 You're watching FJTN, the Federal Judicial Television Network, coming up on Court to Court. I think that by helping people learn those skills, we not only improve job performance but job satisfaction and confidence. We relieve a lot of fears and training. And on March 3rd, 1879, Lockwood became the first woman admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. So it's been an incredible transformation of the judiciary that it's become the rule of law, is settling in, people are looking to the courts to settle disputes, it isn't just a rubber stamp from the Communist Party. This is Court to Court. Your connection to what's happening in the federal courts around the country, providing information and ideas that will enhance your job and how the courts function. Now with today's program, Michael Burney. Welcome to Court to Court, the Federal Judicial Center's educational magazine program for all court employees. Today we'll see how one court provides CMECF training for attorneys and their staffs. We'll learn about two 19th century female legal pioneers and we'll hear from several court staff about their participation in judicial administration projects overseas. As the transition to case management, electronic case files continues, courts face the challenge of training attorneys and their staffs to use the system. This is handled in a variety of ways. As some courts require training and others leave it up to the attorneys to learn on their own using online materials. We recently visited the bankruptcy court for the Western District of Kentucky to learn how it handles the job. The court mandates that all cases be filed electronically. The court requires attorneys to attend CMECF training. Clerk of court Diane Robel and her staff decided to provide training for the prolific filers early three months prior to going live. We tried to provide as many resources as we could thinking that the better we handled this job up front, the less work we would have on the back end as those attorneys and their staff started to use the system. We knew that if we could get the bulk of the attorneys in quickly and they could start test filing it gave them more time to learn it and it was better for them as well as for us at the end. For those who are a little resistant to the ECF training, we would, I personally would call them on the phone, talk to them, go over the situation, what requirements were needed, what it was really about. We wanted to provide them with customer service, the best customer service we could hear at the court. Most judges like to say that if you have a lot of smart attorneys you're going to look a lot smarter on the bench and so you have to get them involved. I would strongly suggest that the judges have some sort of seminar or luncheon, some sort of informal communication where they invite the attorneys to come in. But judges Stosberg did more than make himself available to attorneys. And so I actually went to the training, went to it with no preconceived notions and participated in it and the attorneys were surprised and happy to see that we were joining in. You will be experts at this by the time you leave class, I promise, okay? When we first started training attorneys it was absolutely exhausting. We trained 11 sessions a week, two a day, four hours a pop, plus one on Saturdays. We had 10 people coming in at a time so 100 people came through our doors each week and there was still all the preparation to be done. At times we felt very overwhelmed. There was no other life other than CME-CF but it was our go to hit these prolific filers and have them trained. We wanted to get everyone into training as close as we could to the actual time of going live because it provided them both with time to do test filing but also we didn't train them so far in advance that they would lose all of their skills before we actually went live. Just to tell you what a few of these other buttons do, if you click on the review button it's going to tell you. Robo wanted a team of proficient trainers, most of whom turned out to be case administrators with other responsibilities. She allowed the training team to totally be removed from their other positions so we could focus strictly on training these attorneys and be ready to go by our mandatory date. What that did was it cut down on the number of people we had available to do the case administrator work and consequently we were short supplied so we did have to ask for additional resources and we were fortunate in that the AO was positioned to be able to provide us with additional resources. We hired eight temporary staff members to get us through that time period. Everything we did was designed to facilitate and make the job of our customers, our attorneys easy as we can. All the credit goes to Susan and others in the training. She provided the leadership in the training area and they made it fun. We want you to get in this habit. We were told of an attorney who attached his grocery list instead of the document. That could happen. So many attorneys and their office staff, they have that fear when they come to the court as to what is this all about. I think the atmosphere makes them comfortable. Having fun even in a stressful situation can relieve a lot of tension. It's our philosophy, not just mine, but the entire office that you've got to be able to laugh as you're doing things. If you can't laugh it sometimes feels like well it's intensely work. The office adopted a theme, catch the wave, and decorated the training room to help create a less intense atmosphere. It adds a little fun to it, makes it a little lighter. I do better when I'm having fun, when I'm not so uptight. We think learning sinks in better if you have fun doing it. When you work in law there is a lot of pressure and anytime the atmosphere and environment can be lightened up a little bit it's a nice pleasant relief. I think that by helping people learn those skills we not only improve job performance but job satisfaction and confidence. We relieve a lot of fears in training. What happens if you attach a document and you actually file it and send it to the court and you realize almost immediately or an hour later that you've sent the wrong document? Call the court immediately, yes, if you catch it. I'll show you at this point, I'll show you where the cutoff point, so if you were to catch it before you actually sent it to the court you could stop it at any time, it's not going to be sent. But if it's already gone through, yes, call us immediately and we'll take care of whatever it is. The most difficult thing about being a CMECF trainer is that it's very rare for everyone in a class to start at the same level. We have novices and we have advanced students and you have to find a way to pace that so that you don't lose people or go too fast. The clerk's office helps solve that difficulty by keeping class size small and by giving as much one-on-one attention as possible. That's okay to say okay, there we go. Okay, great. They always have both an instructor and someone to operate the computer and sometimes a third trainer to walk about solving individual problems. So I was very nervous coming in today and she was nice enough to stop and help me when I would begin to panic because I wasn't keeping up. Each class lasts three to four hours but the trainers have plenty to do before the students arrive. Preparing to teach a class is very time consuming here for us. Each participant receives a manual. The 300-page manual covers all the training information and examples of screens. Plus, we create the agendas, we prepare the logins and passwords. So once they leave training that day, they are certified as an electronic case filer and they leave and start filing electronically. So each class, as far as prep time goes, probably takes about three hours. Robel is emphatic about what it takes to make attorney training successful. I would say hands down having enthusiastic trainers, good people who are genuinely interested and willing to give of themselves to produce good materials, to provide good interesting training. The clerk's office also makes sure that each person trained has a contact at the court. So that if questions arise after they've been trained and that they're working on the system, then they have a contact person that they've seen, they've met, they know their name and can call directly to them to ask for assistance. You have to have a good support system in place for when they go back into the real world and do this. I can check that for you or I can transfer you to our help desk. The key is communication, keeping the lines open, letting them know that we're here to help them as a court, the computer-based training modules that the attorneys could view before coming to training if they would like. Those are still out on our website. We also have our training manual and any updates to that manual is also on our website. Any information that the attorney needs to know immediately is posted on our systems news along with being emailed. I would say that the attorneys who some were adamantly opposed to electronic case-filing and being required to undergo training and to change their way of doing business have been, in a very short period of time, have been our greatest supporters. And I've come back and said this was the best thing that we could have done. We're going to have graduation, so get your tissues out. This is that touchy moment, okay? And remember you do graduate today, okay? This is our graduating class of March 11th. And you need to clap for your fellow classmates, okay? Jill Martino, yay! Once the attorneys get comfortable with it, and again I think the training process is what allows them to get comfortable with it, they're going to find that it's extremely efficient and that it really does meet their needs as much as it meets the court's needs. And to the judges I would say that you have to be A plus in computer appreciation. You don't have to be a nerd. You don't have to have to be A plus in computer skills, but you have to have that appreciation. Almost two years after going live, the court continues to provide one training class each week. There's a big turnover in office staff. We'll have paralegals and secretaries. We also have those that are passing the bar, and we've had a few that have come back for additional training. Craven's philosophy to make training successful is simple but effective. For those that are starting out with CMECF attorney training, make it fun. Not just for the attorneys, but for yourself. I think that will relieve a lot of the stress and pressure that you may be under. The second thing I would suggest is communication. Leave those doors wide open. Let the attorneys know that they can contact you. I'm terribly proud of our staff and how well they've taken on what I would consider to be a huge complex transition and have done it in a very short period of time and have done it so successfully. It just makes me beam. The Center makes available a web-based ECF tutorial for attorneys and law firm staff. You can access it by going to the FJC's site on the court's internet on the DCN and click on ECF 101 tutorials. There are both district and bankruptcy court versions, as well as answers to other questions. With many women practicing law and serving as judges today, it's easy to forget the struggle that women once faced to enter the legal profession. Our moment in court history focuses on two pioneers who attacked the barriers that kept women out of the profession in the late 19th century. My colleague Bob Fagan tells the remarkable stories. Myra Bradwell and Belva Lockwood began their pursuit of the law about the same time in different parts of the country. In the 1860s, Bradwell undertook an apprenticeship in her husband's law office. In 1869, at age 38, she passed the Illinois Qualifying Exam and applied to the State Supreme Court for admission to the bar. In 1868, Lockwood, a teacher who operated her own private school in Washington, DC, sought admission to several law schools in the city and was accepted by one. In 1873, at age 43, she was admitted to the Washington Bar. Bradwell, meanwhile, had been denied membership in her state bar by the Illinois Supreme Court on the basis that the sex of the applicant is a sufficient reason for not granting this license. The court warned that if women were allowed into the legal profession, then every civil office in this state may be filled by women. Bradwell appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1873, it handed down an 8-to-1 decision affirming the state court ruling against her. In concurring, Justice Joseph P. Bradley emphasized the wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman and concluded that the paramount destiny and mission of woman ought to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. Ironically, by the time the Supreme Court ruled, the Illinois legislature had already passed a law drafted and parked by Bradwell, opening all professions to women. But Bradwell did not reapply. By 1873, she had already achieved great success as the editor-publisher of the Chicago Legal News, which she founded some years before. For two decades, it was the most widely circulated weekly legal newspaper in the country. The paper offered official publication of newly enacted Illinois statutes and synopses of state and federal cases. It also served as a vehicle for Bradwell's advocacy of reforms of laws affecting women and other groups and the legal profession itself. She was, as she told a reporter, too busy to practice law. Through the Chicago Legal News, Bradwell championed Belva Lockwood's fights to gain admission first to the Bar of the Federal Court of Claims in 1874 and to the U.S. Supreme Court two years later. Both rejected her applications. Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite wrote, by the uniform practice of the Court and by the fair construction of its rules, none but men are admitted to practice before it as attorneys and counselors. This is in accordance with immemorial usage in England. In an editorial, Myra Bradwell excoriated the Court. She wrote, The same reasoning which the Chief Justice used to exclude Mrs. Lockwood would compel every attorney who appears in the Supreme Court of the U.S. to wear a gown and wig. Lockwood turned to Congress. With strong support from Bradwell, she drafted and lobbied intensely for a bill to allow women to practice in all federal courts. It became law two years after the Supreme Court decision. And on March 3, 1879, Lockwood became the first woman admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. One year later, she sponsored the first Southern Black lawyer, Samuel Lowry, to be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar. Belva Lockwood had a long illustrious career in the law and as an activist for women's rights and for peace. She ran for president on the National Equal Rights Party ticket in 1884 and 1888. She died in 1917. In 1986, the U.S. Postal Service issued a stamp to commemorate her contributions. Myra Bradwell continued publication of the Chicago Legal News until her death in 1894. The Illinois Supreme Court admitted her to the bar on its own motion in 1890 and the U.S. Supreme Court did the same in 1892. Both actions were granted as of the date of her original applications in 1869, which is why some call her, America's First Woman Lawyer. That's a moment in court history. Join me for another in a future court to court. As this election season continues, we remind you that there are limitations on political activities by federal judiciary employees. Our court to court program in January included an interview on this topic with Marilyn Holmes of the A.O.'s General Counsel's Office. We encourage you to view that program again to refresh your understanding of what is and is not permitted. If you don't have a tape of that broadcast, you can order one online from the FJC Resource Catalog at www.jnet.fjc.dcn. Click on Resource Catalog and enter the program number that's on the screen now. The Judicial Conferences Committee on International Relations helps guide the federal judicial system's efforts to promote the rule of law and administration of justice throughout the world. Federal judges and other court personnel host foreign groups that travel here and sometimes participate in projects in other countries, sharing information about how courts operate in the United States. All of these projects are organized, sponsored, and paid for by other U.S. government agencies, foundations, international organizations, or foreign governments. On an FJTN broadcast earlier this year, my colleague Judy Roberts spoke with four clerks of court about their work on several of these projects. We've put together an excerpt from that program to give you an idea of the diversity of these overseas projects and what court staff do to help. To talk about their work, we invited Terry Depner from the Southern District of West Virginia, Dan Thomas of the Northern District of Georgia, Felicia Cannon from the District of Maryland, and Norman Meyer from the District of New Mexico. Norman was involved with two different projects in Russia and in Serbia. Russia has modeled its judicial administration agencies on those of the United States. The Russian-American Judicial Partnership, part of the United States Agency for International Development, invited U.S. experts to advise the Russian agencies on a wide range of topics, including record keeping, automation, and assigning cases to judges. They had a practice there of judges meeting with citizens about prospective cases ex parte, pre-filing, and they would give advice about whether they should or shouldn't file and who they should sue, and we, of course, from our system that was appalling, and we gave them advice that maybe you might want to delegate that to your judicial assistants and insulate the judges from that kind of ex parte content. Norman's other assignment was in Belgrade, where the Serbian government asked the United States to help set up a special organized Crime and War Crimes Court. What we did is we went in and said, okay, you have to set up this court from the ground up in Belgrade. Literally, they took over an old military courthouse that was evacuated from the military court, they left it, so we had bare walls and you create a new court, and so we were advising them everything from you need this many waste baskets to this many computers to this many judges to this many deputy clerks, and here's what they're supposed to do and how they're to be arranged in a new telephone system, and everything had to be done from the ground up. In Zambia, Terry Deppner was part of a four-person team that focused on an automated civil docketing system. The copper industry is a nationalized industry in Zambia and the money is held in trust for the children of deceased minors, and we were tasked with the responsibility of tracking that process. We actually flowcharted the receipt of the money from the minute it came into the court, how they wrote the receipts, the accounting journals they put it through, all the way through the disbursement and the writing of the check that went to the children or their guardian, and that report was submitted in anticipation that that process would be automated. The team also worked on reports that would help with case assignments. They called case assignments allocation of cases, and they were very concerned that they would get a proper report on the allocation of cases. They were really backlogged with a lot of different types of cases, and the ones that only got attention were the ones that were allocated, and there were several thousands of cases, I'm assuming, that were not allocated, and each judge carried a load of about 1,000 cases. Dan Thomas had one of the more anxious experiences. Three weeks after the fall of Baghdad, he and 12 other federal court and Justice Department employees went to Iraq. And we were there for the Department of Justice advising the State Department on what would be needed to help get their system functioning again. I had an opportunity to do, I was detailed to work for the Major General, the two-star American General, who was the Administrator of the Justice System, and he tasked me to be the Administrator of a pro bono fund to pay Iraqi lawyers. Basically, this was a way to get the lawyers functioning again, as I said, the court system had stopped working, and we set up a program to pay those lawyers, and I believe it are not $2 an hour, which is something that we can't envision here in the United States, but we had we had people literally knocking the doors down in Iraq to get that money, because these folks were totally broke. And we did that, and that helped get the system up and operating again. District Court clerk Felicia Cannon was invited by the Labor Department to be part of a team that included the FJC's Director of Education, John Cook, to advise Chile as it began to reform its labor law system. They had judges who had caseloads of somewhere between six and 8,000 cases a year. And what the process was, they had a frontline employee called an actuario that would actually interview the parties coming in and make a record. So it was actually the actuario's view of the case that the judge actually reviewed and decided the case on. They had a conciliation process as well, but there was no real tie and there was no real way of the judge being the person that actually decides the case that actually hears oral argument that questions the parties and then makes a decision, and that's what they were moving toward. And so they had a very good idea of where they were going, and part of our role was to meet with people from the Legal Aid Corporation, the attorneys, and the members of the two different ministries, and sort of to bring them all together to validate what they had found to aid in the cooperative effort amongst themselves. All four of our guests agreed that during these projects, they too became learners, especially of their host customs. Felicia recalled that in Chile, as in most of Latin America, when meeting someone initially, it is expected that thereafter, you greet each other with an embrace. Even the Chief Justice did this at a meeting with them. I think it was very important to recognize that as a custom because it was important for the trust to build the trust between the two different delegations that if in fact I think if one of us or all of us had been somewhat standoffish in that respect of recognizing that custom, I think that it would not have fostered the relationship that we ultimately were able to develop as a result of being receptive. Dan agreed with the importance of respecting other cultures. He said that he's very direct with people, but that created a problem in his work, checking each lawyer's time voucher. I'm actually interviewing an Iraqi lawyer there, and I felt like that I needed to make sure that they were doing the number of hours, and stirred up accountability, and the things that Clark's Accord, or at least in this country, taught to do. But in Iraq, a lawyer's word is his bond, and I'll have to tell you that a couple of instances, I offended some folks and nearly caused an incident because of questioning some people. Dan's point was underscored by one of Terry's experiences. The Zambians are such a warm and lovely people, they really truly are, but they're so polite, and so they don't want to tell you if they haven't heard you or understood what you were saying to them, but they would stand there kind of with their hands like in front of them and go, yes please, yes please. And you were just thinking that they were acknowledging what you were saying, taking it all in until we kind of determined a little bit later on that maybe they weren't quite under, that was just their very polite way of saying we don't know what the heck you're talking about. How did you get beyond the politeness to find out what the issue was? Well I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing about my personality, but one of the things is that I'm just persistent, and if I don't understand something I just kind of keep on asking it over and over, and so that's probably what won the day for me on it, and they were kind enough to me to never take, seem to take it in a bad or negative way. Norman commented on one of the ironies that occurred in its judiciary when Russia adopted a constitution. In the Russian two pilot courts there's 11 judges in each court, and 10 out of the 11 judges in both courts are women, and it's an artifact of history because of the Soviet system the judges were basically low-class puppets of the system, to be used as sort of pejorative term for it, and they got grandfathered in under the new constitution, so suddenly the women who were in a low-class job were suddenly they were the real deal, and they're all the chief judges, president judges of all these courts are women now, and they control the system at the trial court level in many respects, so that was kind of a big surprise. Even though he was speaking of the experience in formerly communist countries, Norman made clear the value of this work in all developing democracies. And so it's been an incredible transformation of the judiciary that it's become, the rule of law is settling in, people are looking to the courts to settle disputes, it isn't just a rubber stamp from the communist party that you can actually go there and get justice. That's our program for today. We value your comments about this program and your ideas for future topics. Please email your thoughts, comments, and suggestions to me at mburnyatfjc.gov. That's mburnyatfjc.gov. Our next court to court program will highlight how one court created new software to make more effective case management reports, and we'll learn about networking and blogs. We hope you'll join us. On behalf of everyone at the Federal Judicial Center, thank you for watching today.