Mod. Cts.2003_interior

The Fund for Modern Courts is a nonprofit, statewide court reform

organization dedicated to improving the administration of justice in New

York. Our goals are to enhance the quality, diversity and independence of

the judiciary, improve the jury system, and make the courts more efficient,

fair and responsive to all seeking justice.

2003 was an extraordinary year in New York’s

courts, producing both alarming scandal and

promising new initiatives for reform. Public

confidence in the justice system continued to erode

amid allegations of political influence and

corruption on the bench. Public concern about the

fair operation of the courts and concern about New

York’s judicial selection process have increased

dramatically. While most judges continued to

uphold the highest standards on the bench, it

became clear that problems inherent in New York’s

judicial selection process have captured the public

attention. Noting this serious concern, Chief Judge

Judith S. Kaye this year established the Commission

on Public Confidence in Judicial Elections, Chaired

by Modern Courts Chair Emeritus John Feerick, to

suggest improvements to New York’s current

system of judicial elections. The Commission issued

an interim report in December 2003, and will

produce final recommendations in 2004. Together,

these events have produced exciting opportunities

for court reform in New York, and Modern Courts

continued to play an essential role in promoting

change.

In 2003, Modern Courts had a successful year

building a constituency for court reform. Our

ongoing public education, research, and in-court

programming have been central to engaging

individuals in the work of the courts. In addition, new programs and

initiatives, including the introduction of the Cyrus R. Vance Tribute and the

opening of an office in the Capital District, have helped expand our impact

Test type

Report

To Our

Constituents

Victor A. Kovner

Ken Jockers

Fern Schair

with State leaders and communities in every corner of New York. As

Modern Courts approaches its 50th Anniversary in 2005, we look forward

to continuing our role as the leading citizens group dedicated to improving

the court for all who seek justice.

Citizen Court Monitoring

In 2003, the Citizen Court Monitoring program continued to bring the

voice of the public into the courts. Court Monitoring operates on the

premise that every individual can contribute to the fair and efficient

administration of justice, and this year our monitors continued to observe

court proceedings and facilities in numerous counties in the state, including

Saratoga, Suffolk, Queens and Schenectady. In addition, by engaging Judges

and court personnel in educating court monitors, the program strengthened

ties with court administration and established new relationships that will

ensure that our many recommendations are implemented.

Citizens Jury Project

Modern Courts’ Citizens Jury Project (CJP) has continued to provide

direct assistance to individuals who have questions or problems regarding

their jury service, while also producing important research about the jury

service system. CJP has expanded its impact by interviewing jurors,

collecting data about their impressions, and producing reports that make

jurors’ voices an important part of the planning process for the court

system. CJP has also continued to conduct facilities assessments this year,

producing a well-received analysis of improvements and ongoing needs in

the Supreme Court building in Kings County.

Education and Outreach

Modern Courts continued to present substantive public education

about ongoing developments in the courts. In 2003, we produced new

public forums on emerging issues in the courts. Almost Home: New

Developments and Next Steps in Adoption brought together experts in

foster care and permanency planning to examine the court system’s

“Adoption Now” program to expedite placements for more than 5,000

children. Our Hugh R. Jones Memorial Lecture offered Judges and the

general public the opportunity to hear an esteemed jurist, the Honorable

Howard A. Levine, speak about the critical elements of judicial decision-

making. Also, Modern Courts served as co-sponsor of the Pathways to the

Bench, which addressed crucial concerns about how to achieve a diverse

Report

To Our

Constituents

and representative judiciary. Each of these events offered citizens useful

information to the public about the workings of their courts, and

encouraged civic participation in ensuring fair end efficient justice.

To promote public debate about court improvements, Modern Courts

this year maintained a bold and active voice in the media and at public

events to ensure that attention remains focused on the need to enhance

and modernize the judicial system in New York. Throughout the State,

media continued to turn to Modern Courts as a reliable source of objective

research and information about issues affecting judicial independence,

access to the courts, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the judiciary.

In 2003, Modern Courts’ legislative affiliate, the Committee for

Modern Courts, also continued its critical efforts to promote constitutional

and administrative reform of the judicial system. While maintaining our

long-held position that merit selection is the best means to limit the

influence of money and politics in judicial selection, Modern Courts

expanded its policy this year to include proposals for improving the State’s

current system of judicial elections. Modern Courts’ new Statement on

Judicial Selection was developed with the understanding that our

organization would bring an important and well-respected voice to the call

for improving the current system while continuing to work toward our

ultimate goal of expanding merit selection throughout the State.

As the public call for judicial reform grows, and the need for

research, education and public participation continues, the coming year

will present important opportunities to improve the system. With

leadership from our Executive Committee Chair, Victor A. Kovner, and our

Board of Directors, we look forward to continued success in 2004. As

always, we are thankful to the many public-spirited corporations,

foundations, law firms, and individuals listed in the following pages who

have contributed so generously to our efforts to improve the quality of

justice in New York State.

Report

To Our

Constituents

Fern Schair

Chair

Ken Jockers

Executive Director

In October 2003, the Fund for Modern Courts inaugurated the Cyrus R. Vance

Tribute. Celebrating Cyrus Vance’s vision, accomplishments, and legacy of integrity

in government, the Vance Tribute honors a notable public figure who has made the

New York State Court system more efficient, fair and accessible to all. Modern Courts

was pleased to recognize New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

As an advocate, and as a proponent of the justice system as a means to protect

individual rights, Eliot Spitzer is an exemplary public servant. As Attorney General,

Eliot Spitzer has made New York a national leader in investor protection,

environmental stewardship, labor rights, personal privacy, public safety and

criminal law enforcement. Mr. Spitzer’s work on issues such as gun violence, white-

collar fraud, Internet marketing practices, air pollution and employee benefits has

earned him a reputation as “the People’s Lawyer.”

Cyrus R. Vance set an exemplary standard for public service throughout his

career. He served as United States Secretary of State, Chair of the Federal Reserve

Bank of New York, President of the City Bar Association, and was a Partner at

Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett, LLP. Mr. Vance was also a leader of the Fund for

Modern Courts, and served as the organization’s Chair from 1986 to 1990. In

addition to his notable career on the national and international stages, Cyrus

Vance was tireless in his efforts to reform the New York State Court system.

Among his successes was promoting the implementation of merit selection for

New York State’s highest court, producing the nationally renowned Court of

Appeals we enjoy today. The Cyrus R. Vance Tribute is supported by a generous

private donor grant through the Communities Foundation of Texas.

Cyrus R. Vance

Tribute

Modern Courts Board

Chair, Fern Schair,

presents The Cyrus R.

Vance Tribute to NY

Attorney General

Elliot Spitzer.

Tributes

Samuel J. Duboff

Memorial Award

Each year, the Fund for Modern

Courts presents the Samuel J. Duboff

Memorial Award to recognize a non-lawyer

individual or group who have made an

outstanding contribution to improving the

quality of justice in New York State. The

award is named for the late Samuel J.

Duboff, who served as Chair of Modern

Courts’ Executive Committee for 19 years,

and was a respected leader of many civic,

social service, and arts organizations.

The 2003 Duboff Award was

presented to two organizations whose volunteers improve the court system for all New

Yorkers: The Law, Order and Justice Society of Schenectady County and the Family

Abuse Court Services Program of the Mental Health Association of Westchester County.

The Law, Order and Justice Society (LOJ) provides dispute resolution, case

management, supportive services and advocacy to individuals involved in the courts

in Schenectady County. LOJ recently celebrated its 30th

Anniversary of promoting fairness and equality in the

justice system.

The Family Abuse Court Services Volunteer

Program, part of the Mental health Association of

Westchester, offers critical in-court help to victims. In

Westchester County, 5,000 women are battered and

4,500 children are physically or sexually abused each

year. Family Abuse Court Service volunteers help

victims negotiate the court system by explaining the

court process, providing emotional support and discussing a victim’s options,

accompanying clients to courts as non-witness friends, and assisting with referrals

to social and personal services a victim may need when leaving an abusive

relationship.

Past Winners of the Duboff Award include:

Members of the Duboff family (left to right): Modern Courts Board Member

David B. Duboff, Elizabeth Duboff, Robert S. Duboff and Judith Duboff

2002 EISNER, LLP AND MELLON

TRUST OF NEW YORK, LLC—

SEPTEMBER 11TH RELIEF EFFORT

2001 THE CAPITAL DISTRICT COURT

MONITORS

1999 THE VOLUNTEERS AT MY SISTERS’

PLACE IN WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK

1998 THE VOLUNTEERS AT THE

CHILDREN’S CENTERS IN THE COURTS

OF NEW YORK STATE.

1997 THE VOLUNTEERS AT THE JEWISH

BOARD OF FAMILY & CHILDREN'S

SERVICES COURT LIAISON PROGRAM,

AND THE VOLUNTEERS AT THE YWCA

VISITATION CENTER OF WHITE PLAINS

AND CENTRAL WESTCHESTER.

1996 DOLORES DEL BELLO, LAW

MEMBER OF THE STATE COMMISSION

ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

1995 THE CITY-WIDE TASK FORCE ON

HOUSING COURT.

1994 THE MONROE COUNTY COURT

MONITORS, AND THE ROCHESTER

CHURCHWOMEN UNITED’S TASK FORCE

ON COURTS.

1993 PAULINE FEINGOLD, VOLUNTEER

AFFILIATED WITH NUMEROUS CRIMINAL

JUSTICE AND COURT REFORM PANELS,

TASK FORCES, AND ORGANIZATIONS.

1992 EDITORIAL WRITERS, JOHN P.

MACKENZIE OF THE NEW YORK TIMES,

AND LEONARD O. HALPERT OF THE

BUFFALO NEWS.

1990 THE NEW YORK STATE COURT

APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES

(CASA).

1989 THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN

VOTERS OF NEW YORK STATE AND ITS

JUDICIAL DIRECTORS.

1988 THE COMMUNITY DISPUTE

RESOLUTION CENTERS PROGRAM.

1987 LILLEMOR T. ROBB, FORMER

CHAIR, STATE COMMISSION ON

JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

1986 THE DUTCHESS AND

WESTCHESTER COUNTY COURT

MONITORS

Board Members and Volunteers of

the Family Abuse Court Services

Program accept the 2003 Duboff

Award.

& Awards

Comments on Modern

Courts’ award-winning

program:

“One of the country’s

most effective projects

in bringing problems to

light and proposing

changes to correct

shortcomings.”

—The American Bar

Association

“…most well-run court

monitoring programs

in the nation.”

—The National Center

for State Courts

“…the catalyst for

virtually every

worthwhile judicial

improvement in New

York State.”

and

“…the model for

jurisdictions elsewhere

striving to make the

justice system more

responsive to citizen

needs.”

—The American

Judicature Society

Citizen Court

Monitoring

In 1975, The Fund for Modern Courts developed a program to give New York

citizens a powerful voice in how their courts are run. The concept, known as citizen

court monitoring, was simple: recruit a diverse group of volunteers around the

state to observe court proceedings in their communities. The monitors would

assess the courts from the point of view of those outside the legal system, and would

recommend improvements to make the courts more fair, efficient, and user-

friendly. The monitors’ findings and recommendations would then be published by

Modern Courts and released to court administrators, judges, court personnel,

lawmakers, bar associations, civic groups, the media, and others concerned with

how the courts function.

For more than 25 years, citizen court monitoring has been central to Modern

Courts’ efforts to involve the public in improving the administration of justice. Today,

our volunteer court monitors number more than 600 and work in 16 counties

across New York. Their efforts educate both the judiciary and the public; make the

courts more accountable to the communities they serve, and produce tangible

reforms that benefit all New Yorkers.

Tangible Results

Our dedicated group of citizen court monitors has sensitized the court system

to the needs of the public, and has been the catalyst for a number of significant

improvements. For example, new courthouses have been constructed, old

courthouses have been renovated, court security has been increased, in-court child

care facilities have been established, civility training for court personnel has been

instituted, the treatment of jurors has greatly improved, court calendars have been

reorganized to combat congestion, and new court informational services have been

developed. Court monitoring reports, and the testimony of Modern Courts staff, has

been instrumental at hearings before planning commissions and other

governmental agencies charged with investigating how our courts are functioning.

Recent Monitoring Activities

In keeping with its tradition of maintaining a rotating roster of court projects

around the state, Court Monitors observed several courts this year. During 2003,

monitors observed proceedings in the Suffolk County Family Court, Saratoga County

Court and the housing court in Queens County. Monitors found that these courts,

which impact on the lives of the average citizen, would benefit from public scrutiny

to address concerns about facilities, judicial response to litigants, and attorney

preparedness.

In addition to new projects begun in 2003, the Citizen Court Monitoring

Program released comprehensive reports this year on the Criminal Term of the

Supreme Court in New York County, the Saratoga County Family Court and the

Schenectady City Court.

Outreach

To complement its monitoring activities, Modern Courts organized lectures,

given by local judges and others, on court-related issues to educate monitors and

other interested parties in the community. The lectures included presentations by

Supreme Court Justice David Angiolillo on the operations of Westchester County’s

Integrated Domestic Violence Court, which allow cases involving domestic violence

to be heard by a single judge in one court, and Christine Olsen, Project Director of

the Suffolk County’s Family Treatment Court, on that court’s inventive approach to

integrating assessment, treatment, and support services with the processing of

neglect cases in the Family Court.

In 2004, Citizen Court Monitoring will continue to observe courts throughout

the state, including projects in the Supreme Courts in Nassau and Westchester

counties and the Saratoga City Court. A new project is also anticipated in Dutchess

County. The program will also issue reports on the Saratoga County Court, New York

County Criminal Court and several other courts.

Citizen Court

Monitoring

The Times Union

January 9, 2003

Watchdog report cites

problems with courthouse

Danielle T. Furfaro; Staff Writer

SCHENECTADY An independent watchdog group has concluded that

the Schenectady County Courthouse is too small, has only one adequate

courtroom, lacks conference space and is in desperate need of maintenance and

housekeeping.

The report, slated to be released today by the Capital District Court Monitors,

suggests that the court add another courtroom and another judge to take care of

an increasing caseload. The report also urges Schenectady County to increase

funding to the public defender's office so that it can hire more attorneys.

The nonprofit group’s assessment of the operations at the Schenectady County

Courthouse was the result of nearly six months of monitoring daily activity,

during which it found that restrooms were often out of order.

“Monitors felt that such safety hazards and deficiencies in essential mainte-

nance and housekeeping created an environment lacking in basic human dignity

for litigants and staff,” Court Monitor Director Helga Schroeter wrote.

Because of a mandate from the state Office of Court Administration, the

county had already been planning to find more space and eventually create a joint

city-county court facility, but that is not expected to happen for another three to

five years.

The Capital District Court Monitors is a branch of the Fund for Modern

Courts, a nonprofit, independent organization dedicated to improving courts in

the state.

In the past few years, the Capital District Court Monitors has also looked at

Albany Family Court, Schenectady Family Court and Saratoga Family Court.

The Citizens Jury Project (CJP) was created in 1995,

following a recommendation by Chief Judge Judith Kaye’s

Jury Project, a blue-ribbon panel designed to review and

reform jury service in New York State. CJP advocates for

individual jurors on service-related issues, records and

analyzes juror concerns, and publishes trimester reports of

its findings. By assisting individuals and promoting systemic

reform, CJP ensures that the jury system functions efficiently

and effectively so that jurors may focus on their pivotal role

as fact finders in our courts. In 2003, CJP’s role further

expanded to include assessing court facilities in New York

and Kings County and observing civil and criminal voir dires in counties throughout

southern New York.

In response to CJP’s reports on juror concerns, the Office of Court

Administration (OCA) and New York and King’s County court officials have

continued to improve juror summonses, signage, seating, acoustics, and access to

information on the process of service. The court system has demonstrated its

commitment to public feedback by meeting regularly with CJP staff in regard to new

initiatives and by seeking programmatic assistance from CJP staff and interns.

Court Facilities Surveys

This year CJP published the Kings County Court Facilities Assessment, its

second report based on surveys collected from jurors in assembly rooms and

courtrooms. In response to recommendations made in the report, Office of Court

Administration officials and Kings County court officials and staff have made

significant facilities and procedural improvements. For example, in the spring and

summer of 2004, new microphones will be installed for the assembly

room and the benches in the assembly room

will be replaced with new, accessible court

Citizens

Jury

Project

Kings County Supreme Court

“I’ve been coming here

[courts in New York

County] for many

years, and I feel the

change and see the

improvements. It’s

great that you have all

of these materials, the

movie is great, and the

clerk is doing a really

good job. I can see that

a lot of effort has been

put into the system.”

—CJP Juror Interview

Citizens

Jury

Project

furniture. In addition to facilities improvements, Kings County has responded to CJP

procedural recommendations and will soon provide multi-lingual, telephonic

information for jurors prior to service. The Kings County Court Facilities

Assessment is available at www.juryproject.org.

Voir Dire Monitoring

In June of 2003, CJP interns began observing criminal and civil voir dires in

supreme courts throughout southern New York. The impetus behind this project was

the Commission on the Jury, which was established by Chief Judge Kaye and is charged

with examining the issue of juror utilization. For the voir dire observation project, OCA

designed civil and criminal voir dire surveys that the CJP interns fill out, while interns

also provide written narratives of criminal voir dires. Since June, CJP interns have

observed over fifty voir dires in New York, Kings, Bronx, Queens, Nassau, and

Westchester County. In 2004, CJP will analyze this data, and OCA will write and publish

a report that provides observations on how civil and criminal voir dires are currently

being administered, and recommendations for how these processes can be improved.

Community Programming

While continuing to expand its in-court programs, CJP also reaches out to New

York communities through the Youth Mock Trial program (YMT). YMT was designed

to promote youths’ understanding of and interest in the legal system. In the course of

six weeks, CJP interns and staff teach 11-15 year olds about the legal system through

the preparation of a mock trial. In addition, YMT brings in members of the legal

community to talk with participants, address their questions and concerns about the

legal system, and teach the youth about their rights and responsibilities. During the

months of July and August 2003, fourteen young people from the Harlem Children’s

Zone’s Booker T. Washington Center participated in YMT. The Harlem Children’s

Zone is a non-profit, community-based organization serving at-risk children. On

August 6, 2003, the program culminated with the youths’ presentation of their mock

trial to Justice Milton Tingling of 60 Centre Street. In 2004, CJP will continue to reach

out to individuals and communities both in and outside of the courts.

CJP Director Jane Eggers (fifth

from left) with summer 2003

interns

“Even if it were

possible, I would not

eliminate concepts of

morality, justice and

fairness from the

judicial process. Such

values, of course,

should not merely be

based on the personal

moral code of the

judge, but rather the

historically enduring

standards of righteous

conduct and principles

of justice that reflect

the best in our

national character.”

—Hon. Howard A. Levine

Hugh R. Jones

Memorial Lecture

On March 31, 2003, the Fund for Modern Courts presented the second Judge

Hugh R. Jones Memorial Lecture at Albany Law School. The lecture is dedicated to

Judge Jones, the former Associate Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals who

was a leader in efforts to improve the courts. The lecture series honors Judge Jones

by promoting research and writing on issues affecting the judiciary.

Judith S. Kaye, the Chief Judge of the State of New York, introduced this year’s

speaker, Howard A. Levine, a former Associate Judge of the New York Court of

Appeals. Judge Levine’s lecture, The Common-law Tradition and its Critics: A

Jonesian Response, argued for an evolutionary versus a revolutionary approach to

jurisprudence.

Well over 100 people, including judges, students, and concerned citizens,

gathered in the Dean Alexander Moot Courtroom to Judge Levine’s speech. The

lecture series extends Judge Jones’ example of scholarship and integrity on the

bench by highlighting an established and well-respected jurist each year, and by

presenting the public with a thoughtful examination of the important standards of

jurisprudence.

The inaugural Hugh R. Jones Lecture, presented in 2002, was delivered by

former Court of Appeals Associate Judge Richard C. Wesley, now of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Since its founding in 1955, Modern Courts has maintained a commitment to

informing the public about the judicial system and building a constituency for

improvements in the courts. Our outreach, education, research and public

programs form an essential part of our reform agenda.

A Victory on Assigned Counsel Rates

In 2003, Modern Courts played a role in helping increase assigned counsel

fee rates and improving access to justice for all New Yorkers. Community outreach,

public education, advocacy, and the testimony and surveys of our legislative affiliate

made Modern Courts part of a winning coalition that will ensure that more

individuals have access to quality free legal representation.

For nearly twenty years, the fee rates for attorneys representing the indigent in

criminal and family law matters stood still at $40 per hour for in-court work and

$25 per hour for work out-of-court. The result was a dearth of counsel willing to

take on cases for those in need of representation. As a result of the leadership of

Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and the support of Modern Courts and others, the rates

were raised to $75 an hour for felonies and Family Court matters (eliminating the

distinction between in-court and out-of-court work), and $60 an hour for other

cases, such as misdemeanors. Although the new rates do not go into effect until

2004, the announcement of the new fee structure had an immediate impact on the

availability of counsel for the indigent.

The increase in assigned counsel rates is an important step forward for

ensuring quality counsel for litigants who cannot afford legal representation.

However, more remains to be done, and Modern Courts will continue the call for

broader access to justice in the coming year. In 2004 a new Commission on Indigent

Defense will review the system in its entirety. As part of this process, Modern Courts

will continue its active role in informing the public about the need for broader

services, and providing the information, research and public advocacy necessary to

improve the indigent legal service system for those who seek justice.

New Initiatives to Improve Judicial Elections

This year, the Committee for Modern Courts took an important step in

promoting improvements in New York’s current system of judicial elections. Modern

Courts has always held that merit selection is the best means to safeguard the

independence and integrity of the judiciary. Merit selection remains the primary

goal of our agenda for reform. While Modern Courts continues to pursue the long-

term Constitutional goal of expanding the use of merit selection for judgeships

across the state, this year we also took steps to promote immediate reform to the

current system of judicial elections and respond to the public outcry for

improvements in judicial elections. In June, our Judicial Selection Task Force,

Chaired by Board Member Carey Dunne, proposed a set of judicial election reform

proposals (see inset page 14) focused on improving the nominating process,

Community

Outreach

and

Education

Community

Outreach

and

Education

“The success of the

Integrated Domestic

Violence Courts

demonstrates the need

for restructuring the

trial court system

across the state.”

—Letter to the Editor,

Newsday

campaign finance and disclosure, voter education and standards of campaign

conduct.

The adoption of Modern Courts’ reform proposals was an important part of a

larger movement to improve judicial elections in 2003. In response to sagging

public confidence in the judiciary arising from a series of scandals involving money

and political influence, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye established the Commission to

Promote Public Confidence in Judicial Elections, and chose former Modern Courts

Chair John Feerick to head the Commission.

Modern Courts has been fully engaged in the Commission’s public process,

conducting research and building a constituency to support substantive change in

the State’s system of judicial elections. Modern Courts Chair, Fern Schair, testified

during the “Feerick” Commission’s public hearing process, and Modern Courts

conducted research on campaign filings and public access to records that was used

by the Commission in creating its reform proposals.

In December 2003 the Commission presented its Interim Report to the Chief

Judge. Modern Courts was pleased that the Interim Report called for immediate

administrative reforms and policy proposals that reflected our own Judicial

Selection statement. Included among these proposals were the introduction of

broad-based, independent panels to evaluate candidates for judicial campaigns and

the expansion of the use of independent Judicial Campaign Conduct Committees to

review campaign behavior and hear allegations of inappropriate campaign behavior.

Support for the Code of Judicial Conduct

In 2003, Modern Courts joined with other community groups to protect New

York’s Code of Judicial Conduct. In the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s

decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, which struck down Minnesota's

conduct codes barring judicial candidates from stating their views on disputed legal

or political issues, New York faced a challenge to its own code outlining proscribed

political behavior by members of the bench.

To ensure that standards for judicial behavior are maintained, Modern Courts

joined the Brennan Center for Justice in two amicus briefs that urged the

preservation of New York’s Code of Judicial Conduct. The Code of Judicial Conduct

establishes standards for judicial behavior while on the bench and during elections,

and outlines parameters of acceptable political activity by judges. The briefs

submitted by Modern Courts and a variety of other civic groups offered strong

support for the Code of Judicial Conduct as enforcing appropriate rules to meet the

public expectation that judges remain above the political fray.

Modern Courts’ participation in the amicus briefs impacted cases that had the

potential to allow wide-ranging political activity by sitting judges and create

significant pressure on judicial candidates to state their positions on matters that

Community

Outreach

and

Education

Community

Outreach

and

Education

The Committee for Modern Courts is a

nonpartisan, nonprofit, statewide court reform

organization founded in 1955. Led by concerned

citizens, prominent lawyers, and business leaders,

Modern Courts strives to improve the administration

and quality of justice in our courts. It is the only

organization in New York State devoted exclusively

to improving the judicial system.

The method of selecting judges in New York State

has a direct and significant impact on the fair and

efficient administration of justice. The Committee for

Modern Courts has adopted the following

statement, which at this time sets out, in broad

principles only, our position regarding judicial

selection for judges in the state.

1. The Committee for Modern Courts, as it has since

its inception in 1955, calls for the adoption and

public ratification of a Constitutional Amendment to

expand the use of merit selection to choose judges

statewide in New York. Merit selection represents

the best method of limiting external pressures on

judicial selection, and diminishing the role of money

and politics on the process.

2. Until a Merit Selection Constitutional Amendment

is passed by the Legislature and ratified in a public

referendum, the Committee for Modern Courts calls

for the adoption of rules and procedures to improve

the process of judicial elections. Reform of the

judicial election process will more effectively limit

the influence of partisan politics, decrease the role

of campaigning and fundraising, and help to safeguard

the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

Such reform should be instituted without delay by

political parties and appointing authorities, and

should also be advanced through legislation. Reform

should, at a minimum, consist of the following:

a. Nomination Process Reform

Judicial Nominations: Before any candidate

can be nominated for a judicial office in the

State of New York, there should be a

meaningful evaluation of the candidate’s

qualifications by an independent panel. Only

candidates who have been found “well

qualified” by such a panel should be nominated

for judicial office. The independent panel

members should be selected by independent

and diverse organizations or appointing

authorities, should represent the broad diversity

of the area, and should include laypersons as

members. There should be a limit (typically

three) on the number of candidates who are

approved by the panel for nomination for each

judicial vacancy. If the panel finds an elected

incumbent “well qualified,” no other candidate

should be approved by the panel for nomination

to that judicial position.

b. Campaign Finance and Disclosure

Voluntary Public Finance System: A public

finance system should be adopted through

legislation for all judicial candidates in the State

of New York. Candidates opting into the public

financing system should be subject to

contribution limits, campaign spending limits,

and threshold requirements to qualify for the

finance system. Candidates who meet the

requirements should be provided with public

matching funds to ensure adequate resources to

operate a campaign, particularly in cases where

an opponent has opted out of the campaign

finance system. To ensure a candidate’s right to

free expression, any public finance system

should be voluntary. The proposed campaign

finance system should be similar to that used by

the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

Disclosure: For judicial candidates inside and

outside the voluntary public finance system,

there should be a timely campaign donation

disclosure requirement, indicating the

candidate’s name, donor’s name, donor’s

affiliation, date of donation, dollar amount, and

source (individual/corporate/law firm/political

action committee) of each campaign

contribution. Further, candidates should be

required to submit detailed campaign

expenditure reports, and the donation and

expenditure information should be easily

available to the public through the Internet.

Voter Guides: Voters should be provided

with meaningful and objective information

about judicial candidates in advance of an

election. The best method to achieve this is

to include judicial candidates in voter guides

produced by a Board of Elections or other

independent organization. Voter guides listing

each candidate’s qualifications, professional

background, and screening panel and other

ratings should be distributed to all eligible

voters prior to an election.

c. Fair Campaign Practices Committees

Bar Associations and other organizations in

each County or Judicial District should establish

Fair Campaign Practices Committees, as

proposed by the New York State Bar Association

and the State court system, to address

inappropriate judicial campaign activities. The

Committees should educate judicial candidates

about campaign rules, secure pledges from

candidates to campaign in a dignified and

ethical manner, and resolve disputes regarding

judicial campaigns. Fair Campaign Practices

Committees should be distinct from the local Bar

Associations’ Judicial Screening Committees.

Modern Courts Statement on Judicial Selection Reform

could come before them on the bench. In one case, Albany County Judge Thomas

Spargo filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the State Code violated his rights under

the First Amendment. Judge Spargo’s lawsuit arose from disciplinary proceedings

held against him.

At the same time, two companion cases, Raab v. State Commission on Judicial

Conduct and Watson v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, were proceeding in

the New York State Courts, also contesting the State Code of Judicial Conduct as a

violation of judges’ free-speech rights during campaigns. In June 2003, the New

York Court of Appeals issued a decision in Raab and Watson, upholding the State

Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court held that sitting judges may neither engage in

partisan political activities nor make campaign promises that interfere with the

impartial administration of justice as alleged in these cases.

In December 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed

with Modern Courts and others that the Federal Courts should have abstained from

hearing the Spargo matter, and that the case should properly be decided in the New

York State Courts. As a result, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

will resume its disciplinary proceedings against Judge Spargo for violations of New

York’s Code of Judicial Conduct.

In each matter, Modern Courts took an active role in promoting strong, clear

Community

Outreach

and

Education

Community

Outreach

and

Education

standards for judicial behavior on the

bench and during judicial campaigns.

Public Education: Judicial

Diversity; Adoption Initiatives

This year, Modern Courts also

continued its series of topical, timely

public presentations to ensure that

the community has access to

information about new initiatives and

ongoing concerns in the courts.

In October 2003, Modern

Courts co-sponsored a forum held at

Albany Law School entitled “Pathways to the

Judiciary: A ‘How To’ Guide For Attorneys”. The

session educated attorneys about the practical process of transitioning from the bar

to the bench, and addressed specific concerns of women and minorities when

considering judicial opportunities and increasing diversity in the Judiciary.

In December, the Fund For Modern Courts sponsored a program entitled

“Almost Home: New Developments and Next Steps In Adoption.” The focus of the

forum, held at the New York State Bar

Association, was the Unified Court

System’s Adoption Now

initiative, which has

promoted an expedited

process for finding

permanent homes for 5,000

children in foster care and

created new procedures for

future placements. Panelists

highlighted how the courts,

the State Office of Children

and Family Services, the New

York City Administration for

Children’s Services, and local

social services agencies have

collaborated to streamline the

adoption process and eliminate

obstacles to expedited

permanency for children.

Community

Outreach

and

Education

Voice for Reform and New Capital District Outreach

In 2003, Modern Courts also continued its vital role as the state’s leading

nonpartisan court watchdog, speaking out on such issues as judicial selection, court

restructuring, Rockefeller drug law reform, and other issues

that impact the public’s access to justice. We continued

to serve as a reliable, objective and informed source

for the media on the numerous issues affecting the

administration of justice in New York.

In October 2003, to increase our presence

throughout New York State, Modern Courts opened

an office in downtown Albany within walking

distance of the State Capitol, the Legislative Office

Building, the Court of Appeals, and the New York

State Bar Association headquarters. From this

office, the Fund for Modern Courts will organize

public education and information events for the

Capital region and Northern and Western sections

of the State, and will also organize and implement

Citizen Court Monitoring programs. In addition,

the Committee for Modern Courts will use the

office as a base for its advocacy work on policy

and legislative issues that impact the fair and

efficient administration of justice.

Officers

January 1, 2003–December 31, 2003

Senior Vice President, the American Arbitration Association. Currently Vice Chair, Committee on

Women and The Courts and President of the Childrens Law Center; Member of the Board, American

Judicature Society and Legal Services for New York. Has served as Executive Secretary and Chief

Administrative Officer of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and as Program

Development Officer for the Soros Foundation-Open Society Institute.

Corporation Counsel, City of New York; formerly Partner, Proskauer Rose LLP; past President of the

Association of the Bar of the City of New York; former Chair, New York State Committee on Judicial

Administration; former Chair, New York State Appellate Division Task Force.

Professor and former Dean, Fordham University School of Law; Chairman, Board of Directors,

American Arbitration Association; past President, Association of the Bar of the City of New York;

former Chairman, New York State Commission on Government Integrity; President, Board of

Directors, Citizens Union Foundation.

Partner, Proskauer Rose LLP; United States Chairman of the Board of the Pirelli Group; past President,

American Judicature Society; past President, Association of the Bar of the City of New York; member,

judicial selection committee of Senator Daniel P. Moynihan; former legislative assistant to Senator

Jacob K. Javits.

Senior Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell; past President, American Bar Foundation; past President,

American Bar Association; past President, American Judicature Society; past President, New York State

Bar Association and the New York Bar Foundation; former Counsel to Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

Partner, Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP, specializing in Communications Law and Civil Litigation.

Recipient of the Jerome Michael Award and the E.B. Converse Prize. Current Member, New York State

Commission on Public Access; past Member, New York City Mayor’s Committee on the Judiciary; past

Member and Chair, New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct; Former Corporation Counsel,

City of New York, 1990-1991.

Managing Partner, Jacob, Medinger & Finnegan, LLP.

Associate General Counsel, Time Inc. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York.

Member, Office of Appellate Defender. Fellow, John Woodruff Simpson.

Principal, Shack Siegel Katz & Flaherty P.C. Member, Board of Directors, Ark Restaurants Corp.

Former President and Member, Board of Directors, New York Civil Liberties Union.

Partner, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene, and MacRae, LL. Member, NYS Bar Association; Chair, Association of

the Bar of The City of New York’s Task Force on Restructuring of the New York Court System; former

Chair, New York State Bar Association’s Commercial and Federal Litigation Section.

Chair:

Fern Schair

Chair Emeritus:

Michael A. Cardozo

Chair Emeritus:

John D. Feerick

Chair Emeritus:

Robert M. Kaufman

Chair Emeritus:

Robert MacCrate

Vice Chair and Executive

Committee Chair:

Victor A. Kovner

Vice Chair:

Peter A. Cross

Vice Chair:

Milton L. Williams, Jr.

Secretary:

Donald D. Shack

Treasurer:

Jay G. Safer

The Fund For Modern Courts

Executive Committee

Victor Kovner, Chair

Peter A. Cross

Hon. Matthew T. Crosson

Hon. John R. Dunne

Robert R. Elliott

Jeremy G. Epstein

John D. Feerick

Hon. Audrey G. Hochberg

Elizabeth B. Hubbard

Robert M. Kaufman

Alfreida Kenny

Robert MacCrate

Hon. Jeanne B. Mullgrav

Arthur B. Newman

Jay G. Safer

Samuel Whitney Seymour

Donald D. Shack

Margaret L. Shaw

Milton L. Williams, Jr.

Court Monitoring

Committee

Elizabeth B. Hubbard, Chair

Catherine T. Brody

Alfreida B. Kenny

Robert MacCrate

Muriel Neufeld

Flora Rothman

Doris Shaffer

Finance Committee

Robert R. Elliott III, Co-Chair

Jeremy G. Epstein, Co-Chair

Peter A. Cross

John D. Feerick

Robert M. Kaufman

John J. Kirby, Jr.

Vincent A. Maffeo

Arthur B. Newman

Jay G. Safer

Richard H. Silberberg

Donald I Strauber

Milton L. Williams, Jr.

Nominating Committee

Samuel Whitney Seymour,

Co-Chair

Margaret L. Shaw, Co-Chair

Alfreida B. Kenny

Evelyn M. Stock

Carl Weisbrod

Milton L. Williams, Jr.

Samuel J. Duboff Memorial

Award Committee

Arthur B. Newman, Chair

David B. Duboff

Elizabeth Duboff

Judith Duboff

Robert S. Duboff

Robert M. Kaufman

Fern Schair

Samuel Whitney Seymour

John J. McCloy Memorial

Award Committee

Victor A. Kovner, Chair

John D. Feerick

Mel M. Immergut

Robert M. Kaufman

Donald D. Shack

Committees*

*Fern Schair and

Victor A. Kovner are ex-officio

members of all committees.

Board of Directors

Dean Joseph W. Bellacosa

St. John’s University School of Law

Prof. Catherine T. Brody

Michael A. Cooper

Sullivan & Cromwell

Evan A. Davis

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

David B. Duboff

Network Agency Corporation

Victor M. Earle, III

O’Melveny & Myers LLP

Robert R. Elliott, III

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Jeremy G. Epstein

Shearman & Sterling

Joseph E. Geoghan

Dean Kristin Booth Glen

CUNY Law School

Dean Howard A. Glickstein

Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg

Law Center

Dean Thomas F. Guernsey

Albany Law School

Alan J. Hruska

Cravath, Swaine & Moore

Bruce A. Hubbard

John J. Kirby, Jr.

Latham & Watkins

Glenn Lau-Kee

Koo Larrabee & Lau-Kee LLP

E. Nobles Lowe

Vincent A. Maffeo

ITT Industries, Inc.

Douglass B. Maynard

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP

Edwin B. Mishkin

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

Hon. Milton Mollen

Herrick Feinstein LLP

Hon. Jeanne B. Mullgrav

NYC Department of Youth and

Community Development

Muriel Neufeld

Arthur B. Newman

Blackstone Group

Robert C. Newman

Legal Aid Society

Mr. William O’Shaughnessy

Whitney Radio

Alan I. Raylesberg

Vinson & Elkins

Dean Richard Revesz

New York University School of Law

Dr. Flora Rothman

Gerald Schoenfeld

The Shubert Organization

Doris Shaffer

Margaret L. Shaw

ADR Associates LLC

Richard H. Silberberg

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Arthur J. Soong

Soong & Liu

Donald I Strauber

Chadbourne & Parke LLP

Dean William Treanor

Fordham University

Michael Weinstein

Ark Restaurant Corp.

Carl B. Weisbrod

Alliance For Downtown New York

Dean Joan G. Wexler

Brooklyn Law School

Dean David Yellen

Hofstra University School of Law

Gay Young

New York Community Trust

Listing includes directors who served during 2003.

Affiliations for purposes of identification only.

The Fund For Modern Courts

John J. McCloy Memorial

Award Event Committee

Co-Chairs

John D. Feerick

Barry H. Garfinkel

Bettina B. Plevan

Melvyn I. Weiss

Members

Hon. Robert Abrams

Lenore H. Banks

Hon. H. Douglas Barclay

Hon. Richard J. Bartlett

Dean Joseph W. Bellacosa

John P. Bracken

Catherine T. Brody

Michael J. Chepiga

Robert Conason

Joseph C. Connors

Michael A. Cooper

Sol Neil Corbin

Peter A. Cross

Matthew T. Crosson

Evan A. Davis

David B. Duboff

Carey R. Dunne

Hon. John R. Dunne

David N. Ellenhorn

Robert R. Elliott, III

Jeremy G. Epstein

Haliburton Fales, II

Kevin J. Farrelly

Kenneth R. Feinberg

Dr. Joseph Fins

Peter E. Fleming

Alexander D. Forger

William P. Frank

Joseph E. Geoghan

Dean Kristin Booth Glen

Dean Howard A. Glickstein

Richard Godosky

Daniel L. Greenberg

Dean Thomas F. Guernsey

Robert L. Haig

Hon. Audrey G. Hochberg

Alan J. Hruska

Bruce A. Hubbard

Elizabeth B. Hubbard

Patricia M. Hynes

Mel M. Immergut

Josephine Lea Iselin

Gregory P. Joseph

Robert M. Kaufman

Thomas J. Kavaler

Alfreida B. Kenny

John J. Kirby, Jr.

Hon. G. Oliver Koppell

Rachel L. Kretser

William F. Kuntz

Glenn Lau-Kee

Dean David W. Leebron

Hon. Franz S. Leichter

Robert J. Levinsohn

Richard B. Long

E. Nobles Lowe

Robert MacCrate

Vincent A. Maffeo

Hon. Bernard S. Meyer

Henry G. Miller

Hon. E. Leo Milonas

Edwin B. Mishkin

Hon. Milton Mollen

Jeanne B. Mullgrav

Gary P. Naftalis

Martin S. Needelman

Arthur B. Newman

Robert C. Newman

Cecilia E. Norat

Muriel Neufeld

Barbara Berger Opotowsky

William O’Shaughnessy

Barry R. Ostrager

Maxwell S. Pfeifer

Joan T. Photiadis

Hon. John T. Racanelli

Alan I. Raylesberg

Roy L. Reardon

Dean Richard Revesz

Sheila Riesel

Flora Rothman

Barbara A. Ryan

Jay G. Safer

Gerald Schoenfeld

David A. Schulz

Samuel Whitney Seymour

Donald D. Shack

Doris Shaffer

Margaret L. Shaw

Paul L. Shechtman

Shirley Adelson Siegel

Richard H. Silberberg

David O. Simon

Arthur J. Soong

Evelyn M. Stock

Madeline C. Stoller

Keith C. St. John

Hon. Jeffrey G. Stark

Donald I Strauber

Robert B. Tierney

Dean William Treanor

Justin L. Vigdor

Mary Kay Vyskocil

Michael Weinstein

Carl Weisbrod

Dean Joan G. Wexler

Milton L. Williams, Jr.

Gail Yaus

Gay Young

Hon. Ruth Jane Zuckerman

Officers

January 1, 2003–December 31, 2003

The Committee For Modern Courts

The Committee for Modern Courts, the lobbying and advocacy affiliate of the Fund for Modern Courts, is a private,

nonpartisan nonprofit organization organized under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Committee

lobbies for legislation designed to improve the administration of justice in New York. Contributions to the Committee

for Modern Courts are not tax-deductible