Court Reform Missing L.A.

Los Angeles once again has shown an inability to take a good idea and put it into action. The latest examples are the current roadblocks over establishing a more convenient method of jury service -- as well as merging the county's Superior and Municipal court systems.

Both reforms are considered relatively painless ways of loosening up California's jammed-up courts -- and most of the state's counties already have implemented the plans. But not Los Angeles County.

For business owners, the failure to implement jury reform is especially disheartening since, under the current system, they're faced with losing an employee for a week or two -- maybe longer. This can be a killer for small companies, and it helps explain why only 4 percent of the summonses sent out in L.A. County result in someone showing up to serve (the statewide average was only 12 percent).

Last year, the state Legislature wisely approved a measure under which anyone receiving a jury summons reports for just one day. If the person is not called into a trial -- or is called and then dismissed -- then he or she is excused altogether.

The one-day/one-trial approach makes so much sense that as of this month, 50 of the state's 56 court systems had fully complied. But in L.A. County, only three of the 33 court sites have implemented the new system. And at the current rate, it's estimated that only a third of the sites will be converted by the end of next year.

Why the delay? The county clerk says it's money -- that it costs a lot more to operate a one-day/one-trial system and the state is not coming up with enough funds. But the money involved -- a few million dollars to make the transition -- seems a small price to pay for the benefits of having more jurors in the overall pool.

The other stalled judicial reform involves not money but ego -- and power. It's been nearly 18 months since California voters approved a measure allowing counties to merge their Superior and Municipal Court systems, and L.A. is only one of two counties that has not yet complied.

Merging the two systems, backers maintain, is a way to lower overhead and provide more flexibility in dealing with ever-increasing case-loads. But L.A.'s Superior Court judges, who along with the Municipal judges must vote on the proposal, are against the idea.

The ostensible reason is fear of an even larger court system that would be overwhelmed with both Superior and Municipal cases. But studies of other court systems making the change show that the benefits far outweigh the costs. The real reason for the opposition, say some, is that Superior judges simply don't want to be working on more trivial Municipal cases. (In the last vote, L.A. Municipal judges voted overwhelmingly for the conversion while Superior judges voted overwhelmingly against.)

Another vote is set for next month. Also in December, the state Judicial Council will consider L.A. County's request for more funding to make the one-day/one-trial jury transition. While these are not attention-getting events, they have far-reaching consequences for the citizenry of Los Angeles County. We can only hope that issues of money and ego could be put aside for the sake of a smoother-running court system.