Tag: court staff

Arkansas Chief Justice digs in on scope of administrative powers

In early January, newly elected Arkansas Chief Justice Karen Baker caused a commotion by attempting to fire several senior court system administrators, including the Director of the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts. Baker was swiftly rebuked by five of her Supreme Court colleagues, who issued an order clarifying that such employees can only by fired by a majority of the Court. The Arkansas Judicial Council later issued a formal resolution — an apology of sorts — which recognized the targeted employees’ service to the judiciary.

But Chief Justice Baker is not done fighting about the scope of her authority. Last week she met with the Arkansas House Judiciary Committee. As the local press reports:

“There are differences of opinion about whether I have the same authority that chief justices have always had in Arkansas, and I am unwilling to accept that I don’t have the same authority to hire the Administrative Office of the Courts executive director, which is the area of contention,” Baker told lawmakers. “If we can’t work that out, we’ll probably be litigating that issue.”

Whatever the evenutal outcome, this fight will undoubtedly cause distraction and bad blood in the workplace. Ugh.

Arkansas Chief Justice tries to fire senior court administrators, is thoroughly rebuffed

A bizarre story out of Arkansas, where new Chief Justice Karen Baker decided that one of her first official acts would be to fire ten court employees, most of them senior administrators. On Thursday, January 2, one day after being sworn in, Baker apparently confronted Supreme Court Chief of Police Pete Hollingsworth and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Marty Sullivan, and announced that she was planning to fire them. Baker later prepared termination letters for Hollingsworth, Sullivan, and eight other senior court officials. But Sullivan refused to accept the termination, and things got interesting.

Continue reading “Arkansas Chief Justice tries to fire senior court administrators, is thoroughly rebuffed”

State courts face staffing crisis

Pandemic shutdowns, “quiet quitting,” and other strains on workplace productivity have become increasingly common over the past few years. The courts are no exception. Law360 has a detailed article on the staffing issues that are affecting state court systems around the country. The article is paywalled, but here is a taste:

In many parts of the country, state court leaders are again raising the alarm about retirements, COVID-related resignations and a tight job market that is luring valuable staff members away. All the empty seats, along with an influx of less-experienced new hires, are slowing the gears of justice and threatening key court functions, from front-door security checks to final case filings at the clerk’s office.

Behind the scenes, administrators are scrambling, pressing lawmakers for more money to juice salaries and identify new recruiting channels, said Danielle Hirsch, managing director at the National Center for State Courts.

“In many courts around the country, vacancies are reaching crisis levels,” Hirsch told Law360 Pulse, referring to a gap between private-sector pay and salaries paid by state courts and other government employers.

“Recruiting and retaining talent is essential, and many courts are embarking on everything from working with state legislators, executive branch agencies and county boards on salaries to identifying new channels for recruiting staff,” she said.

It is probably to soon to say how this will shake out, but if staffing woes continue, it would not be surprising to see court systems start to turn to AI and other technologies to help with the workload.

Federal courts ban employees from engaging in partisan campaign activity

The United States Courts have quietly imposed a new ban on campaign donations and partisan political activity by court employees and administrative staff. The new rule went into effect March 1.

An Administrative Office spokesman told the ABA Journal that only “bright-line” partisan activity–not issue advocacy–is prohibited. Moreover, court employees may still donate time and energy to charities, religious organizations, and professional organizations.

This is a sensitive area, which requires a carefully balanced policy. The courts are surely motivated by the need to appear politically neutral and unbiased, a concern that applies to court employees as much as judges. But the “bright line” that the Administrative Office suggests is quickly likely to become blurry in practice. Is a donation to an advocacy group like the National Rifle Association or Planned Parenthood a partisan activity within the meaning of the new rule? Such organizations are so closely tied in the public mind to a particular political party that they can raise the same specter of partisanship even if the organizations themselves are technically nonpartisan.

There are also First Amendment issues at stake. Federal judges are bound by a Code of Judicial Conduct, which limits their ability to engage in partisan political activity as a matter of professional ethics. But the Supreme Court has concluded that notwithstanding prevailing codes of conduct, state judges retain First Amendment rights to speak on political matters. Court employees (who are not bound by a judicial code) would seem to have an even stronger argument for First Amendment freedoms.

The Administrative Office is keeping the new policy largely internal for now, and has said that it will address individual questions as they come up. I predict that this is likely to turn into a headache for the AO going forward.