featurethat will be updated daily."

The center is considered an idealplace in which to begin organizedtours for students and other groupsof visitors. Each of the courthouse'stenants will play a role in hostingvisitors. "It's a great place to set theright tone," Woodward said.

Construction costs for the build-out of the center were shared bythe Ceneral Service Administrationand the federal courts of the EighthCircuit, but the costs of updatingcontent will be paid for by a separateand independent non-profit corpora-tion. \

Ethics Quiz 2005 forFederal Judges

A new form of ethics educa-tion made its debut in Aprilwhen the Judicial ConferenceCommittee on Codes of Conductpublished its Ethics Quiz 2006for federal judges. The quiz is thefirst in a planned annual series.Judge Gordon Quist (W.D. Mich.),chair of the Committee, said thatthe new quiz is designed to testjudges' knowledge, and increasejudges' understanding, of ethicsrules. He encouraged all judges

to test their "E.Q." by takingthe quiz. Access the quiz on

the J-Net ai: http://jnet.ao.dcn/J udges/2006_Eth ics_Qu i z*F or *Federal_J udges. htm L

Sample question:True or False?-The maximum

amount of teaching income a

federal judge may accept in

2006 is $24,780.

t'(e)t $ suorleln8agourosul pouref oprslno 'auo3ur

Surqceal 1sn[ 1ou'aLuocurpourea aprslno ;1e rol Surlrac aq1

sl slql ]eq] o+oN 'on.[ :13115Uy1

THE TF{IRD BRANCF{Administrative Office of the U.S. CourtsOffice ol Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.Washington,D.C.20544

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $3OO

FIRST CLASS MAILPOSTAGE & FEES

PAIDU.S. COUR|S

PERMIT NO. C-18

FIRST CLASS

U.S. Government Printing Office 2005-310-982-00028