The Judicial System of Virginia

2004 - 2006 Strategic Plan

1

MISSIONTo provide an independent,accessible, responsive forum for thejust resolution of disputes in order topreserve the rule of law and to protectall rights and liberties guaranteed by theUnited States and Virginia constitutions.

The Judicial Council of Virginia

The Honorable Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., Chief Justice Supreme Court of Virginia

The Honorable Johanna L. Fitzpatrick, Chief JudgeCourt of Appeals of Virginia

The Honorable S. Bernard Goodwyn, JudgeFirst Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Randall G. Johnson, JudgeThirteenth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Paul M. Peatross, Jr., JudgeSixteenth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Leslie M. Alden, JudgeNineteenth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable William N. Alexander II, JudgeTwenty-second Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Birg E. Sergent, JudgeThirtieth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Suzanne K. Fulton, Chief JudgeThirtieth Judicial District

The Honorable Alfreda Talton-Harris, JudgeFifth Judicial District

The Honorable William J. Howell, SpeakerVirginia House of Delegates*

The Honorable Kenneth W. Stolle, MemberSenate of Virginia

The Honorable Walter A. Stosch, MemberSenate of Virginia*

The Honorable Robert F. McDonnell, MemberVirginia House of Delegates

The Honorable Kenneth R. Melvin, MemberVirginia House of Delegates*

Mr. William G. Broaddus, EsquireMr. George W. Wooten, EsquireMr. Robert N. Baldwin, Ex-Officio Executive Secretary

*By invitation of the Chief Justice

December 6, 2004

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Members of the Judicial System

FROM: Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., Chief JusticeSupreme Court of Virginia

On behalf of the Judicial Council of Virginia, I am pleased to forward to you acopy of the FY 2004-2006 strategic plan for Virginia's judicial system. This document isthe result of a comprehensive process involving more than 1,000 Virginians-the mostbroad-based planning effort yet undertaken by the judiciary.

Two new avenues for gathering information about the perceived needs for courtreform were incorporated in the Plan's development. The first was a series of Town HallMeetings held around the Commonwealth in 2003. Members of the Judicial Council andjudges met with citizens and local government officials to discuss a wide range of issuesregarding the administration of justice. Later in the year, community leaders, citizens,judges, lawyers, and court personnel met in Richmond at the statewide SolutionsConference to review the most promising ideas and innovations gleaned from the TownHall meetings.

Consequently, the Judicial Council adopted and the Supreme Court of Virginiaapproved some 140 action items to address critical issues confronting our courts.Successful implementation of these solutions will require broad participation from judges,clerks of court, and magistrates. I look forward to working with members of the judiciary,legislators, lawyers, and citizens during the biennium to achieve the important objectivescontained herein as we seek to provide an excellent judiciary for all Virginians.

The Planning Process

4

Change is an integral part of life, yet the magnitude and rapidity of change inthis century continues to astound. Old world orders fall and new ones struggle toreplace them. Events occurring around the world are instantaneously communicat-ed globally and affect life locally in unforeseen ways. Promising technologicaladvances are often supplanted before they mature by newer, more promisingdevelopments. Advances in science unleash new realities that often confound thelegal, social, and ethical "status quo".

Surviving and thriving in this environment requires both the public and privatesectors to adapt quickly and effectively. Organizations must be sufficiently nimbleto meet changing conditions while remaining faithful to their core missions. Thisoften requires that organizations seek more effective ways to gather broad-baseddata for enhancing their capacity to think and respond creatively and effectively.

It is for this reason that the judiciary’s strategic planning process exists. Usingthe information-gathering steps afforded through this process, the court system hassought and received perspectives both from within and outside the judiciary oncritical issues that or may impact the court system’s operation. By compiling thisinformation and determining steps to seize upon potential opportunities and toaddress anticipated problems early on, leaders in the judicial system are better ableto position the courts to meet the expected demands.

Creation of the FY2004-2006 Plan was initiated in 2003 with the presentationof an extensive environmental scan to Judicial Council members. This report wasdesigned to provide data and insight on expected developments in the areas ofdemographics, technology, consumer trends, and law and government. Next, sev-eral steps were undertaken to garner the opinions of citizens and those who servethe courts today about needed court reforms. In total, nearly, 1,100 individualscontributed to the development of the Plan through the following means:

• Citizens participated in a telephone survey seeking public perceptions ofVirginia's courts.

• Court and bar leaders responded to a written survey and heard presentationson emerging global, national and local trends with implications for the courtsand the environments in which they operate.

• Members of the public, the court community, and government agenciesappeared at five Town Hall Meetings to share their opinions on where thecourt system’s operation should be improved. Members of the JudicialCouncil and a number of other trial and appellate court judges listened tothose testifying at the meetings and engaged them in dialogue about theirperspectives.

AAddooppttiioonn ooff tthheePPllaann bbyy tthheeJJuuddiicciiaall CCoouunncciillrreepprreesseennttss tthheeccoommmmiittmmeenntt ooff tthheejjuuddiicciiaarryy’’ss lleeaadd-eerrsshhiipp ttoo ccoonnttiinnuuaalliimmpprroovveemmeenntt wwiitthh-iinn tthhee ssyysstteemm..

5

ConsumerResearch

- Citizens- Consumers- Stakeholders

FuturesCommission

(Once a Decade)- Mission- Vision- Values

EnvironmentalScanning

(Continuous)- Emerging Trends- Trend Analysis- FutureView

ConstituentInput

- Judges- Clerks of Court- Magistrates- Bar

EVALUATION

IMPLEMENTATION IN THE COURTS

Adoption of Annual Operating Planfor State Court Administrator’s Office

Present Research, Options and Recommendationsto Judicial Council for Adoption of

Strategic Plan for the Judiciary

Venture Teaming with Consumers and Constituentsfor Idea Generation, Identification of Options and

Recommendations for Service Improvement

Identification ofMajor Themes, Findings and Issues

Analysis of Consumer and Constituent ResearchUpdate of Emerging Trends

PlusLegislative Mandates

Continuous Continuous

THE JUDICIARY’S STRATEGIC PLANNINGAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Sept-Dec,Even Years

March,Odd years

April,Odd Years

May-June,Odd Years

July,Odd Years

Submission of Biennium Budget August, Odd Years

6

• Representatives of civic and advocacy groups, Bar Associations, governmentagencies, as well as judges, clerks, and magistrates collaborated during astatewide conference to craft solutions for problems identified through theTown Hall meetings.

Thus, the Judicial Council of Virginia's 2004 - 2006 strategic plan reflects a collec-tive sense of the preferred direction for the court system in these changing andchallenging times.

Once all the data was compiled, cross-cutting themes were identified. Then thethemes and ideas emanating within each were evaluated against the framework ofthe judiciary's Mission and Visions. The Judicial Council met in December, 2003and reviewed and adopted 143 action items for inclusion in the Plan. The Planthen was forwarded for review by the Supreme Court of Virginia.

The adoption of this Plan signals the commitment of the judiciary's leadershipto continual improvement of the court system. It also represents the beginning of asystem-wide implementation effort. Only with the commitment and participation ofjudges, clerks of court, magistrates and other state and local justice system officialscan this blueprint be translated into demonstrable action for the benefit of allVirginians.

To assure that the full range of tasks set forth in the Plan will be undertaken ina systematic manner, the Office of the Executive Secretary (state court administra-tor' office) incorporates different portions of the strategic plan in each of its annualoperating plans during the biennium. This operating plan guides yearly activitieswithin the Office in support of the judicial system as a whole. In this way, the fullrange of tasks set forth in the Plan will be undertaken in a systematic manner thatincludes accountability and follow-up.

Periodic status reports on the implementation of the Plan will be made avail-able to judges, court system personnel, the Bar, the media and the public.

The Judicial Council welcomes comments and suggestions at any time on thisPlan or on items to be considered for future planning efforts of the judiciary. Pleaseaddress comments to the Judicial Planning Department:

by mail:Office of the Executive SecretarySupreme Court of Virginia100 North Ninth Street, Third FloorRichmond, VA 23219

OR

By e-mail:webmaster@courts.state.va.us

The Themes

7

The six cross-cutting themes emanating from the research for the 2004-2006Plan are summarized below. Each is followed by several action items designed toaddress the issues raised by that theme. In this way the Council is attempting toposition the courts to better meet the expected demands of a changing society.

1. Widening the Courthouse Doors: Meeting the Diverse Needs for Access toJustice

2. Children, Families and the Courts3. Technology As A Way of Life4. Courts As A Core Function of Government: Maintaining Independence and

Accountability5. Courts and Communities: Exploring Roles, Responsibilities, and New Paths

to Justice6. Reclaiming a Secure Virginia: The Courts Post-9/11

Significant shifts in demographic profiles continue to reshape national and statepopulations. Hispanics now outnumber African-Americans in the United States.The percentage of Asian Americans more than doubled between the 1990 and2000 and is increasing. As their overall numbers have grown, so has the internalcomposition of these minority groups. More countries of origin are represented,with increased numbers from each. There is more variation in the economic andeducational backgrounds within groups. The one-size-fits-all characterization ofAmerica's Hispanic and Asian populations does not satisfactorily address theirincreasingly diverse needs.

In some developed nations, the aging populations are producing birth ratesinsufficient for population replacement, placing them on the brink of populationdecline. This fate is being staved off only by population gains through immigra-tion. While not facing immanent population decline, the US population, too, isaging. More than 50,000 individuals have celebrated their 100th birthdays."Boomers" are on the verge of retiring in staggering numbers. By 2005 one inevery five Virginians will be age 60 or older. The gap between the poor and thewealthy in American is increasing with more than 3 million older Americans livingbelow the poverty line.

Businesses in the private sector seek to capitalize on this diversity by targetingmarketing initiatives and services to growing but underserved segments of the pop-

Widening the Courthouse Doors:

Meeting the Diverse Needs for Access to Justice

SSiixx ccrroossss-ccuuttttiinnggtthheemmeess rraaiisseennuummeerroouuss iissssuueesswwiitthh wwhhiicchh ssoocciieettyyaanndd tthhee ccoouurrttss aarreennooww oorr ssoooonn wwiillllbbee ggrraapppplliinngg..

8

ulation. The boom in assisted living facilities, home services for the elderly, andproduct designs with less agile hands and limbs in mind illustrate this point. Atthe same time, they seek to diversify their workforce to gain insights about andcredibility with the groups they seek to serve.

The courts, too, are recognizing that assuring access to justice in this changingenvironment requires a multifaceted approach. Business as usual excludes toomany people. The increasing cost of legal representation is perceived to be pricingeven moderate-income individuals out of the market. The growth of self-represent-ed litigants, particularly in family matters, is a nationwide phenomenon. Whilebarriers to effective access to the courts differ from group to group, they mayinclude: inaccessible facilities and equipment, language, bias, scheduling, process-es and procedures.

Through the addition of the Town Hall Meetings and the Solutions Conferenceto the judiciary's planning process, judicial system leaders were able to put facesand voices to the diversity of court access needs in Virginia. Members of theimmigrant community described with clarity the linguistic and cultural barriersthey feel they experience in using the courts. Representatives of the legal commu-nity were passionate in their calls for systemic change in providing both improvedindigent defense services and addressing the plight of self-represented litigants.Individuals with disabilities and those who work with the elderly called for under-standing of and accommodations for the functional limitations of these groups.Their common theme was that courts must do more to provide meaningful accessfor all citizens.

While some of these calls for change require additional funding, others do not.At the same time the courts are seeking funding for new or expanded programs,they can move forward with revising processes and procedures to foster accessibili-ty, and to increase the diversity of their workforce. The 04-06 plan sets forthnumerous tasks to address the need to widen the courthouse doors. Among themare the following:

• expanding the voluntary certification process for foreign language interpretersserving Virginia courts to include languages in addition to Spanish.

• supporting efforts to increase the compensation paid to court-appointedcounsel in criminal cases.

• developing a specialized Judicial Institute on the trial and management ofcapital cases to be delivered on an annual basis.

• conducting periodic reassessments of the effectiveness of individual courts' ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and where necessary work withthe courts to develop plans for corrective action, and

• establishing an Equal Opportunity Employment Committee for the judicialsystem to develop and implement specific actions such as creating intern-ships, conducting recruitment visits, and expanding placement sources inorder to increase the diversity of the judicial system's workforce.

SSiiggnniiffiiccaanntt sshhiiffttss iinnddeemmooggrraapphhiicc pprroo-ffiilleess ccoonnttiinnuuee ttoorreesshhaappee nnaattiioonnaallaanndd ssttaattee ppooppuullaa-ttiioonnss..

Children, Families, and the Court

9

Throughout the United States, escalating caseloads and significant changes inthe roles of judges are transforming juvenile and family courts. At the same time,the work of these courts is under greater scrutiny than ever before as all things"family" receives greater public attention.

In Virginia, the juvenile and domestic relations district courts experienced dra-matic growth in their caseloads throughout the 1990's. Caseloads statewide forthese courts increased more than 70%. Juvenile cases, comprising more than halfof the courts' cases, grew by 63%, while domestic relations cases increased by83%. Not until 2001 was there any sign of these caseloads abating. Even so,caseloads for these courts should continue to increase.

Increasingly complex issues, exacerbated by poverty, drug and alcohol use,HIV, and domestic violence, are now decided in cases each day and are consum-ing greater proportions of judicial time and court resources. In addition, juvenileand family courts are hearing cases that present a host of novel and public policyissues, some of which stem from advances in reproductive technology.Conception and birth scenarios now exceed anything heretofore contemplated.The implications of these technologies on legal relationships can produce complexquestions for the courts.

The composition of families coming into the courts reflects changes in society.While the traditional family of two parents and their biological children still existsin America, it now accounts for less than 25 percent of the nation's households.Family profiles are much more diverse. Nearly 30% of American children live insingle parent households. With the high rate of divorce, the joining of two singleparent households produces a blended family that is often augmented by a newbiological child or children. When the epidemic of substance abuse leaves manyparents unable or unwilling to care for their children, other provisions must bemade. Foster care is one option. An estimated 60 - 95% of the children in fostercare are there due to the substance abuse of parents or other care givers. Another,less formal option is kinship care, where relatives provide homes for nieces,nephews, cousins or grandchildren. One of these arrangements has become socommon that a new term, grandfamilies, has been coined. Unmarried couples,heterosexual or same-sex, with or without children comprise another form of fami-ly today. This profound change in Americans' concept of family is a developmentthat some find heartening and others find troubling. Yet, it is the reality the courtsand society, in general, must recognize.

Families that come to court often are receiving or are in need of services fromother government entities. In many instances, the courts are placed in the positionof coordinators of services for dysfunctional families, in addition to being resolversof their disputes. In addition, many family cases often do not lend themselves to a

IInn mmaannyyiinnssttaanncceess,, tthheeccoouurrttss aarree ppllaacceeddiinn tthhee ppoossiittiioonn ooffccoooorrddiinnaattoorrss ooffsseerrvviicceess ffoorr ddyyss-ffuunnccttiioonnaall ffaammii-lliieess,, iinn aaddddiittiioonn ttoobbeeiinngg rreessoollvveerrss oofftthheeiirr ddiissppuutteess..

10

rational fact-finding process that resolves the disputes. A "final" resolution, thehallmark of our adversarial system, is difficult to attain for a number of reasons.Cases involving families and children are emotionally charged and conflict-laden.The relationships between the parties will continue beyond the disposition of thematter in court on any given day, with the case often remaining within the court'sjurisdiction until a young child eventually becomes an adult.

Virginia's juvenile and domestic relations district courts (J&DR) have been onthe forefront in seeking creative and appropriate means to address their caseloadsand the difficult issues presented at their doors. Mediation is now available inmany areas of the state to families dealing with custody and visitation issues.Family drug courts are being introduced as a means for breaking the cycle of sub-stance abuse in order to keep families together. Parent education programs havebeen developed and offered throughout the state. To increase access to the courtsfor family matters, Chief Justice Hassell has underway an effort to provide greaterpro bono representation for persons of limited means.

Because the issues that bring children and families into the courts are oftencomplex and multi-layered, resolution of their problems may involve dealing withthe courts in several different contexts. In Virginia, the J&DR district courts haveoriginal jurisdiction in most juvenile and family cases, except divorce and adop-tion. Even in these matters, many relevant issues can originate in the J&DR Court.In addition, the provision of a de novo appeal in family law matters, where a com-plete retrial of the case takes place in the circuit court, allows the adversarialprocess to protract already emotionally charged issues and delays the restoration ofthe reorganized family unit. It has been found that this two-tier adjudicatory sys-tem in family law matters creates hardships, inconvenience and inefficiencieswhen multiple problems within the same family are allocated to different courts forresolution. The family may be offered conflicting solutions to the same or similarproblems, and problems may fall into the crack created by the division of courtjurisdiction. This lack of a comprehensive approach to family issues is seen bymany as a major weakness of Virginia's judicial system. Having the ability to con-solidate related cases would not only improve the quality of dispute resolution inthese family law cases; it would enhance the efficiency of the necessary organiza-tional and resource support of the court system to effectively resolve disputes.

On a daily basis, Virginia's J&DR courts are handed a demanding mission.They know the decisions they make are critical to children and families, affectingthe quality of life for the families and for the community. As one speaker said at aTown Hall meeting, "The Juvenile and & Domestic Relations District Courts are theone place where, if we change the life of one individual, we can make an enor-mous difference in society." Although the courts continue to strive to handle theirgrowing caseload more effectively, the current structure of the court system contin-ues to be seen by many as hampering effective access to justice for troubled fami-lies.

The avenues for attacking the perplexing issues presented by children and fam-ilies in the courts are wide-ranging. Among the more than 20 action items thatseek to address various components of the need are the following:

VViirrggiinniiaa''ss jjuuvveenniilleeaanndd ddoommeessttiicc rreellaa-ttiioonnss ddiissttrriicctt ccoouurrttss((JJ&&DDRR)) hhaavvee bbeeeennoonn tthhee ffoorreeffrroonntt iinnsseeeekkiinngg ccrreeaattiivveeaanndd aapppprroopprriiaatteemmeeaannss ttoo aaddddrreesssstthheeiirr ccaasseellooaaddss aannddtthhee ddiiffffiiccuulltt iissssuueesspprreesseenntteedd aatt tthheeiirrddoooorrss..

11

• seeking legislation and funding to implement a family court to deal with allfamily related issues;

• designing and implementing a statewide program to provide pro bono legalservices to litigants involved in child custody and visitation disputes whocannot afford representation;

• assessing the handling of child dependency cases in the circuit courts todetermine the extent and impact of the delay on permanency for children;

• expanding the delivery of training programs for substitute judges, with partic-ular emphasis on substitute judges serving in the juvenile and domestic rela-tions district courts;

• conducting a study of recidivism rates of custody/visitation cases mediatedversus those adjudicated in the JDR courts; and

• developing a model truancy mediation curriculum to train mediators through-out the state in support of the expanded use of truancy mediations by schoolsand judges.

Technology is becoming increasingly ubiquitous in our world, in our expecta-tions, and in our collective conscience. Faster, smaller, cheaper computing powerinfluences every facet of 21st Century life. The capacity to understand, to manipu-late, and to create starting at the nano and genetic levels spawns previouslyunimagined issues to ponder. The rapidity of technological advances continuallychanges how we live, work, and communicate.

While the Internet is a learned reality for older generations, it is simply a fact oflife for today's younger generations. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) track thespeed and location of rental cars, locate lost pets, and tell farmers where and howmuch fertilizer to use when planting genetically modified crops. Questions ofwhere and how those crops can be sold or used fuel international debates.Vocabulary changes as familiar words like network, portal, blackboard and virustake on new meaning and words such as blogs, Bluetooth and push technologybecome part of the modern lexicon. Genetics, stem cell research and cloningpromise lifesaving possibilities while sparking ethical maelstroms.

Wireless communication and portable technologies have introduced unprece-dented flexibility in work arrangements and personal communications. With lap-tops and cell phones, "portable offices" are possible almost anywhere. Lawenforcement officers operate with computers in their squad cars and mini-camerasto record traffic stops. Abduction victims call for help from car trunks and hijackedairplanes, and lost or injured hikers alert authorities to their need for help.

Technology as a Way of Life

TThhee rraappiiddiittyy oofftteecchhnnoollooggiiccaallaaddvvaanncceess ccoonnttiinnuu-aallllyy cchhaannggeess hhoowwwwee lliivvee,, wwoorrkk,, aannddccoommmmuunniiccaattee..

12

Yet as some Americans eagerly embrace each succeeding generation of techno-logical innovation, others grow more wary of technology's pervasiveness andimpacts on their lives, their communities, and the world at large. Citizens youngand old use cell phones while shopping, dining, and driving, often with littleregard for the privacy or propriety previously attached to personal communica-tions. Both private sector companies and public agencies are moving to ban cam-era phones recognizing their potential for compromising everything from tradesecrets to personal privacy in locker rooms. As the capacity for working anywhere,anytime drifts toward an expectation, the line between home and work blurs.

Citizens, customers and constituents are migrating to cyberspace seeking con-venient, user friendly access to information, services and entertainment, 24 hours aday, seven days a week. Private sector responsiveness sets the bar for expectationsof e-government. Yet, a recent study of both the content and public assessment ofdigital government concludes that e-government, at this stage in its development,generally falls short of its potential to transform government service delivery andtrust in government. Still, individuals, law firms, private sector entities, and stateand local executive branch agencies, want to be able to do business with thecourts on-line. State and local criminal justice agencies advocate for the court sys-tem, particularly magistrates' offices, to serve as the portal for automated entry ofinformation on criminal defendants. They want to have those records integratedwith court actions and related events so that a complete automated record forevery offender can be compiled and easily retrieved.

Simultaneously, citizens, government, industry and the media grapple with thetechnical and philosophical dimensions of privacy as they apply in cyberspace.The potential for harm due to unauthorized access to and the misuse of privateinformation on the Internet far exceeds anything faced previously in terms of speedand volume. The relative ease with which electronic government records can becompiled, mined, sold, and broadcast through cyberspace raises questions as towhat information governments can and should compile and how much of it is"public" information. The epidemic of identity theft, the increasing dangers posedto children by cyber predators, and the routine gathering of personal informationon those surfing the web or otherwise living on-line ratchet up the societal stakesfor failing to come to terms with privacy in cyberspace.

While individuals and bar groups assert with vigor their desires for expandedaccess to court information, they also demand that the court system do its part toensure that their privacy rights are respected. State and federal statutes and caselaw impact efforts to balance access to court records and privacy requirements.The CCJ/COSCA Guidelines for Policy Development by State Courts: Public Accessto Court Records, promulgated in 2002, highlight the major issues needing to beaddressed by such policies and attempt to provide language as a starting point fordrafting a policy tailored to the needs of a given state. In Virginia, court leadersare working with the General Assembly's Joint Subcommittee Studying theProtection of Court Records to develop appropriate policies, using the Guidelinesas a resource.

Still, technology is perceived as the single most potent force transforming thejustice system landscape. Technology in its many facets impacts the types of dis-

[[TT]]eecchhnnoollooggyy iissppeerrcceeiivveedd aass tthheessiinnggllee mmoosstt ppootteennttffoorrccee ttrraannssffoorrmmiinnggtthhee jjuussttiiccee ssyysstteemmllaannddssccaappee..

13

putes brought to court, the manner in which trials can be conducted and evidencepresented, how court and trial papers are filed, stored and accessed, and how deci-sions are distributed. Trial courts are becoming hubs through which a myriad ofstate and local agencies, businesses, and individual citizens access timely andaccurate information on court decisions and actions. Individual court and courtsystem web sites provide ready access to court dockets, statistics and publications.Court forms are available both for downloading and for on-line completion.Payments of fines and costs can be made on-line. Electronic submission of select-ed forms will soon be possible. The success of Virginia's past and current automa-tion efforts position the judicial branch to move forward and to respond to requestsfor expanded access to court information and for conducting business with thecourts via the Net.

Yet, two factors are critical to the court system's ability to continue andincrease technology initiatives. First is securing sustained funding to maintain andupgrade the technology infrastructure needed to develop and support these efforts.Second is ensuring sufficient training and support for judges and court personnel inthe implementation and daily use of court technology solutions. Many judges andcourt personnel sense that technology has already moved beyond their technologi-cal sophistication and fear that this gap is likely to increase in the next few years.

In order to realize the full potential of technology as a way of life for thecourts, the Virginia judiciary must strive to use technology's significant leverage totransform the ways in which their courts do business. To this end, the Planincludes a diverse group of technology action items designed to increase theaccess, convenience and ease of use of the courts, as well as to support the deliv-ery of the highest quality of service. Among these are:

• redesigning and expanding the court system's Internet website in order toprovide additional features, links, and search capabilities so that citizens maybecome better informed about court procedures and the availability ofresources for legal representation;

• completing implementation of Internet access to appropriate trial court datato enable citizens to access specific case data from each circuit and generaldistrict court;

• redesigning the Automated Magistrate Information System (AMS) to serve as aprimary gateway to exchange data in standardized formats with criminal jus-tice agencies; and

• conducting legal research pursuant to HJR631 (2003) on the protection ofinformation contained in the records, documents and cases filed in the courtsof the Commonwealth and report the results to the General Assembly; and

• seeking funding to upgrade and maintain the judicial system's telecommuni-cations network to support existing and projected communications needs.

IInn oorrddeerr ttoo rreeaalliizzeetthhee ffuullll ppootteennttiiaall oofftteecchhnnoollooggyy aass aawwaayy ooff lliiffee ffoorr tthheeccoouurrttss,, tthheeVViirrggiinniiaa jjuuddiicciiaarryymmuusstt ssttrriivvee ttoo uusseetteecchhnnoollooggyy''ss ssiigg-nniiffiiccaanntt lleevveerraaggeettoo ttrraannssffoorrmm tthheewwaayyss iinn wwhhiicchhtthheeiirr ccoouurrttss ddoobbuussiinneessss..

Courts as a Core Function of Government:

Maintaining Independence and Accountability

14

This theme represents a confluence of three critical and interrelated elementsof an excellent justice system. These are the ability of the court system to carry outits core functions in (1) providing an independent, responsive and accessible forumfor resolving disputes; (2) demonstrating accountability in all aspects of the courtsystem's operation, and (3) serving in a manner that merits the respect, trust andconfidence of the people it serves.

Fundamental to our system of government, and indeed to the functioning ofour society is an independent, accessible and responsive forum for the just resolu-tions of disputes. From coexistence of neighbors to regulation of the relationshipsamong multinational corporations, courts provide the means for peaceful resolu-tion of disagreements which inevitably arise. In deciding whether to do business ina new country, many corporations first determine whether there is a stable courtsystem capable of resolving disputes without corruption and independent of thepolitical process. Only when these conditions are met is it safe to risk a businessventure in an emerging nation.

Throughout the years many aspects of social change have ultimately beenresolved in the courts. While there is recognition of the partisan nature of the polit-ical branches of government and the benefits which derived therefrom, there isalso acknowledgement of the need for a judicial system before which all personsare equal and none has advantage because of position or power. In this crucible ofequality basic individual rights and the human dignity guaranteed in theConstitution are protected. When most of the nations of the world live under con-stitutions less than forty years old, the United States Constitution has not only sur-vived but has remained vital. The courts have contributed to health of the GreatDocument through the doctrine of judicial review under which they have histori-cally played the role as the interpreters of the Constitution and the protectors of thesovereign will of the people. It is axiomatic that there can be no real peace in soci-ety without justice. Thus the courts, as the instrument of government responsiblefor administering justice, are in fact a core function of government and their abilityto act with independence is key to discharging their central role.

Recognition of the importance of an independent judiciary is as old as thenation itself, and as current as today's news. The doctrine of separation of powers,deeply rooted in the country's political and constitutional history, places judges ina position to check the excessive use of power by the other branches of govern-ment and to ensure that no one is above the law, thereby defending even theweakest members of our society from violations of their rights.

Further, the perception of judicial independence is essential to maintainingpublic trust and confidence in the courts. Without the ability to engender respectand support from the public, the judiciary would have limited power to hand

FFrroomm ccooeexxiisstteenncceeooff nneeiigghhbboorrss ttoorreegguullaattiioonn ooff tthheerreellaattiioonnsshhiippssaammoonngg mmuullttiinnaa-ttiioonnaall ccoorrppoorraa-ttiioonnss,, ccoouurrttss pprroo-vviiddee tthhee mmeeaannssffoorr ppeeaacceeffuull rreessoo-lluuttiioonn ooff ddiissaaggrreeee-mmeennttss wwhhiicchhiinneevviittaabbllyy aarriissee..

15

down decisions that are sometime politically unpopular. Wide public acceptanceof and obedience to highly controversial decisions involving election outcomes,the death penalty, and religious beliefs are possible because the public believesthat outcomes result from a process that is not predetermined but in which inde-pendent judges strive faithfully to apply the laws to specific cases. As ThurgoodMarshall said, "We must never forget that the only real source of power that we asjudges can tap is the respect of the people."

Judicial independence is comprised of two key components. Decisional inde-pendence allows judges to perform the judicial function subject to no authority butthe law. When truly independent, judges are not influenced by personal interestsor relationships, the identity or status of the parties to a case, or external economicor political pressures. As Alfred P. Carlton, Jr., past president of the American BarAssociation said, "A judge has no constituency but due process and the rule of lawand must be above the shifting sands of political expediency."

In recent years, a number of trends have been identified that have been need asjeopardizing the independence of the judiciary by increasing the politicization ofthe courts. A proliferation of controversial cases have placed courts at the frontlinesof deciding disputes that strike at the heart of Americans' social, moral, and reli-gious beliefs. The emergence of single-issue interest groups has lead to more vocalopposition to individual case decisions and judicial candidates. As the two-partysystem has expanded, judicial selection has become more contentious, and in stateswith popularly elected judges, increasingly expensive. In addition to these factors,leaders are contending with a public that has grown increasingly skeptical, if notcynical, about the performance of all three branches of government.

The second component, institutional independence, provides a check on theover-concentration or excessive use of power by the other branches of govern-ment. By interpreting state and federal constitutions, the judicial branch checksthe will of the legislative and executive branches, to ensure that all citizens,whether part of the majority or not, are allowed equal access to all rights and liber-ties guaranteed them.

The maintenance of an independent judiciary produces concomitant responsi-bility for the branch to be maintained in such a way as to ensure effectiveness,accountability and public respect. The judicial branch must demonstrate that it isoperating in the best interests of the public. That is, the court system must respon-sibly seek, use, and account for public funds while conducting business in waysthat demonstrates a sense of value for citizens' time and resources and a willing-ness to institute methods for internal evaluation.

Virginia's judiciary continues to seek new avenues for assessing how well thecourt system serves the public and how that service might be improved. The plan-ning process for the 2004-2006 biennium introduced a series of Town Hall meet-ings and a statewide conference that sought input from citizens on areas of courtoperations that needed to be improved and on how those improvements might bemade. With the appointment of an Interim Judicial Performance EvaluationCommission in 2003, a program for evaluating the performance of trial judges wasreadied and is being pilot tested in 2003-2004.

""WWee mmuusstt nneevveerrffoorrggeett tthhaatt tthhee oonnllyyrreeaall ssoouurrccee ooffppoowweerr tthhaatt wwee aassjjuuddggeess ccaann ttaapp iisstthhee rreessppeecctt ooff tthheeppeeooppllee..""

TThhuurrggoooodd MMaarrsshhaallll

16

Accountability permeates the structure of the judiciary and the environment inwhich it functions. Court decisions are subject to review by higher courts. Judgesare bound by Canons of Conduct. Legislatures have the power to impeach, to passnew laws, set judicial salaries, and, in Virginia, to elect judges. The judicial sys-tem relies on the good will of the public for its efficacy. Thus, courts that devalueand demonstrate a lack of respect for members of the public do so at their peril.Litigants and witnesses who must appear on multiple occasions before a case isactually heard or who must wait for hours in the court before their case is calledperceive a system that does not value them or their time.

The immense responsibility that comes with judicial independence requiresaccountability to the law, to other branches of government and to the public.Although an inherent tension exists with the juxtaposition of independence andaccountability, maintaining the proper balance between the two is of criticalimportance to our system of government.

Among the action items included in the Plan to further enable the judiciary tofulfill its core functions in Virginia's government are the following:

• completing a pilot judicial performance evaluation program and reporting theresults to the Supreme Court of Virginia and the General Assembly;

• implementing time-segmented dockets statewide in the district courts in orderto assure that no litigants must wait more than one hour for their cases to becalled and to enhance the dignity of all court proceedings;

• improving the quality of decision-making and service delivery provided by allmagistrates through the development and implementation of a nine-weekcomprehensive training and certification program;

• addressing the personnel shortages that exist in the district court and magis-trate systems by seeking funding for additional positions and salary increasesthat will enable the judicial system to successfully attract and retain highlyqualified clerks and magistrates;

• developing and implementing a judicial settlement conference pilot program;

• facilitating legislative access to information about the process, policies, andpriorities of the judicial branch by developing and implementing additionalcommunication strategies, such as legislative "ride along" programs and alegislator's guide to the courts; and

• expanding the court system's data analysis capability to better support deci-sion-making regarding court management, resource allocation, the impact oflegislative proposals and improved accountability within the court system.

TThhee iimmmmeennsseerreessppoonnssiibbiilliittyy tthhaattccoommeess wwiitthh jjuuddii-cciiaall iinnddeeppeennddeenncceerreeqquuiirreess aaccccoouunntt-aabbiilliittyy ttoo tthhee llaaww,,ttoo ootthheerr bbrraanncchheessooff ggoovveerrnnmmeennttaanndd ttoo tthhee ppuubblliicc..

17

This theme reflects the increasingly divergent expectations that exist regardingthe appropriate role of the courts in dealing with a wide range of behavioral andsocial problems that besiege many Virginia communities. Courts are on the front-lines in dealing with offenses relating to substance abuse, family breakdown, andmental illness. They cannot restrict the flow of such problems into the courtroomand often such problems are at the heart of the criminal offenses being committed.In the mid-90's, some judges, trial courts, and entire state court systems said"Enough". As a number of these judges lamented, "Insanity is doing the same thingover and over and expecting a different result."

They began to adopt a new 'problem-solving' approach to improve the kinds ofresults that courts achieve for victims, litigants, defendants and communities."Problem-solving" courts use their authority to forge new responses to chronicsocial, human and legal problems - including problems like family dysfunction,addiction, delinquency and domestic violence - that have proven resistant to con-ventional solutions.

Thus, drug court treatment programs were born with judges exercising both aclub and a carrot approach to non-violent offenders. The club was mandatory com-pliance with an individualized treatment plan developed by drug court programstaff and the carrot was a reduction or dismissal of charges for some and the provi-sion of treatment services for others. Since the 90's, more than 1,000 drug courtshave been established across the county. Approximately 25 programs operate inVirginia, and others are being planned.

After community leaders, citizen groups and judges across the country heardthe anecdotal successes of drug court programs, they began to apply the sametechniques to other types of cases including domestic violence, mental health-relat-ed offenses, prostitution, and youth gangs. The speed and acceptance of the prob-lem-solving court movement surprised many judges and court administrators. Tosome degree the spread of such programs was fueled by the availability of federaldollars to plan and implement these initiatives. Rigorous evaluations on drugcourts and other problem-solving court programs have been initiated only recentlyand some crucial questions remain. Nonetheless, the early evaluations both inVirginia and elsewhere have been positive.

Notwithstanding the leadership and commitment of some drug court judges totheir programs, other trial court judges are not persuaded that their direct involve-ment in overseeing drug court treatment or other similar programs is appropriate totheir role. They argue that the responsibility of judges and the court system is to bean impartial, dispassionate arbiter with the responsibility for treatment being thesole province of the executive branch. They further argue that if judges are to beinvolved, guidance on ethical and legal issues needs to be provided not only

Courts and Communities: Exploring Roles,

Responsibilities, and New Paths to Justice

CCoouurrttss aarree oonn tthheeffrroonnttlliinneess iinn ddeeaall-iinngg wwiitthh ooffffeennsseessrreellaattiinngg ttoo ssuubb-ssttaannccee aabbuussee,,ffaammiillyy bbrreeaakkddoowwnn,,aanndd mmeennttaall iillll-nneessss.. TThheeyy ccaannnnoottrreessttrriicctt tthhee ffllooww ooffssuucchh pprroobblleemmssiinnttoo tthhee ccoouurrttrroooommaanndd oofftteenn ssuucchhpprroobblleemmss aarree aatttthhee hheeaarrtt ooff tthheeccrriimmiinnaall ooffffeennsseessbbeeiinngg ccoommmmiitttteedd..

18

regarding judicial involvement in these programs but also in other court-communi-ty collaboration efforts. They question just how far the court system should cus-tomize or fragment dockets or the unified court system as a whole to address indi-vidual offenders. Some say if this approach is more effective, perhaps it should beintegrated across the board in dealing with non-violent offenses. Finally, somequestion the sustainability of problem-solving courts particularly in current times ofacute competition for state dollars.

Even so, there are indications of widespread support by the public for problem-solving courts, just as there is for mediation programs in the civil arena and forrestorative justice programs for juvenile offenders charged with minor offenses.And, in what is perhaps an unintended consequence, these programs appear to beproviding a means long sought by the legal system and courts to reconnect withthe public and to engage community interest and involvement with the courts.

Thus, in order to further examine and explore the appropriate role and respon-sibilities of the courts in dealing with cases involving underlying chronic social andbehavioral issues, the 2004-2006 Plan includes the following action items:

• conducting a comprehensive evaluation of drug treatment programs inVirginia with a special emphasis on their impact on recidivism rates;

• evaluating the effectiveness of family treatment drug courts in reunitingdependent children with substance-addicted parents;

• assessing the results of court-connected DUI programs operating in Virginiaand elsewhere to make recommendations to the Judicial Council and theCommittee on District Courts on the advisability of establishing similar spe-cialized dockets in Virginia; and

• undertaking, as a part of the Second Commission on the Future of Virginia'sjustice system, an evaluation of the concepts of problem-solving courts, asthese concepts might be applied in the handling of additional types of crimi-nal cases.

While much of the court system's preferred future course can be planned,America's experience with 9/11 reminds us there can be events, when in the blinkof an eye, massive, fundamental, and largely unforeseen changes occurs. Yet, inall circumstances the rule of law needs order and security to flourish and to main-tain public trust and confidence. Thus, the ability of the courts to minimize the dis-ruption of essential services, to assure continuity of the judicial process, and to pre-serve court records is crucial to the integrity of the courts.

Reclaiming a Secure Virginia:

The Courts Post-9/11

YYeett,, iinn aallll cciirrccuumm-ssttaanncceess tthhee rruullee ooffllaaww nneeeeddss oorrddeerraanndd sseeccuurriittyy ttoofflloouurriisshh aanndd ttoommaaiinnttaaiinn ppuubblliiccttrruusstt aanndd ccoonnffii-ddeennccee..

In our democratic society, ready access to government buildings, records andservices is expected. However, as focal points of the justice system and the mostvisible symbols of the rule of law, courthouses and the records they contain maypose tempting targets to dissidents, terrorists, and computer hackers in uncertainand volatile times. Recognizing this, court leaders continue to grapple with howbest to balance security needs with public access to the courts.

Since 9/11 court leaders have embraced the need for developing and maintain-ing contingency plans. Doing so has meant planning both for the protection ofcourt leaders and employees and for operating in alternative locations. Courthousesecurity, evacuation plans and succession planning have taken on new urgency.Where necessary, statutory authority is being sought for these alternative modes ofoperation.

State governments and court systems throughout the country also have begunto address the challenge of creating fail-safe systems for communication, automa-tion, and records access. Designing, locating and contracting for "hot sites" forautomated system recovery became priorities. Equally important to setting intomotion the parameters for operating in such extraordinary circumstances is defin-ing the circumstances and methods for returning to normal operations.

The events of 9/11 and its aftermath also have led to new laws and legalissues with which the courts must deal as they balance national security interestswith the protection of civil liberties. At the federal level, the USA Patriot Actencompasses greater authority to track and intercept communications, regulatorypowers with respect to money laundering, closing US borders to foreign terroristsand to detaining and removing those within our borders. Further, it creates newcrimes, new penalties, and new procedural efficiencies for use against domesticand international terrorists. Perspectives vary as to whether is goes too far or notfar enough. While most of the cases arising under this Act will be heard in thefederal courts, Virginia's judges must be kept abreast of this and other nationalsecurity legislation.

The Plan contains six action items the respond to the issues raised by thistheme. They are:

• establishing a committee to study the security needs within courthouses andto issue minimum security standards for all courthouses;

• developing and offering training and technical assistance to chief judges andclerks in the trial courts to assist them in establishing protocols for emergencypreparedness;

• seeking legislation to amend Virginia Code Section 17.1-300 to ensure thatprocedures are in place for the Supreme Court of Virginia to convene in theevent of a catastrophic incident;

• obtaining and implementing an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) for thejudicial systems' statewide central computer system to prevent disruptions incourt operations;

19

SSttaattee ggoovveerrnn-mmeennttss aanndd ccoouurrttssyysstteemmss tthhrroouugghh-oouutt tthhee ccoouunnttrryyaallssoo hhaavvee bbeegguunnttoo aaddddrreessss tthheecchhaalllleennggee ooff ccrree-aattiinngg ffaaiill-ssaaffee ssyyss-tteemmss ffoorr ccoommmmuu-nniiccaattiioonn,, aauuttoommaa-ttiioonn,, aanndd rreeccoorrddssaacccceessss..

20

• establishing a "Hot Site" for disaster recovery of the judicial systems'statewide central computer system to ensure business continuity of court sys-tem computer operations; and

• developing and delivering a training program for judges on the potentialimpact and implications of federal and state anti-terrorism legislation.

21

MMIISSSSIIOONN

TToo pprroovviiddee aanniinnddeeppeennddeenntt,,aacccceessssiibbllee,,rreessppoonnssiivvee ffoorruummffoorr tthhee jjuusstt rreessoolluu-ttiioonn ooff ddiissppuutteess iinnoorrddeerr ttoo pprreesseerrvveetthhee rruullee ooff llaawwaanndd ttoo pprrootteecctt aallllrriigghhttss aanndd lliibbeerr-ttiieess gguuaarraanntteeeeddbbyy tthhee UUnniitteeddSSttaatteess aannddVViirrggiinniiaa ccoonnssttiittuu-ttiioonnss..

The Judiciary’s Mission and Visions

Vision 1All persons will have effective access to justice, including the opportunity toresolve disputes without undue hardship, cost, inconvenience or delay.

Vision 2The court system will maintain human dignity and the rule of law, by ensuringequal application of the judicial process to all controversies.

Vision 3The judicial system will be managed actively to provide an array of dispute resolu-tion alternatives that respond to the changing needs of society.

Vision 4Virginia's judicial system will be structured and will function in a manner that bestfacilitates the expeditious, economical and fair resolution of disputes.

Vision 5The courts of Virginia will be administered in accordance with sound managementpractices which foster the efficient use of public resources and enhance the effec-tive delivery of court services.

Vision 6The court system will be adequately staffed by judges and court personnel of thehighest professional qualifications, chosen for their positions on the basis of meritand whose performance will be enhanced by continuing education and perform-ance evaluations. Lawyers, who constitute an essential element in the legal system,will receive a quality pre-professional and continuing education befitting the higherprofessional and ethical standards to which they will be held, and the need tobecome increasingly service-oriented in their relationships with clients.

Vision 7Technology will increase the access, convenience and ease of use of the courts forall citizens, and will enhance the quality of justice by increasing the courts' abilityto determine facts and reach a fair decision.

Vision 8The public's perception of the Virginia judicial system will be one of confidence inand respect for the courts and for legal authority.

Vision 9The impact of changing socio-economic and legal forces will be systematicallymonitored and the laws of Virginia will provide both the substantive and procedur-al means for responding to these changes.

Vision 10The judicial system will fulfill its role within our constitutional system by maintain-ing its distinctiveness and independence as a separate branch of government.

VViissiioonn 11

AAllll ppeerrssoonnss wwiillllhhaavvee eeffffeeccttiivveeaacccceessss ttoo jjuussttiiccee,,iinncclluuddiinngg tthhee ooppppoorr-ttuunniittyy ttoo rreessoollvvee ddiiss-ppuutteess wwiitthhoouutt uunndduueehhaarrddsshhiipp,, ccoosstt,,iinnccoonnvveenniieennccee oorrddeellaayy..

24

Objective 1.1To utilize technology to improve citi-zens' access to court information andrecords consistent with legitimateexpectations for privacy.

Task 1.1.1Redesign and expand the court sys-tem's Internet website in order to pro-vide additional features, links, andsearch capabilities so that citizensmay become better informed aboutcourt procedures and the availabilityof resources for legal representation.

Task 1.1.2Conduct legal research pursuant toHJR631 (2003) on the protection ofinformation contained in the records,documents and cases filed in thecourts of the Commonwealth andreport the results to the GeneralAssembly.

Task 1.1.3Complete implementation of Internetaccess to appropriate trial court datato enable citizens to access specificcase data from each circuit and gener-al district court.

Task 1.1.4Implement Internet access to the cir-cuit court records indexing system inaccordance with the standards setforth in HB 2426, adopted by the2003 General Assembly.

Objective 1.2To expand use of the Internet forconducting business with the courts.

Task 1.2.1Complete implementation of the elec-tronic pre-payment system for finesand costs in all remaining general dis-trict and combined district courts.

Task 1.2.2Expand on-line submission by the

courts of administrative forms to pro-vide greater convenience to the courtsand the OES and to integrate thesedata submissions directly into existingdatabases.

Task 1.2.3Implement electronic case-filing in thecircuit courts, including integrationwith the Courts AutomatedInformation System, a docket manage-ment system and e-commerce.

Task 1.2.4Continue to add public use forms tothe judicial system's Internet site inorder to allow completion of theseforms on-line.

Task 1.2.5Develop the capability for citizens tofile public use judicial system formson-line.

Objective 1.3To enable the courts to more effec-tively respond to the growing numberof non-English speakers in Virginia'scourts.

Task 1.3.1 Expand the voluntary certificationprocess for foreign language inter-preters serving Virginia courts toinclude languages in addition toSpanish.

Task 1.3.2Seek funding to create a foreign inter-preter coordinator position to adminis-ter the training and certification pro-grams for foreign language interpretersserving the courts.

Task 1.3.3Establish a Court Interpreter AdvisoryCommittee to make recommendationsto the Judicial Council regarding thequality and evaluation of interpreterservices.

25

Task 1.3.4Work with Virginia colleges and uni-versities to explore the feasibility ofdeveloping low-cost advanced skillsworkshops for foreign language inter-preters serving the courts.

Task 1.3.5Create an on-going educational cur-riculum for judges and court person-nel to assure the proper and effectiveuse of foreign language interpreters,including the use of telephone inter-preting services.

Objective 1.4To eliminate economic barriers tolegal representation.

Task 1.4.1Design and implement a statewideprogram to provide pro bono legalservices to litigants involved in childcustody and visitation disputes whocannot afford representation.

Task 1.4.2Support efforts of the Legal ServicesCorporation of Virginia to enhancefunding of legal aid offices as the pri-mary means of expanding access tolegal representation.

Task 1.4.3Work with the Virginia State Bar'sAccess to Legal Services Committee inits study of discrete task representationto determine additional potentialavenues for access to low cost legalservices.

Task 1.4.4Provide assistance to the Family LawCoalition's study of the current limita-tions on fee arrangements for attor-neys in domestic relations cases andconsider their proposals to reduce orcontain the costs of legal representa-tion in these cases.

Objective 1.5To improve the court system'sresponse to the challenges and needspresented by self-represented litigants.

Task 1.5.1Develop principles, guidelines, proto-cols, and training curricula for allclerks' office personnel and magis-trates to clarify the types of informa-tion and assistance that may be pro-vided to self-represented litigants.

Task 1.5.2Seek funding to expand the number ofdispute resolution coordinators in thetrial courts in order to screen appropri-ate cases for mediation and to provideeffective management of such cases.

Task 1.5.3Institutionalize a process within thecircuit and district court forms com-mittees which will ensure that allforms are developed in "plain lan-guage" in order to ensure comprehen-sion by litigants.

Task 1.5.4Collaborate with the Legal ServicesCorporation of Virginia and state andlocal bar associations to develop andpilot the use of the web-basedInteractive Community AssistanceNetwork (I-CAN!) for general districtcourts.

Task 1.5.5Expand the judicial system's capacityto develop, maintain and update infor-mation resources for self-representedlitigants and establish a plan for uni-form distribution of such informationin all courts and magistrates offices.

Task 1.5.6Seek funding to establish pilot courtservices centers as an additionalmeans of providing assistance to self-represented litigants.

26

Objective 1.6To facilitate the courts' resolution ofdisputes in a timely and efficientmanner.

Task 1.6.1Implement time-segmented docketsstatewide in the district courts in orderto assure that no litigants must waitmore than one hour for their cases tobe called and to enhance the dignityof all court proceedings.

Task 1.6.2Implement an automated case sched-uling capability to support segmenteddocketing procedures in circuit courts.

Task 1.6.3Develop performance indicators forthe processing of cases in each casetype and provide judges and clerks ofcourt relevant statistical reports andother performance data necessary foraccurate monitoring of caseflow man-agement.

Task 1.6.4Develop automated, standardizedorder forms so that district courtjudges may complete and print copiesof their decisions and orders for par-ties in the courtroom.

Task 1.6.5Develop and implement the capabilityto print dockets on demand in thegeneral district and juvenile anddomestic relations district courts toprovide for more efficient manage-ment in the courtroom.

Task 1.6.6Develop a capability within the CourtsAutomated Information System toenable judges to be informed of allpending cases involving members ofthe same family or household.

Objective 1.7To improve the quality of the courtsystem's handling of juvenile andfamily law matters.

Task 1.7.1Seek legislation and funding to imple-ment a family court to deal with allfamily related issues.

Task 1.7.2Prepare informational resources inelectronic formats and multiple lan-guages to assist parents in understand-ing the court process applicable to thefiling and resolution of custody, visita-tion and support petitions.

Task 1.7.3Design, develop and implement anew capability within the CaseManagement System to track keyevents in a case in order to alert bothclerks and judges of required activitiesor events based on the type of case.

Task 1.7.4Undertake, in conjunction with theDepartment of Child SupportEnforcement representatives, trialcourt judges, attorneys and citizens, aproject to strengthen case manage-ment of child support cases byimproving: 1) the quality of materialsand support available to self-represent-ed litigants in child support and othercases, 2) case and calendar manage-ment in the J&DR courts for child sup-port and non-child support cases, and3) the accuracy and timely communi-cation of judicial paternity orders andother child support-related businessamong partner agencies (e.g., thecourts, the Departments of VitalRecords and Child SupportEnforcement).

Objective 1.8To improve court practice in childabuse, neglect and foster care cases

27

in order to expeditiously restore chil-dren to safe and permanent homesand measure the success of theseefforts.

Task 1.8.1Complete the delivery of local inter-disciplinary training on child depend-ency litigation in every judicial districtof the Commonwealth.

Task 1.8.2Expand and support the Best PracticeCourts program for juvenile anddomestic relations district courts topromote the uniform application oflaw and best practices in childdependency cases.

Task 1.8.3Provide training for lawyers and juve-nile and domestic relations districtcourt and circuit judges on theStandards Governing the Performanceof Guardians Ad Litem for Children.

Task 1.8.4Assess the handling of child depend-ency cases in the circuit courts todetermine the extent and impact ofthe delay on permanency for children.

Task 1.8.5Identify and eliminate barriers to thetimely adoption of children in fostercare due to court procedures or prac-tices.

Task 1.8.6Develop, in cooperation with theVirginia Departments of SocialServices and of Mental Health, MentalRetardation and Substance AbuseServices improved protocols andenhanced resources for local courtswhen serving substance-addicted par-ents in child dependency cases.

Task 1.8.7Evaluate the effectiveness of family

treatment drug courts in reuniting thedependent children with substance-addicted parents.

Task 1.8.8Implement a management informationsystem to track child abuse, neglectand foster care cases, including arelated-case cross-referencing capabili-ty.

Task 1.8.9Develop an interface with the On-LineAutomated Services InformationSystem (OASIS) administered by theVirginia Department of SocialServices.

Task 1.8.10Develop active case monitoringreports to improve the courts' abilityto comply with statutory time framesand best practices in case processingfor the juvenile and domestic relationscourts.

Objective 1.9Enhance the security of courthousesboth for the general public and allpersonnel who work within them.

Task 1.9.1Establish a committee to study thesecurity needs within courthouses andto issue minimum security standardsfor all courthouses.

Task 1.9.2Develop and offer training and techni-cal assistance to chief judges andclerks in the trial courts to assist themin establishing protocols for emer-gency preparedness.

Task 1.9.3Seek legislation to amend VirginiaCode Section 17.1-300 to ensure thatprocedures are in place for theSupreme Court of Virginia to convenein the event of a catastrophic incident.

VViissiioonn 22

TThhee ccoouurrtt ssyysstteemmwwiillll mmaaiinnttaaiinn hhuummaannddiiggnniittyy aanndd tthhee rruulleeooff llaaww,, bbyy eennssuurriinnggeeqquuaall aapppplliiccaattiioonn oofftthhee jjuuddiicciiaall pprroocceessssttoo aallll ccoonnttrroovveerrssiieess..

28

Task 1.9.4Obtain and implement an uninterrupt-ed power supply (UPS) for the judicialsystems' statewide central computersystem to prevent disruptions in courtoperations.

Task 1.9.5Establish a "Hot Site" for disasterrecovery of the judicial systems'statewide central computer system toensure business continuity of courtsystem computer operations.

Task 1.9.6Develop and deliver a training pro-gram for judges on the potentialimpact and implications of federal andstate anti-terrorism legislation.

Objective 2.1To ensure that courts merit therespect of society in the handling ofcriminal cases.

Task 2.1.1Implement the automated entry ofprotective orders via the electronicinterface between the CourtsAutomated Information System andthe Virginia State Police.

Task 2.1.2Determine ways to expedite hearingson protective order violations.

Task 2.1.3Establish scheduling procedures thatfacilitate optimal participation byCommonwealth's Attorney in domes-tic violence cases.

Task 2.1.4Seek funding to program and pilot theprotective order component of theautomated Interactive CommunityAssistance Network (I-CAN!) system.

Task 2.1.5Develop and distribute an interactive

CD-ROM training module for magis-trates on the effective handling of fam-ily abuse cases, with emphasis bothon the legal requirements and respect-ful treatment of all parties involved.

Objective 2.2To improve the quality of indigentdefense representation in Virginia.

Task 2.2.1Support efforts to increase the com-pensation paid to court-appointedcounsel in criminal cases.

Task 2.2.2Support the development and imple-mentation of statewide training andqualification standards for court-appointed counsel.

Task 2.2.3Develop guidelines and provide train-ing for judges in the assessment ofapplications for experts and investiga-tors for indigent defense to helpensure fairness in the adjudication ofserious criminal cases.

Objective 2.3To assist the trial courts, as well asstate and local criminal justice agen-cies, in the development, implemen-tation and evaluation of problem-solving courts.

Task 2.3.1Conduct a comprehensive evaluationof drug treatment court programs inVirginia and their impact on recidi-vism rates.

Task 2.3.2Assess the results of court-connectedDUI programs operating in Virginiaand elsewhere to make recommenda-tions to the Judicial Council and theCommittee on District Courts on theadvisability of establishing similar spe-cialized dockets in Virginia.

VViissiioonn 33

TThhee jjuuddiicciiaall ssyyss-tteemm wwiillll bbee mmaann-aaggeedd aaccttiivveellyy ttoopprroovviiddee aann aarrrraayyooff ddiissppuuttee rreessoolluu-ttiioonn aalltteerrnnaattiivveesstthhaatt rreessppoonndd ttootthhee cchhaannggiinnggnneeeeddss ooff ssoocciieettyy..

29

Task 2.3.3Evaluate the concepts of therapeuticjustice and problem-solving courts todetermine ways in which the integra-tion of those concepts may improvethe processing and disposition ofcriminal cases.

Objective 2.4To strengthen the jury system byimproving the selection process andthe jury's method of operation.

Task 2.4.1Evaluate the need for and cost effec-tiveness of a jury management systemfor circuit courts with small numbersof jury trials.

Task 2.4.2Provide technical assistance to circuitcourts in the implementation of theJudicial Council's Jury ManagementStandards.

Objective 3.1To establish a comprehensive rangeof dispute resolution services inVirginia's circuits and districts.

Task 3.1.1Develop and implement a judicial set-tlement conference pilot program.

Task 3.1.2Provide continuing legal educationprograms for the Bar and judiciary,and on-site technical assistance toindividual courts for the developmentand integration of ADR options intothe litigation process and court proce-dures.

Task 3.1.3Evaluate the need for revisions toexisting Guidelines for theCertification of Court ReferredMediators to enhance the competencyof mediators and the quality of servic-es provided.

Task 3.1.4Develop a model truancy mediationcurriculum to train mediators through-out the state in support of the expand-ed use of truancy mediations byschools and judges.

Task 3.1.5Determine the means to providegreater access to mediation servicesfor the Commonwealth's non-Englishspeakers.

Task 3.1.6Work with all Virginia law schools toexpand ADR course offerings, developmediation clinics and advise law stu-dents of their ethical obligation toconsider ADR in all cases.

Objective 3.2 To provide greater access to a broad-er range of dispute resolution optionsin family matters.

Task 3.2.1Conduct a study of recidivism rates ofcustody/visitation cases mediated ver-sus those adjudicated in the JDRcourts.

Task 3.2.2Evaluate the effectiveness and accessi-bility of mediation in custody/visita-tion cases for low-income families.

VViissiioonn 44

VViirrggiinniiaa''ss jjuuddiicciiaallssyysstteemm wwiillll bbee ssttrruucc-ttuurreedd aanndd wwiillll ffuunncc-ttiioonn iinn aa mmaannnneerrtthhaatt bbeesstt ffaacciilliittaatteesstthhee eexxppeeddiittiioouuss,,eeccoonnoommiiccaall aanndd ffaaiirrrreessoolluuttiioonn ooff ddiiss-ppuutteess..

Vision 5The courts ofVirginia will beadministered inaccordance withsound managementpractices that fos-ter the efficientuse of publicresources andenhance the effec-tive delivery ofcourt services.

32

Objective 4.1To structure the judicial system in amanner that best enables the prompt,fair and cost-effective resolution ofdisputes.

Task 4.1.1Evaluate the use of specialized dock-ets as a means for more effectivelyhandling complex business and tech-nology litigation.

Objective 4.2To simplify legal procedures toenhance judicial effectiveness andefficiency.

Task 4.2.1Circulate for consideration by thebench and bar a proposal to create asingle form of action for claims at lawand in equity.

Task 4.2.2Amend necessary court forms andRules of Court to clarify proceduresfor accepting guilty pleas for misde-meanors in district courts.

Objective 5.1To enhance the administration of thecourts by clarifying and reinforcinglines of authority and responsibility.

Task 5.1.1Conduct a study on the effect of elimi-nating or limiting the use ofCommissioners in Chancery on courtcaseloads.

Task 5.1.2Support legislation to remove from thejudicial branch responsibility for certi-fying bail bondsmen.

Task 5.1.3Conduct a study on involuntary men-tal commitment procedures in orderto 1) clarify the roles of general districtcourt judges and special justices, 2)

review issues involving transportationfor patients and the locations of hear-ings, and 3) assure that the process ishandled in an efficient and humanemanner.

Objective 5.2To obtain full state funding of thecourt system.

Task 5.2.1Secure state funding to provide lawclerks and secretaries for circuit courtjudges.

Task 5.2.2Secure on-going funding to modernizeand maintain the judicial system'stechnology infrastructure and servicedelivery systems.

Objective 5.3To improve the accuracy, quality andintegrity of caseload data submittedby the trial courts.

Task 5.3.1Establish an effort to revise and updateprocedures for uniform data collectionfrom the trial courts and recommendways to improve the integrity of theprocess.

Task 5.3.2Expand the court system's data analy-sis capability to better support deci-sion-making regarding court manage-ment, resource allocation, the impactof legislative proposals and improvedaccountability within the court sys-tem.

Objective 6.1To ensure that the judicial systemattracts and retains the most quali-fied persons for service on the bench.

Task 6.1.1Secure increases in salaries for judgesand justices in order to maintain com-

VViissiioonn 66

TThhee ccoouurrtt ssyysstteemmwwiillll bbee aaddeeqquuaatteellyyssttaaffffeedd bbyy jjuuddggeessaanndd ccoouurrtt ppeerrssoonn-nneell ooff tthhee hhiigghheessttpprrooffeessssiioonnaall qquuaallii-ffiiccaattiioonnss,, cchhoosseennffoorr tthheeiirr ppoossiittiioonnssoonn tthhee bbaassiiss ooffmmeerriitt aanndd wwhhoosseeppeerrffoorrmmaannccee wwiillllbbee eennhhaanncceedd bbyyccoonnttiinnuuiinngg eedduuccaa-ttiioonn aanndd ppeerrffoorrmm-aannccee eevvaalluuaattiioonnss..LLaawwyyeerrss,, wwhhoo ccoonn-ssttiittuuttee aann eesssseenn-ttiiaall eelleemmeenntt iinn tthheelleeggaall ssyysstteemm,, wwiillllrreecceeiivvee aa qquuaalliittyypprrooffeessssiioonnaall aannddccoonn-ttiinnuuiinngg eedduuccaa-ttiioonn bbeeffiittttiinngg tthheehhiigghheerr pprrooffeessssiioonnaallaanndd eetthhii-ccaall ssttaann-ddaarrddss ttoo wwhhiicchhtthheeyy wwiillll bbee hheelldd,,aanndd tthhee nneeeedd ttoobbeeccoommee iinnccrreeaass-iinnggllyy sseerrvviiccee-oorrii-eenntteedd iinn tthheeiirr rreellaa-ttiioonnsshhiippss wwiitthhcclliieennttss..

33

pensation levels that are attractiveenough to encourage qualified indi-viduals to choose a judicial career.

Task 6.1.2Conduct a pilot judicial performanceevaluation program and report theresults to the Supreme Court ofVirginia and the General Assembly.

Task 6.1.3Establish and implement a mechanismfor indexing judicial salaries so thatjudicial compensation may beassessed regularly and removed fromthe political process.

Objective 6.2To provide education deliveryoptions which will ensure expandedand career-long training opportuni-ties for all persons in the judicial sys-tem's workforce.

Task 6.2.1Provide training opportunities forjudges, clerks and magistrates in theuse of on-line learning resources andcourses.

Task 6.2.2Complete installation of a distancelearning infrastructure system so thatjudges and court personnel can betrained at regional hubs or local sitesthroughout the state.

Task 6.2.3Integrate the long-term training cur-riculum for Virginia's judicial systemwith the distance education plan.

Task 6.2.4Develop and implement educationalprograms to be delivered via satellitetechnology.

Task 6.2.5Develop a specialized JudicialInstitute on the trial and management

of capital cases to be delivered on anannual basis.

Task 6.2.6Develop an on-line resource center toserve as a portal for judges and courtsystem personnel to access a myriadof web-based education and trainingprograms.

Task 6.2.7Develop, in conjunction with Virginialaw schools, a series of judicial educa-tion programs to be delivered via dis-tance learning technology.

Objective 6.3To develop advanced and specializedtraining opportunities for all judges,clerks and magistrates.

Task 6.3.1Increase the options for providingtechnical assistance services to thecourts to include on-site support forstrategic planning efforts, caseflowmanagement projects and buildingcollaborative relations within andbetween the trial courts and the mag-istrate offices.

Task 6.3.2Expand the delivery of training pro-grams for substitute judges, with par-ticular emphasis on substitute judgesserving in the juvenile and domesticrelations district courts.

Task 6.3.3Develop and deliver specialized man-agement training programs for chiefjudges.

Objective 6.4To ensure that the judicial systemprovides a compensation, reward andbenefit system and a working envi-ronment to attract and retain a high-ly-qualified, diverse and skilled work-force.

VViissiioonn 77

TTeecchhnnoollooggyy wwiilllliinnccrreeaassee tthheeaacccceessss,, ccoonnvveenn-iieennccee aanndd eeaassee ooffuussee ooff tthhee ccoouurrttss ffoorraallll cciittiizzeennss aanndd wwiilllleennhhaannccee tthhee qquuaalliittyyooff jjuussttiiccee bbyyiinnccrreeaassiinngg tthheeccoouurrttss'' aabbiilliittyy ttooddeetteerrmmiinnee ffaaccttss aannddrreeaacchh aa ffaaiirr ddeeccii-ssiioonn..

34

Task 6.4.1Address the personnel shortages thatexist in the district court and magis-trate systems by seeking funding foradditional positions and salaryincreases that will enable the judicialsystem to successfully attract andretain highly qualified clerks and mag-istrates.

Task 6.4.2Assess, on a continuing basis, thecompetitiveness of salaries and bene-fits of court system employees withthose provided for equivalent posi-tions in the executive branch and pri-vate sector, and advance appropriaterecommendations to eliminate anyidentified disparities.

Task 6.4.3Establish an Equal OpportunityEmployment Committee for the judi-cial system to develop and implementspecific actions such as creatinginternships, conducting recruitmentvisits, and expanding placementsources in order to increase the diver-sity of the judicial system's workforce.

Task 6.4.4Explore means used in the private sec-tor and in state and local executivebranch agencies to enhance commu-nications with judicial branch person-nel and to recognize outstandingachievement and public service pro-vided by judges and court system per-sonnel.

Objective 6.5To provide ready access to magistrateservices and increase the proficiency,expertise, and oversight of magis-trates throughout the state.

Task 6.5.1Increase access to magistrates through-out the state by eliminating on-callservices and creating: (1) hub offices

in designated localities to provide full-time in-person services and 24-hourvideo conferencing capabilities toeach locality within a district; and (2)offices in other localities to provide in-person services on a specified sched-ule.

Task 6.5.2Improve the quality of decision-mak-ing and service delivery provided byall magistrates through the develop-ment and implementation of a nine-week comprehensive training and cer-tification program.

Task 6.5.3Strengthen the management andaccountability of each magistrate'soffice by expanding the managementcomponent of the annual continuinglegal education curriculum for chiefmagistrates.

Objective 7.1To maximize the use of technologywithin the judicial system to enhancethe quality of justice rendered bycourts.

Task 7.1.1Complete migration to a modern rela-tional database and fourth generationcomputer programming languages inorder to expand the capabilities of theCourts Automated Information System.

Task 7.1.2Assess the feasibility and implicationsof courtroom evidence presentationtechnologies and provide technicalassistance to the courts on their use.

Task 7.1.3Seek funding to upgrade and maintainthe judicial system's telecommunica-tions network to support existing andprojected communications needs.

35

Task 7.1.4Seek funding to pilot the use of imag-ing and documents management sys-tems in all levels of courts to improvethe handling of and legitimate accessto court documents.

Objective 7.2To expand collaborative relationshipsbetween the courts, state and localgovernments, and the private sectorto facilitate greater ease in the elec-tronic exchange of information and inthe conduct of judicial proceedings.

Task 7.2.1Implement a Technology AdvisoryCommittee composed of public andprivate sector information technologyspecialists to advise and assist theOffice of the Executive Secretary inimplementing new and innovativetechnology applications for the courts.

Task 7.2.2Complete Phase I of the ChargeStandardization Project and imple-ment the utilization of Virginia CrimeCodes with standard charge descrip-tions.

Task 7.2.3Develop and implement in selectedmagistrate's offices and pilot courts anOffense Tracking Number (OTN) andan OTN database.

Task 7.2.4Redesign the Automated MagistrateInformation System (AMS) to serve asa primary gateway to exchange datain standardized formats with criminaljustice agencies.

Task 7.2.5Seek funding for Phase II of theCharge Standardization Project to per-mit integrated data exchange withadditional criminal justice agenciesthroughout the state.

Task 7.2.6Provide magistrates direct connectivityto the Virginia Criminal InformationNetwork administered by the StatePolice, where requested.

Task 7.2.7Implement the automated interfacebetween the Central Criminal RecordsExchange and juvenile division of thejuvenile and domestic relations courts.

Task 7.2.8Establish the capability to send magis-trate system and court case manage-ment system data electronically toPublic Defender Office to reduceduplicate data entry and reportchanges in hearing dates.

Objective 7.3To provide comprehensive trainingand support to judicial system per-sonnel in the use of technology andautomated systems.

Task 7.3.1Establish an on-going, broad-basedtechnology training program forjudges and court system personnel toprovide a continuum of initial andrefresher training based on assessedneeds.

Objective 7.4To facilitate the use of technologyand automated systems by judges andjudicial system personnel.

Task 7.4.1Expand the use of video conferencingto facilitate activities of the SupremeCourt of Virginia.

Task 7.4.2Seek funding to expand the use ofvideoconferencing in trial courts andmagistrates' offices to expedite pro-ceedings.

VViissiioonn 88

TThhee ppuubblliicc''ss ppeerrcceepp-ttiioonn ooff tthhee VViirrggiinniiaajjuuddiicciiaall ssyysstteemm wwiillllbbee oonnee ooff ccoonnffii-ddeennccee iinn aannddrreessppeecctt ffoorr tthheeccoouurrttss aanndd ffoorr lleeggaallaauutthhoorriittyy..

VViissiioonn 99

TThhee iimmppaacctt ooffcchhaannggiinngg ssoocciiooeeccoo-nnoommiicc aanndd lleeggaallffoorrcceess wwiillll bbee ssyyss-tteemmaattiiccaallllyy mmoonnii-ttoorreedd aanndd tthhee llaawwssooff VViirrggiinniiaa wwiillll pprroo-vviiddee bbootthh tthhee ssuubb-ssttaannttiivvee aanndd pprrooccee-dduurraall mmeeaannss ffoorrrreessppoonnddiinngg ttoo tthheesseecchhaannggeess..

38

Objective 8.1To improve service quality byincreasing the courts' awareness ofand responsiveness to the needs ofthe citizens they serve.

Task 8.1.1Create a public information and out-reach office to carry out a variety ofactivities including 1) handling mediarelations on behalf of the courts; 2)expanding public information andeducation materials for posting on thecourt system's website; and 3) devel-oping templates for speeches andpresentation materials that clarify therole and responsibilities of the judicialbranch of government for use byjudges, clerks and chief magistrates.

Task 8.1.2Establish a Court/CommunityOutreach Committee for the purposeof identifying barriers, real or per-ceived, that exist between the courtsystem and the public it serves.

Task 8.1.3Develop and offer training to judgesand court personnel to increase theirunderstanding of cultural differencesand their significance in the context ofthe legal system and the courts.

Task 8.1.4Develop the use of videotapes incourt waiting areas as a means of bet-ter informing litigants on court proce-dures and processes.

Task 8.1.5Participate with the legislative andexecutive branches in commemorat-ing the 50th anniversary of the Brownvs. Board of Education decision by theSupreme Court of the United States.

Objective 8.2To ensure that participants in thejudicial process are not discriminated

against because of race, gender, age,disability or socioeconomic status.

Task 8.2.1Participate in the study directed byHouse Joint Resolution 142 (2002) bydeveloping a model court order thataddresses the mental illness treatmentneeds of offenders and cross-trainjudges and magistrates on treatmentservices and security for these offend-ers.

Task 8.2.2Conduct periodic reassessments of theeffectiveness of individual courts' ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) and where necessary work withthe courts to develop plans for correc-tive action.

Task 8.2.3Develop and incorporate an ADAaudit into technical assistance visits tocourts and magistrates offices.

Task 8.2.4Develop a brochure containing infor-mation on the types of accommoda-tions available in the courts for indi-viduals with disabilities and how torequest them.

Objective 9.1To expand the strategic planningcapabilities of the judicial system.

Task 9.1.1Establish and conduct a Commission onthe Future of Virginia's Judicial Systemto study the anticipated demands on thecourt system and to set forth a plan tomeet these requirements.

Task 9.1.2Incorporate town hall meetings andstatewide Solutions Conferences intothe development of the judiciary'sstrategic plans as a means for obtain-ing citizen input.

VViissiioonn 1100

TThhee jjuuddiicciiaall ssyyss-tteemm wwiillll ffuullffiillll iittssrroollee wwiitthhiinn oouurrccoonnssttiittuuttiioonnaallssyysstteemm bbyy mmaaiinn-ttaaiinniinngg iittss ddiissttiinncc-ttiivveenneessss aannddiinnddeeppeennddeennccee aassaa sseeppaarraatteebbrraanncchh ooff ggoovv-eerrnnmmeenntt..

39

Task 9.1.3Assist local courts in developing andconducting strategic planning effortsto enhance their delivery of servicesto the public.

Objective 10.1To promote the independence andaccountability of the judicial branch.

Task 10.1.1Develop and conduct, in cooperationwith legislative members of theJudicial Council and the Committeeon District Courts, an orientation pro-gram for newly-elected legislators toreview the distinctive role of the judi-cial branch, the dimensions of judicialindependence and accountability, andthe parameters for legislator-judgecommunications.

Task 10.1.2Expand the judiciary's website as amethod of providing additional infor-mation to judges, clerks and magis-trates about issues arising during leg-islative sessions that affect the judicialbranch and court operations.

Task 10.1.3Facilitate legislative access to informa-tion about the process, policies, andpriorities of the judicial branch bydeveloping and implementing addi-tional communication strategies, suchas legislative "ride along" programsand a legislator's guide to the courts.

Objective 10.2To effectuate better understandingand communications among the threebranches of state government.

Task 10.2.1Create opportunities for regular meet-ings among representatives of all threebranches of government to promoteimproved communication on suchissues as court funding, salary needswithin the judicial branch, and struc-tural reform of the courts.

General Information for Individuals with Disabilities

The Virginia court system has adopted a policy of non-discrimination in both employment and inaccess to its facilities, services, programs and activities. For further information contact the Office ofthe Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of Virginia, 100 North Ninth Street, Third Floor, Richmond,Virginia 23219. The telephone number is 804-786-6455; communication through a telecommunica-tions device (TDD) is also available at this number.