State of the Judiciary Address

Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Norberto, for welcoming Chief Judge Bumb and me to participate in this year’s Convention. And congratulations on being installed as Bar President last evening. We very much look forward to working with you and your colleagues in the year ahead.

Thank you also to Christine Amalfe for being a strong supporter and friend of the Judiciary this past year. You have led the lawyers of this State with distinction. Thank you, Christine.

It’s most fitting to start by thanking Senate President Scutari, Senate Judiciary Chair Stack, and many Senators for working closely with Governor Murphy and the Governor’s Office to reduce judicial vacancies. Last year at this time, there were 52 vacancies. Today there are only 19 -- just slightly higher than the 11 vacancies in early January. Thank you to everyone involved for responding to a real need and filling the ranks of the Superior Court. By doing so, you have enabled the Judiciary to better serve litigants and the public.

As the newest judges undergo training, they are also hard at work with their colleagues trying to reduce backlog, which has grown in recent years. With the help of lawyers throughout the State, we will continue to focus on that issue in each vicinage in the year ahead.

That’s not a simple task. Much has been written about the efficiencies and challenges AI presents in many fields. The Judiciary has issued guidelines about the responsible use of AI by attorneys and has encouraged lawyers and firms to adopt internal policies. At the same time, widespread attention has been drawn to individual cases in which lawyers have not used AI in a responsible way.

Other issues have received less attention -- like the effect of AI on the type and complexity of disputes now being presented. Years ago, for example, a self-represented litigant might have filed a 2-count complaint with the court. Today, with help from AI, the same complaint may well have 15 counts prepared in minutes with the press of a button. Multiply that by thousands to appreciate how much more time and attention judges must devote to resolve those cases each calendar year.

Having a full complement of judges will assist in that and many other ways. 
Let’s touch on some other recent developments as well. During the past year, the Supreme Court adopted “merits briefing” -- a new approach to briefing cases the Court has accepted for argument. Under the prior system, parties submitted a brief as part of a petition for certification or motion for leave to appeal. Once the appeal had been granted, they had to file a motion for leave to submit a merits brief, which could lead to extensions and delays.

The new model creates a standard schedule for all participants. Parties to an appeal are now allowed to submit a single, 50-page brief on the merits. Amici, who don’t have to recount the facts or outline the procedural history, can submit a 30-page brief. And under the new court rules, all briefing is to be completed within 94 days.

The overall aim is to help litigants, the public, and the Court. Parties should no longer think they need to cram all their arguments into a petition or cross-reference materials in their appellate briefs. They can also reframe arguments if the emphasis has shifted during litigation. Amici have straightforward guidance on both legal issues and timing. And the public will be better able to follow the arguments.

To provide greater public access, the Court will post briefs when it accepts an appeal -- as it has done for the past two months -- and when updated merits briefs are filed.

Among many individuals who have been involved, I want to thank Justice Rachel Wainer Apter and Heather Joy Baker, the Clerk of the Court, for helping spearhead this idea and project.

The Court, as you know, also recently created a path back for attorneys who have been disbarred. Since then, a modest number of individuals have taken steps to be readmitted to the bar. They are subject to new court rules for readmission, which call for a rigorous and fair process to review candidates who reapply after five years.

Last month, the Court announced the membership of a new Attorney Regulatory Board (ARB). It will be chaired by retired Assignment Judge Julio Mendez. One of the Board’s six members is well-known to this Convention -- former State Bar president Lynne Newsome.

I’d like to thank all the members of the ARB for the painstaking work that lies ahead: not only to review applications with care but also to ensure that members of the public are protected.

Let me also update you on a project the Judiciary embarked on a dozen years ago. In response to the large number of matters in which judges appoint legal guardians, the Judiciary developed the Guardianship Monitoring Program. The title of the initiative captures its essence: to monitor the work of court-appointed guardians in order to protect the vulnerable individuals they serve.

Judges appoint guardians to help people who are incapacitated and cannot manage their own affairs. Guardians are entrusted with enormous power. They make important personal decisions, including choices about medical care and where a person will live. They also have complete control over a person’s assets and take actions that range from paying bills to making financial and investment decisions. Today, there are more than 37,000 guardianships in place in our State, and guardians oversee more than $1.2 billion in reported assets.

Most legal guardians, by far, are loving family members and honest professionals. But that’s not always the case. In New Jersey and throughout the nation, there have been too many reported cases over the years of guardians who commit acts of abuse and fraud. And as the population ages and more people suffer from Alzheimer’s disease and various disabilities, the number of legal guardians steadily increases.

As a result, in 2013, the Judiciary announced a statewide initiative. We asked for volunteers to work with the court system and help monitor the work of legal guardians. Guardians are required to file annual reports with the Surrogate’s Office. We enlisted and trained volunteers to review those reports with care each year.

We asked volunteers to look out for potential problems and report what they see. Judiciary staff, in turn, relay problematic information to judges who can bring guardians into court, possibly replace them, and, in rare instances, report a matter to the prosecutor’s office.

Today, 70 active volunteers give their time and skill toward this effort. They have identified and escalated concerns that might require follow-up action, such as inappropriate or unexplained disbursements. The program, though, is not designed simply to uncover problems; it’s also meant to deter people from misconduct because they know someone is monitoring their work.

If anyone you know might be interested in volunteering, they can find additional information on the Judiciary’s website or send a letter to me or Judge Blee.

Why mention this topic today? To acknowledge a serious issue and applaud volunteers whose efforts make a meaningful difference for people who cannot protect themselves. Beyond that, the project is a healthy reminder of what a justice system can do.

The primary mission of the court system is to resolve disputes and dispense justice in a timely manner. As part of that effort, courts may sometimes come across broader problems that need attention. By working with partners in other branches of government, we try to address those concerns.

But not all problems the Judiciary faces today are as straightforward as the concept behind the Guardianship Monitoring Program. A dozen years ago when we began to work on this initiative, we lived in a different time. A time when there was greater respect for the work of judges and the Judiciary at all levels. When there were fewer personal attacks on decisions that judges make; fewer threats against judges; and fewer acts of violence carried out against judges and their families. We lived at a time when there was greater respect for the rule of law.

Those changes may stem, in part, from a lack of understanding and knowledge about the role of the Judiciary in our society, and about how judges are obligated to make decisions. That’s why state court judges have redoubled efforts to engage students both in the classroom and the courtroom through the One-Judge-One-School program. Scores of judges across the vicinages participate in this important effort. But as we educate young people, we must also face very real threats that exist today.

In New Jersey, we have a coordinated effort known as JSMART. It involves collaboration among federal, state, and local law enforcement to identify and respond to threats against judges and their families. We greatly appreciate JSMART’s dedicated efforts and assistance. The problem we face, though, is not just a matter for law enforcement.

Seven weeks from now, we will celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. When the delegates from the 13 colonies gathered to debate the future of our nation -- not far from where we meet today -- the members of the Second Continental Congress disagreed about many things. They debated the proper balance between a strong central government and States’ rights. They argued over foreign policy. They even disagreed about the need for a bill of rights and the abolition of slavery. Yet they shared a belief that liberty could survive only if we were a nation bound by the rule of law.

The Declaration of Independence was more than an important proclamation that “all are created equal.” In its list of grievances, the founders of our nation wrote that King George had obstructed the administration of justice by refusing to assent to laws that would establish “Judiciary Powers.” They also accused the King of making judges dependent on his will alone. In doing so, the Declaration insisted upon a strong and independent Judiciary that would uphold due process, promote the rule of law, and help protect our liberty.

As the founders declared independence from England, they envisioned a government bound by law, accountable to its citizens, and grounded in fairness. When they gathered together years later to draft the Constitution, they created, to borrow from the words of John Adams, “a government of laws and not of men.”

The founders of our nation knew that the rule of law would serve as the foundation not only for a court system but for all of society. And that is worth remembering, 250 years later, by all of us.

I want to thank the State Bar once again for hosting this annual Convention and inviting judges -- many of whom are here today -- to participate. The Convention helps foster an important, ongoing dialogue between the bench and the bar. It also helps strengthen the justice system in our State.

I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference. Thank you very much.