California commission plans courts of the future.

The Commission on the Future of the California Courts completed two years of research with the january release of a 220-page report entitled "Justice in the Balance - 2020." The publication outlines a long-range strategic plan for delivering judicial services to the public in the 21st century.

Because California's court system is the largest in the nation - 200 courts with over 1,500 judges and an annual budget of about $1.5 billion - its strategic plan is expected to serve as a guideline for many other state court systems.

Commission Chairman Robert Dockson said that its model of justice "embraces without reservation age-old principles of fairness and due process of law," but it also "calls for fundamental changes in our assumptions about the purposes of the courts, about the way they process disputes, and about how conflicts can be best resolved."

The 43-member commission was charged to explore trends likely to affect the courts, create a vision of a preferred future, and develop a set of recommendations to move the courts toward that future. By the year 2020, for example, California's population is expected to increase by 66 percent. Without change, court dockets would increase proportionately. By 2020, about 41 percent of the state's population will be classified as Hispanic.

The commission's diverse recommendations include the following:

* Justice centers. Today's superior courts should evolve into "multioption" justice centers offering a wide range of resolution options. Today's municipal courts may become community dispute resolution centers funded by the state but committed to resolving disputes in a community context.

* Appropriate dispute resolution (ADR). Cases should be tried to a judge or jury only in those instances when adjudication is the best choice of resolution process. Most cases entering the justice system should be resolved through other methods, including mediation and arbitration.

* Private justice. The commission foresees an expanding universe of private dispute resolution providers existing in a cooperative relationship with the public justice system.

* Interpreters. Simultaneous real-time translation should be provided for all, and multilingualism should be cultivated among court personnel.

* Physical access. Courts must commit to removing physical and attitudinal barriers that deny equal justice and equal access to people with disabilities.

* Economic access. Qualifying criteria for legal aid should be expanded to afford access to legal services for the "working poor."

* Technology. To promote efficiency, access, convenience, and economy, interactive video technology should be incorporated into justice proceedings wherever possible.

* Juries. The jury as an institution must be zealously protected, but its use and composition should be flexible. In some matters the courts should experiment with juries of fewer than 12 members and with the use of expert panels.

* Punitive damages. Consideration should be given to creating a civil justice fund that directs a portion of punitive damages awards to pay for representation of indigents in civil cases.

ATLA member Joseph Cotchett, Jr., of Burlingame, a member of the commission, said, "Without planning for structural and financial changes, only criminals, rich businesses, and wealthy individuals will pass through courtroom doors in the future."

"Some of the commission's recommendations are assaults on the consumer," said Douglas K. deVries, president of the California Trial Lawyers Association. "The report relies far too much on solving perceived budgetary challenges at the expense of access to the civil justice system."

DeVries particularly criticized recommendations that people whose cases do not involve an undefined "public good" should have to pay for the dispute process, that the size of juries in some circumstances should be reduced, and that judges should determine liability in complex cases.

Copies of "Justice in the Balance - 2020" can be obtained from the Judicial Council and State Supreme Court, Marathon Plaza, South Tower, 303 Second St., San Francisco, CA 94107, phone [phone].