th
AMERCA
VOL. 20-NO. 2-3
DECEMBER 1970
MARCH 1971
LAW
VOLUME 20
DECEMBER AND MARCH,
1970
NUMBER
2 &3
The District of Columbia Court
Reorganization Act of 1970: A Dose of the
Conventional Wisdom and a Dash of
Innovation
THE HONORABLE JOHN
W. KERN, III*
In March 1967, Chief Judge Harold H. Greene of the District of
Columbia Court of General Sessions stated in his official report
pursuant to 11 D.C. Code § 907 (1967),
unless enough judges are added to the court to enable it to
cope realistically with its flow of criminal cases, a great many other
crime-fighting measures are likely to remain ineffective. Increases
in the number and quality of police officers may well yield more
arrests; but if because of crushing caseloads the court is unable
properly to process the prosecutions resulting from these arrests,
the additional arrestees will simply have to wait their turn on a
growing backlog until the charges against them have become so
stale that they are dismissed or until these charges are so reduced as
a result of a bargain that the deterrent value of the criminal process
is largely dissipated.'
* Associate Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
1. QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COURT
238
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 20
More than two years later,, the Senate Committee on the District of
Columbia stated,
[a]vailable statistics on crime in the National Capital indicate
alarming and unremitting increases. . . . the incidence of crime
can be traced in significant part to the inadequacy of the District's
judicial machinery and to critical defects here in the administration
of criminal justice.
The backlog of pending criminal cases in the only existing felony
court in the National Capital, the Federal district court, increased
over the last calendar year, and is reported to stand currently at
approximately 1,669 cases-notwithstanding an exemplary
implementation of the visiting judge program locally, and an2
unsurpassed number of days on the bench per district court judge.
In March 1970, the House District Committee, studying the same
problem as its Senate counterpa-t, complained,
[t]he fact is that the diversity of Federal and local interest [in the
District of Columbia] has led to the jurisdictional disarray which
presently exists-the local court handles some federal
misdemeanors, the Federal court has jurisdiction of local felonies
and concurrent jurisdiction over local misdemeanors; the local
court makes determinations as to certain administrative procedures
appeals, the Federal court hears others without apparent distinction
as to local-Federal interest; the Federal court tries cases that would
elsewhere be within the state system. And then there is the overall
problem of concurrent jurisdiction, producing delays in the
disposition of criminal matters, described as "ping-pong", in
derogation of the public and federal interest.3
The defects pointed out in these reports are easily recognized by
lawyers. However, in May 1970, a less familiar diagnosis was made by
the Committee on the Administration of Justice to the Judicial Council
of the District of Columbia Circuit. After a two-year study of the
organization and practices of the D.C. courts and related agencies that
Committee reported,
[t]he great and overriding trouble with the operation of our
OF GENERAL SESSIONS TO THE ATT'Y GEN. OF THE UNITED STATES,
1967).
2. S. REP. No. 405, 91 st Cong., Ist Sess. 2-3 (1969).
3. H.R. REP. No. 907, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (1970).
pt. III, at 7 (March
1970-71]
THE NEW COURT SYSTEM
courts is basically failure of MANAGEMENT. . . . With good
management a very, great deal can be done to solve our
problems-without it we go on stumbling without clear-cut goals
4
and in the end accomplish little.
The Committee's court management study team conducted a survey of
local lawyers by directing a written questionnaire to members of the
various bar associations in the District of Columbia. A clear majority of
those responding were of the opinion "that conditions in the courts were
getting worse." The number one problem area, according to the
attorneys, was "caseflow", and they believed that there was "too much
delay and uncertainty as cases move through courts."'
In the most exhaustive study of Washington's "crime problem", the
President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia noted,
[m]isdemeanor cases and the Court of General Sessions have not
received the attention which is urgently required. This neglect is
. . . typified . . . by the annual appropriation of the court. This
court-which handles 97 percent of all litigation, civil and criminal,
in the District of Columbia-received . . . about 25 percent of
total expenditures for all city courts ....
and urged,
[j]udges' salaries should keep pace with salaries paid other high
government officials, and should be significantly increased ...
The . . . salary is less than . . . [that] paid to government
employees at the GS-18 level ....
President Nixon, eleven days after inauguration, made his first public
statement as the Chief Executive about crime and the administration of
justice in the District of Columbia. He said,
[c]rime in America today is both a primary local responsibility and
a primary national concern. Here in the District, the Federal
Government bears a special responsibility and has a unique
opportunity ....
8
4. COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, 91ST CONG., 2D SESS., REPORT
TO THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURT MANAGEMENT
I, at 15 (Comm. Print 1970).
5. Id. at 165-168.
STUDY, pt.
6. PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON CRIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, REPORT 283
(1966).
7. Id., at 284, 287.
8. Action and Recommendations of the President for the District of Columbia, White
House Press Release, Jan. 31, 1969, at 2.
240
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LA W REVIEW
[Vol. 20
To improve the administration of justice in the District, I have
directed the Attorney General to consult with the bench, the bar
and the various interested groups, to assist in the drafting of
appropriate legislation providing for a reorganization and
restructuring of our present court system toward the eventual goal
of creating one local court of general, civil, criminal and juvenile
jurisdiction for the District of Columbia. ....
9
The Senate District Committee, during the first session of the 91st
Congress, held 36 days of hearings on crime in Washington, D.C. and
Senators Tydings and Bible introduced a series of bills relating to court
reform. In September 1969, the Committee reported out with S.2601,
"with amends", which was one of the "President's bills" in his D.C.
Crime Package.10 In March 1970, the House passed a differing version of
S.2601 and more than three months and 24 conference meetings between
the Senate and House conferees were required before the Congress,"
after considerable debate, 2 passed and sent to the President a finally
agreed upon version of S.2601. On July 29, 1970, Public Law 91-358
was signed by the President.
In view of the sequence of events surrounding the enactment of P.L.
91-358, it is fair to say that Title I thereof, known as the District of
Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970, constitutes both a
Presidential and Congressional effort "to reinstitute swift and fair trial
in the District of Columbia"'' 3 and "provides the tools . . . absolutely
essential.
14
. .
to stop the rise of crime in Washington and to reverse the
trend."
This response, which will be examined below, was for the most part an
application of the conventional wisdom-simplifying jurisdiction,
adding more judges, granting personnel and budgetary independence to
the courts, etc. However, it also contained certain departures from
orthodox judicial practices and procedures.
First, the jurisdictions of the courts in the District of Columbia are
9. Id. at4.
10. STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE SENATE, 91ST CONG., 2D
SESS.,
S.2601, THE
1-2 (Comm. Print
STATEMENT REGARDING THE CONFERENCE ACTION UPON
PRESIDENT'S CRIME LEGISLATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
1970).
11. Id. at 3.
12. Wash. Post, July 11, 1970, § A, at 18; id., July 22, 1970, § A, at 22; Wash.
Evening Star, July 15, 1970, § A, at editorial page.
13. STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE SENATE, supra note 10, at 2.
14. Remarks of the President upon signing the Washington, D.C. Crime Bill, White
House Press Release, July 29, 1970, at 1.
1970-71]
THE NEW COURT SYSTEM
realigned. Section 111 of the Act vests the judicial power in the District
of Columbia in the Article III Federal Courts,
the Supreme Court of the United States,
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, and,
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 5
and the Article I District of Columbia courts,
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia."6
The D.C. Court of General Sessions, the Juvenile Court, and the D.C.
Tax Court are consolidated into the Superior Court, which will have a
Civil Division, Criminal Division, Family Division, Probate Division
and Tax Division,17 and which will function with a greatly enlarged
jurisdiction.
The D.C. Court of Appeals is declared by Congress to be the "highest
court of the District of Columbia""8 whose final judgments and decrees
are reviewable by the Supreme Court of the United States 19 in the same
manner as such review is accorded the highest court of a State.
There is an appeal of right to the Court of Appeals from all final
judgments and certain interlocutory and other orders entered by the
Superior Court. Judgments of the Small Claims and Conciliation
Branch and criminal fines in an amount less than $50 may be reviewed
only upon the granting of application for allowance of appeal. 2 Thus,
under the Act, the District of Columbia will have a two-tier court system
without an intermediate appellate court to screen appeals and with its
trial judges required to hear all local cases from traffic offenses to
murder prosecutions and small claims.to unlimited amounts in
controversy .21
The timetable for jurisdictional change is as follows:
CRIMINAL-On February 1, 1971, the Superior Court takes
15.
CODE
16.
17.
18.
Pub. L. No. 90-358, § 11-101(1) (July 29, 1970), 84 Stat. 473, 11 D.C.
§ 101(1) (eff. Feb. 1, 1971).
11D.C.CoDE § 101(2)(eff. Feb. 1, 1971).
Id. § 902.
Id. § 102.
19. 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (1964).
20. 11 D.C.CODE § 721(a) (eff. Feb. 1, 1971).
21. The Chief Judge of the Superior Court must consider "the qualifications and
interest" of his judges in making assignments to the Family Division and Tax Division;
Id. § 908(a).
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LA W REVIEW
[Vol. 20
jurisdiction over "any criminal case under any law applicable
exclusively to the District of Columbia", except murder, manslaughter,
kidnaping, rape, robbery, burglary in the first degree, assaults with
intent to kill, rob, or rape, and abortion.?2
On A ugust 1, 1972, the Superior Court assumes jurisdiction over
cases commenced in which the crimes charged are those excepted
above.?
CIVIL-On February 1, 1971, the Superior Court assumes
jurisdiction of any civil action begun thereafter, at law or in equity, in
which the amount in controversy does not exceed $50,000, as well as
actions of ejectment, condemnation of land on behalf of the District of
Columbia and quieting title to realty, writs of habeas corpus directed to
persons other than federal officers and employees, writs of quo warranto
and appeals from or petitions for review of tax assessments by the
District, actions for change of name and replevin of personal property
and actions relating to commitment of narcotic users.?A
On August 1, 1972, the Superior Court is vested with jurisdiction over
actions at law or in equity with respect to gifts to minors, hospitalization
of the mentally ill and disposition of their property, commitment and
maintenance of substantially retarded persons and appointment of
committees for addicts and alcoholics and of conservators, including the
transfer of pending cases (except hospitalization of the mentally ill).?
On August 1, 1973, the Superior Court assumes jurisdiction of any
civil action, at law or in equity, regardless of the amount in controversy
26
and over all probate matters including those pending.
APPEALS-After February 1, 1971, only judgments entered by the
D.C. Court of Appeals in cases pending which contain violations of law
not applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia will be reviewable
by the United States Court of Appeals.? Otherwise, after February 1,
1971, the only review of the D.C. Court of Appeals lies in the United
States Supreme Court.?
The D.C. Court of Appeals will hear appeals from all D.C.
administrative agencies 29 as well as certain interlocutory orders, such as
22. Id.§ 923(b).
23. Id. § 923(b)(2).
24. Id.§§ 921(a)(1-3).
25. Id.§ 921(a)(4).
26. Id. §§ 921(a)(5-6). Except as provided in subsection (b).
27. Id.§ 301.
28. Id. § 102.
29. Id.§ 722.
THE NEW COURT SYSTEM
1970-71l]
injunctions3O and those changing or affecting possession of property.3 1 In
addition, interlocutory appeal may be entertained.
in a civil case, where the trial court certifies that a ruling "involves a
controlling question as to whether there is a substantial ground for a
difference of an opinion and that an immediate appeal from the ruling or
order may materially advance the ultimate determination of litigation or
case",32 and,
in a criminal case, the Government may appeal by leave of the trial
court where there is a "substantial and recurring question of law which
requires appellate resolution."'
Interlocutory appeals also lie from a determination by the trial court
that a defendant is not subject to an increased sentence by reason of the
nature of his present conviction and the number of his past convictions;
and from a ruling by the court, suppressing evidence, before or during
trial, if the prosecutor certifies that such appeal is not taken for purposes
of delay and the evidence is substantial proof of the charge being tried.The Act enlarges the two new D.C. courts. The number of D.C. Court
of Appeals' judgeships is increased by one-third, so that the court's full
complement becomes nine.3 The Superior Court will have 37 judgeships
immediately, 36 and seven more judgeships are created, automatically, on
February 1, 1972.37 In addition, the Senate Committee promised "that
the need for additional judges in connection with the last stage [of
transfer of civil jurisdiction from the Federal District Court to the
Superior Court] will be assessed in a later Congress (after court
reorganization has gotten under way)."' 3
Public Law 91-358 contains an innovation with respect to the use of
additional judicial manpower for the D.C. trial or appellate bench if
need exists. The Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit may designate and assign temporarily judges from the
U.S. District Court to the Superior Court when the Chief Judge of that
court certifies the need.3 9 In addition, D.C. appellate judges may be
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
§ 721(a)(2)(A).
§ 721(a)(2)(5).
§ 721(d).
§ 721(a)(3).
§ 702.
§ 903.
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE SENATE,
11 D.C.CODE § 908(c)(eff. Feb. 1, 1971).
supra note 10, at 6.
244
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LA W REVIEW
[Vol. 20
assigned to the Superior Court and D.C. trial judges to the D.C. Court
of Appeals, upon approval by the respective chief judges. 0
Tenure for all judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate after the Bill's enactment is 15 years. Retirement at age 70 is
mandatory .12 However, retired judges, upon designation by the chief
judges, may perform at the salary of active judges such judicial duties as
they are "willing and able to undertake."
Appointment to the District of Columbia bench is predicated upon
membership in the District of Columbia Bar for five years, or eligibility
for such membership, in the case of a professor employed by a law
school in the District of Columbia or an attorney employed by the
federal or local government." In addition, he must have been "actively
engaged" for at least five of the ten years immediately prior to his
appointment as an attorney or45judge in the District, or as a professor of
law or a government attorney.
The Act establishes the District of Columbia Commission on Judicial
suspend, retire, or remove a
Disabilities and Tenure with power ' "to
4
court,
Columbia
of
judge of a District
upon a showing that such a judge has been finally convicted of a
felony, or
upon a determination by the commission that such a judge has
been guilty of willful misconduct in office, or
willful and persistent failure to perform judicial duties, or any
other conduct "which is prejudicial to the administration of justice
or which brings the judicial office into disrepute." 47
There is also provision for the involuntary retirement of a D.C. judge
when it is determined by the Commission that he "suffers from a mental
or physical disability (including habitual intemperance) which is or is
40. Id. § 707.
41. Id. § 1502.
42. Id.
43. Id. § 1504.
44. Id. § 1501(b).
45. Id. In addition, a person may not be appointed a judge of a District of Columbia
court unless he is a US. citizen and a bona fide resident of the area consisting of the
District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland,
Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the city of Alexandria in Virginia and has
maintained an actual place of abode in such area for at least five years prior to his
appointment.
46. Id. § 1521.
47. Id. § 1526(a).
1970-71]
THE NEW COURT SYSTEM
likely to become permanent and which prevents, or seriously interferes
with, the performance of his judicial duties." 4"
The Commission may proceed on its, own initiative or upon the
complaint of any person to investigate the conduct or health of any
judge. 9 Upon termination of the investigation a hearing may be ordered
at which testimony will be taken and at the end of which findings of fact
and a determinati6n are to be made.5 Judicial review of a Commission
order of removal or retirement is afforded as a matter of right and the
power of judicial review is vested in a special court consisting of three
judges designated by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme
Court from among active or retired judges of either of the two federal
courts in the District of Columbia.5 '
Judicial salaries are not forgotten by the Act. The pay of D.C. appeals
judges will be 90% of their counterparts on the United States Courts of
Appeals.52 The Superior Court judges will receive 90% of the pay
prescribed by law for judges of United States District Courts.0
In the area of court management, the Act responded with both the
conventional wisdom and a departure from state and federal court
practices. The usual provision is made that the chief judges of the two
local courts "shall supervise the internal administration" of their
court.? The Act further provides with respect to the Chief Judge of the
Superior Court that he "shall give his attention to the discharge of the
duties especiallypertainingto his office and to the performance of such
additionaljudicial work as he is able to perform." 55 However, unlike the
practice in the federal courts and various state courts, 56 the selection of
the chief judges is not determined by seniority of judicial service. Upon
expiration of the incumbents' terms, the President will designate from
among all the active judges on each court one judge to serve as chief
48. Id. § 1526(b).
49. Id. § 1527(a)(1).
50. Id.
51. Id. § 1529(b).
52. Id. § 703(b). D.C. appellate judges will initially receive a salary of $38,250 per
annum, with the exception of the chief judge who will receive an additional $500 per
annum.
53. Id. § 904(d). The judges of the Superior Court will initially receive a salary of
$36,000 per annum, with the exception of the chief judge who will receive an additional
$500 per annum.
54. 11 D.C. CODE § 1702 (eff. Feb. 1, 1971).
55. Id. § 906(a) (emphasis added).
56. 28 U.S.C. § 136(a) (1964); COUNCIL OF
STATES 120 (1970-71 ed.).
STATE GOVERNMENTS, BOOK OF THE
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 20
judge of that court for four years.57 The Chief Judge so designated is
eligible for redesignation and may at any time relinquish the chief
judgeship and resume service as an associate judge.-"
Congress superimposed over both D.C. courts a new administrative
entity-the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration. The Joint
Committee will consist of the two chief judges, and one associate
appellate judge and two associate trial judges, elected annually by their
colleagues. 0
The responsibility of the Joint Committee, to be chaired by the Chief
Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals, is fixed in both general and specific
terms. Specifically, it is responsible for:
General personnel policies for the courts,
Submission of an annual court system budget, composed of each
court's budget, which may not be modified without the concurrence
of four of the five members,
Liaison with the Judicial Conferences of the United States and
the D.C. Circuit, and the Federal Judicial Center,
Formulation and enforcement of standards for "outside
activities" of all D.C. judges and their receipt of compensation,
Development of statistical and management information
systems,
Approval of the bonds of fiduciary employees within the court
system,
Procurement and disbursement, and,
6
Accounts and auditing. 1
Generally, the Joint Committee is empowered to:
Consider and evaluate the business of the courts and means of
improving the administration of justice within the District of
Columbia court system;
Prepare and publish an annual report. . . regarding the work of
the courts. . . and of any recommendations relating to the courts;
Recommend . . . to the Congress changes in the organization,
jurisdiction, operation, and procedures of the courts which are
appropriate for legislative action;
Institute such changes [in the areas of the Joint Committee's
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
11 D.C. CODE § 1503(a) (eff. Feb. 1, 1971).
Id. § 1503(b).
Id. § 1701(a).
Id.
Id. § 1701(b).
1970-71I]
THE NEW COURT SYSTEM
specific responsibility] as would improve the administration of
justice; and,
Resolution of other matters, with the approval of the two chief
2
judges, which may be ofjoint and mutual concern.
The Joint Committee is given "the authority to issue all orders and
directives necessary to implement . . [its] responsibilities and
duties."63
The statutory language describing the responsibilities of the Joint
Committee is broad enough to permit that body to exert considerable
influence on both courts and to become the spokesman for the courts to
the public, Congress and the Executive branch. Conversely, the
Committee may find itself as a "lightening-rod", absorbing complaints
and criticisms from both the public and the other co-ordinate branches
of government. Personalities and future events will of course shape the
role of the Joint Committee.
The Act creates the office of Executive Officer of the District of
Columbia courts." The District House Committee likened his status "to
business manager-comptroller" whose duties include "assisting the chief
judges in organizing the courts for efficient businesslike operation,
managing property and disbursements, and providing technical
assistance through information, liaison, reports, and the like.""
The Senate District Committee commented about the Court
Executive Officer that "[hie is meant to be a managerial assistant to the
joint committee, and to the chiefjudges ....
The Court Executive Officer "shall be responsible for the
administration of the District of Columbia court system subject to the
supervision of the Joint Committee and the chief judges." 67 He is
selected by, and subject to removal by, the J oint Committee from "a list
of at least three qualified persons, submitted by the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts6 . . .[t]o assure the
recruitment of a top-flight court executive," according to the Senate
Committee's explanation. 9
The appointee to the position will take an oath of office, file a bond for
62. Id. § 170 1(c).
63. Id. § 1701(d).
64. Id. § 1703(a).
65. H.R. REP. No. 907, supra note 3, at42.
66. S. REP. No. 405, supranote 2,at 13.
67. 11 D.C.CODE § 1703(a)(eff. Feb. 1, 1971).
68. Id. § 1703(b).
69. S. REP. No. 405, supranote 2, at 14.
248
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LA W REVIEW
[Vol. 20
performance of his duties, and receive the salary of an associate judge of
the Superior Court. 70 He is given authority under the Act, subject to
regulations approved by the Joint Committee, to hire and fire all court
personnel (except the Register of Wills, and the judges' law clerks and
secretaries), 71 provided that the chief judge of each court may always
veto the appointment of any personnel to his respective court." Certain
key employees under the new Act are thus subject to appointment and
removal by the Executive Officer:
The Director of Social Services in the Superior Court (dealing
with probation, family counseling, social casework, juvenile
education and training);73
The Fiscal Officer (the court system's budget and the courts'
accounts); 74
The Auditor-Master of the Superior Court (audits and states
fiduciary accounts and executes orders of reference in accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 53); and,
The Clerks of the Court.75
The D.C. courts are removed from the reach of the federal General
Schedule for salary (5 U..S.C. § 5332), but the Court Executive Officer
is to be guided in fixing pay for court employees by the rates of pay
received by other employees in the executive and judicial branches of the
federal and District governments who occupy similar positions or handle
similar responsibilities, duties and difficulties." A limit in the amount of
the last step of a GS-15 salary (presently $29,750) is imposed on the
maximum he may pay. However, he is granted seven so-called
"supergrade positions" which enable him to pay up to the last step of a
GS-16 salary (presently $33,627) to five court employees, and the last
step of a GS-17 salary (presently $34,810 ) to two court employees.77 The
Senate District Committee went so far as to suggest how these
supergrades should be parcelled out0-to the two Clerks, the Director of
70. 11 D.C. CODE §§ 1703(c), 1704.
71. Id. § 1725(b)(1). The Register of Wills is to be appointed and shall be removed
by the Superior Court; Id. § 2012(a).
72. Id. § 1725(b)(2).
73. Id. § 1725(b).
74. Id. § 1725(a).
75. Id. § 1725(b).
76. Id. § 1726.
77. Id.
78.
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE SENATE,
supra note 10, at 11.
THE NEW COURT SYSTEM
1970-71 ]
Social Services, the Fiscal Officer, the Auditor-Master, and the
Principal Assistant to the Court Executive Officer. 7
Not only do the D.C. Courts, under the new Court Reform Act, have
independence from the Executive branch in the employment, removal
and compensation of their employees, but they are granted authority to
submit an annual budget "without revision" but only "subject to
recommendations", of the District of Columbia and the President of the
United States." The remarks of the late Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson
upon the creation of the Administrative Office for the United States
Courts seem appropriate. "[Now] the courts become separate and
independent of the Executive in administrative matters, just as they have
always been separate and independent in. . their decisions." 8 1
The Court Executive Officer's duties are spelled out in Public Law 91358 (Sections 11-1741 to 11-1746) and may be summarized as follows:
(A) Supervise and improve case assignments, calendars and dockets;"2
(B) Better utilize the time of witnesses;
(C) Improve the management of jurors;
(D) Report to the chief judges on case volumes and backlogs;
(E) Mechanize and computerize court operations and services; 8
(F) Study court operations;
(G) Manage buildings and space assigned the courts;
(H) Recruit and train court personnel;
(I) Procure equipment and services;
(J) Serve as disbursing and payroll officer;
(K) Collect and compile statistics;
(L) Serve as public information officer;
(M) Prepare and publish the court system's annual report;
(N) Make available the courts' records (other than those under seal)
79. But cf., 11 D.C.
CODE
§ 2102(c) (eff. Feb. 1, 1971) provides that: ".
.
. the
compensation of the Register of Wills shall be fixed ... at a rate not to exceed the
maximum rate prescribed for GS-16 of the General Schedule."
80. Id. § 1743.
81. Vinson, The Business of JudicialAdministration, address by Chief Justice
Vinson, American Bar Association Annual Meeting, 1949, in 35 A.B.A.J. 893, 896
(Nov. 1949).
82. The Chief Judge of the Superior Court is empowered under the Act to ...
"assign and reassign any judge to sit in any division or branch". . . and each associate
judge
. .
. "shall attend and serve"
. . . where
assigned. I I D.C. CODE § 908(a) (eff.
Feb. 1, 1971).
83. COMMITTEE
ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, 9 1ST CONG., 2D
SEss.,
REPORT
TO THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COURT MANAGEMENT
STUDY,
pt. II, at 519 (Comm. Print 1970).
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 20
to the Department of Justice, the D.C. Mayor-Commissioner, and the
Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure;
(0) Receive time and attendance reports from all judges, in a form
prescribed by the Chief Judge of each court after consultation with the
Commission on Judicial Tenure and Disabilities; and,
(P) Appoint and supervise court reporters, who are specifically
deemed employees of the courts."
The Act's requirement that the Superior Court share with the Court of
Appeals the court executive officer is an innovation. It is interesting to
note that with respect to the federal courts, Congress is considering
legislation to create court executives for each federal circuit court and
each federal district court with six or more judges." Thus, in certain
federal circuits the appellate and the trial court would have different
court executives. In some States, there are local court executives as well
as State court executives."
To require the D.C. Court Executive Officer to report to and assist
each chief judge in the operation of his respective court, as well as to
assist the Joint Committee in the operation of the entire court system
creates a risk of overlap in the chain of command and possible
administrative confusion. Indeed, the Senate District Committee
"remains somewhat skeptical of the utility of the Joint Committee and
believes that this aspect of administration, if the courts are to run more
smoothly, requires continued scrutiny." 7
The President and Congress by the enactment of Public Law 91-358
have responded to the problems of the D.C. courts with an application of
the conventional wisdom: (1) a realignment of jurisdiction with the
District of Columbia on the traditional local-federal basis; (2) the
appointment of more, better paid, and longer-tenured judges, under the
scrutiny of an independent commission with power to suspend and
remove; (3) the granting of independence to the judiciary from the
executive branch in the matter of the courts' budget and personnel; and,
(4) public accountability through the means of mandatory reports by the
judges and the court system.
The Act also contains some innovations: (1) the court system of the
84. 11 D.C. CODE § 1727(a) (eff. Feb. 1, 1971). Court reporters are also subject to
the supervision of the chiefjudges of both courts and of the judges for whom they work.
85. S.952,91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
86. D. SAARI, MODERN COURT MANAGEMENT: TRENDS IN THE ROLE OF THE COURT
ExECUTIVE, 31-33 (National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, ICR
70-3, July 1970).
87. S. REP.No.405, supra note 2,at 13.
1970-711
THE NEW COURT SYSTEM
District of Columbia is to be governed, not in the traditional manner by
the chief judge of the highest court or the highest court itself, but by a
committee ofjudges, the majority of whom are trial judges; (2) the court
executive officer is to be responsible not only for assisting the chiefjudge
in the management of his 44-judge trial court with its myriad of future
problems, but he is also to assist the Court of Appeals' Chief Judge with
the management of his court and the JointCommittee with the
management of the entire court system; and, (3) the D.C. court system is
enabled to move its trial and appellate judges, as need arises and their
availability permits, and to utilize federal trial judges in the D.C. trial
court, if the Circuit's Chief Judge approves.
As a result of the D.C. Court Reorganization Act of 1970, the bench
and the bar of Washington, D.C., have a significant opportunity to
demonstrate to the community and the nation that a modernized court
system can function effectively today in an urban jurisdiction. The fact
that lawyers and judges must modify their practices to adapt to the
changes in the new system of justice created here need not lessen in any
way their historical dedication to the basic tenets of the profession. We
might well recall the words of Mr. Chief Justice Burger in his first State
of the Judiciary address:
I have great confidence in our basic system and its foundations,
in the dedicated judges and others in the judicial system, and in the
lawyers of America. Continuity with change is the genuis of the
American system, and both are essential to fulfill the promise of
equal justice under law."
88. State of the Judiciary address by Justice Burger, American Bar Association
Annual Meeting, Aug. 1970, in 56 A.B.A.J. 929,934.