Deskbook for Chief Judges of

U.S. District Courts

Fourth Edition

Federal Judicial Center

2014

This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Center’s statutory mission to develop educational materials for the judicial branch. While the Center 

regards the content as responsible and valuable, this publication does not reflect policy or 

recommendations of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center.

iii

Summary Table of Contents

Foreword ix

Abbreviations Used for Standard Sources x

I. The Office of Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court: History, Selection, Orientation, 

and Responsibilities 1

II. The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions 5

III. The Chief District Judge and Case Management: Responsibilities and Options 41

IV. The Chief District Judge and Representing the Court 52

V. The Chief District Judge as Leader: Doing What’s Best for the Court 57

Appendix A: Federal Judicial Administration 71

Appendix B: District Court Units and Personnel 72

Selected Bibliography 75

v

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword ix

Abbreviations Used for Standard Sources x

I. The Office of Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court: History, Selection, Orientation, 

and Responsibilities 1

A. History of the Office 1

B. Qualifications and Term of Office 1

C. Declining the Office, Resignation, and Incapacity 1

D. Preparation and Orientation for New Chief District Judges 2

1. Local programs 2

2. National programs 2

3. Additional staff 2

4. Caseload 3

E. Formal and Informal Sources of Authority 3

F. Responsibilities 3

1. Court-management oversight 4

2. Case-management oversight 4

3. Liaison with outside groups 4

4. Leadership 4

II. The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions 5

A. Structures and Practices of District Court Governance 5

1. Structures of district court governance 5

2. Local administrative practices 6

3. Internal reports and meetings 6

B. People 6

1. Other judges in the district 6

a. New judges 6

i. Court-based orientation programs 6

ii. Federal Judicial Center orientation programs 7

iii. Administrative Office orientation programs 8

b. Active judges and judgeships 8

c. Senior judges 8

d. Bankruptcy judges 9

e. Magistrate judges 11

f. Unanticipated vacancies 12

g. Judicial disability procedures 12

h. Residence and place of holding court 12

i. Judicial travel 12

2. Court Staff Personnel Policies and Management 13

a. The chief judge’s role 13

b. The clerk of court’s role 14
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

vi

c. Interviewing and hiring practices 15

d. The Court Personnel System 15

e. Judiciary equal employment opportunity and employment dispute resolution 

plans 15

i. Judicial Conference policy 15

ii. Court employment dispute resolution plans 16

iii. Employment dispute resolution coordinators 16

iv. General procedures 16

f. Indemnification for improper employment practices 16

g. Temporary personnel for judges during emergencies 17

3. Education and training programs and other assistance 17

a. Orientation and continuing education 17

b. Law clerk orientation 18

C. Financial Matters 18

1. Financial statutes and authority 18

2. Delegation of financial authority 18

3. Financial responsibilities 20

4. Budget formulation 21

5. Budget execution 21

6. Internal controls 22

7. Audit of moneys in custody of court personnel 23

8. Certifying officer program 23

9. Operating without a budget 24

10. References 25

D. Facilities, Security, and Emergency Preparedness 25

1. Space and facilities program 25

a. Administrative Office and the chief judge 25

b. Long-range facilities planning 25

c. Space acquisition and release 26

d. Space alterations and construction 27

e. Cyclical facilities maintenance 27

f. Daily building operations 28

2. Court security and emergency preparedness 28

a. Court security program 28

i. Role of the U.S. Marshals Service 28

ii. Security programs 28

iii. Security committees 30

iv. Security surveys and plans 31

v. CSO staffing standards 31

vi. Role of the Administrative Office 31

vii. Moving to new facilities—security issues 32

b. Emergency preparedness 32
vii

Detailed Table of Contents

E. Information Technology 32

1. Long Range Plan for Information Technology in the Federal Judiciary 32

2. Setting local priorities 33

3. Case management/electronic case files (CM/ECF) 33

4. Electronic courtrooms, audio records, and electronic transcripts 34

5. Telephone systems and telecommunications 34

6. Library service 34

7. Training support 35

8. Personal use 36

9. Additional information 36

F. Procurement and Property Management 36

1. Procurement liaison officer 36

2. Custodial officer 37

3. Disposal officer 37

4. Additional resources 37

G. Shared Administrative Services 37

H. Strategic Planning 38

I. Reporting Requirements 39

1. Statistical reporting 39

2. Intradistrict reports 40

III. The Chief District Judge and Case Management: Responsibilities and Options 41

A. Local Rules 41

1. Purpose 41

2. Authority, public comment, and distribution 41

B. Places and Times of Holding Court 42

C. Jury Matters 43

D. Statutory and Other Requirements 43

1. Speedy Trial Act 43

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 44

3. Civil Justice Reform Act 44

E. Case Assignments 45

1. Chief district judge’s caseload 45

2. Random assignment 45

3. Protracted, difficult, or unusual cases 46

4. Cases under civil priority statutes 47

F. Backlogs and Delays 47

1. Use of judges other than those in regular service in the district 47

a. Chief district judge’s role 47

b. Standards for temporary intercircuit assignments 48

c. Host court’s responsibilities to visiting judges 48

2. Chief district judges and case delay 49

3. Circuit judicial councils and case-flow management 51
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

viii

IV. The Chief District Judge and Representing the Court 52

A. Outside Groups 52

1. The public 52

2. The bar 52

a. Admission 52

b. Conduct and disciplinary action 52

c. Admission fees 53

d. Services 53

3. The media 54

4. International visitors 54

B. Other Government Agencies 55

1. U.S. attorney 55

2. General Services Administration (GSA) 55

3. U.S. Marshals Service and Federal Protective Service 56

4. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 56

5. State and local courts 56

V. The Chief District Judge as Leader: Doing What’s Best for the Court 57

A. Making the Transition to Leader 57

1. Learning about the court 57

2. Changing perspective 58

3. Establishing leadership 59

B. Leadership and Management Skills and Techniques 59

1. Enhancing collegial leadership 59

2. Building relationships 60

3. Listening 61

4. Consulting 61

5. Sharing information 62

6. Persuading 62

7. Clarifying expectations 63

8. Monitoring the court 64

9. Dealing with problems 64

10. Establishing a vision 65

C. Leadership and Management Scenarios 67

Appendix A: Federal Judicial Administration 71

Appendix B: District Court Units and Personnel 72

Selected Bibliography 75
ix

Foreword

This deskbook is one element of the Federal Judicial Center’s effort to assist chief 

district judges in meeting the increasingly complex challenges of leading district 

courts. It describes those challenges and identifies the many statutes and administrative policies that affect district courts. It is likely to be of most immediate help to 

new chief judges and those judges about to assume the position. It also should be 

of use to other judges and court personnel who have responsibilities and interests 

in the administration of the district court—especially new judges not familiar with 

district court governance.

Even if you are a chief judge or a chief judge-to-be, we realize that you probably 

won’t read the deskbook from cover to cover but instead will use particular chapters 

and sections to help you deal with specific issues. Therefore, there is some overlap 

in the materials and there are extensive cross-references. 

Much of the deskbook summarizes the relevant statutes and Judicial Conference 

policies and describes resources and assistance available from the Center and the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Other portions, in particular Chapter V, 

provide suggestions to consider as you approach your role as chief judge and as you 

confront particular matters. These suggestions incorporate the experience of veteran chief judges as well as literature about the management of public and private 

organizations.

The Center published the first edition of this deskbook in 1984. We are producing this fourth edition only in an electronic format so that we can update it more 

regularly this phra, including the Guide to Judiciary Policy and other sources cited 

herein. You may, of course, download the electronic text and make photocopies if 

you would like. 

Although the deskbook synthesizes policies affecting chief district judges, it does 

not itself represent policy of the Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office, or 

the Center, and should not be cited as such.

 

Jeremy D. Fogel, Director

Federal Judicial Center
x

Abbreviations Used for Standard Sources

Guide—Guide to Judiciary Policy. The Guide is a multivolume compilation of judiciary laws, 

regulations, and official policies. It can be accessed on the J-Net.

J-Net—the Administrative Office’s website on the courts’ national intranet. The J-Net is accessible to judges and other computer users in the federal courts via the Data Communications Network (DCN). The Federal Judicial Center also maintains a website, called FJC 

Online, on the courts’ intranet at http://fjconline.fjc.dcn.

Judges’ Manual—Judges’ Administrative Manual. A companion to the Guide’s repository of 

laws, regulations, and official policies, it expands on the Guide and gives judges and their 

staff practical advice and information on administrative and operational matters of importance to them.

Note: For simplicity, most citations are given in the text. Statutory citations are to the U.S. 

Code only. Public laws are cited to the Statutes at Large.
1

I. The Office of Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court: History, 

Selection, Orientation, and Responsibilities 

A. History of the Office

The office of chief judge of the U.S. district court did not come into existence until 

well into the twentieth century. During the first half of the century, many district 

courts consisted of a single judge. The judge of a multijudge court who was senior 

in service was called the senior district judge and performed whatever administrative tasks were needed. In 1948, as part of the recodification of Title 28, Congress 

replaced the term senior district judge with chief judge, “in view of the great increase 

of administrative duties of such judges.”1 Since then, Congress has barely altered 

the office’s structure. It has passed laws governing who is eligible to become a chief 

judge (see section I.B, below) but has left the details of administration to the judiciary.

Although this statutory framework has not changed, the size of the district 

courts and the tasks of managing them have increased steadily since then. Today, 

even the smallest districts have multimillion dollar budgets, dozens of employees, 

sophisticated technology, and critical security requirements, all to support the administration of justice in thousands of cases.

B. Qualifications and Term of Office

Section 136 of Title 28 provides that a vacancy in the office of chief district judge is 

filled by the judge in regular active service who (1) is senior in commission, (2) is 

under the age of sixty-five, (3) has served at least a year as district judge, and (4) has 

not previously served as chief judge. For judges commissioned on the same day, 

seniority in age determines precedence. The chief judge’s term is limited to seven 

years, except when there is a delay until another judge becomes eligible. No judge 

may serve as chief judge beyond the age of seventy, unless no other judge is eligible 

to become or act as chief judge. 

C. Declining the Office, Resignation, and Incapacity

District judges who do not wish to serve or to continue serving as chief judges but 

who want to retain their status as active judges may certify that fact to the Chief 

Justice (28 U.S.C. § 136(d)). The position of chief judge then devolves pursuant to 

the statutory criteria. The statute also provides that “[i]f a chief judge is temporarily 

1. House Comm. on the Judiciary, Revision of Title 28, United States Code (report to accompany H.R. 

3214, Apr. 25, 1947), app. Revisor’s Notes A31. For information on the evolution of the office, see Russell R. 

Wheeler, Origins of the Elements of Federal Court Governance 11–12 (Federal Judicial Center 1992).
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

2

unable to perform his duties as such, they shall be performed by the district judge 

in active service, present in the district and able and qualified to act, who is next in 

precedence” (28 U.S.C. § 136(e)).

D. Preparation and Orientation for New Chief District Judges

1. Local programs

Continuity between the outgoing and incoming chief judges is important. The transition should begin at least six months before the change. It is normally easier for 

the outgoing chief judge to initiate the transition process.

Steps for preparing the incoming chief judge may include ensuring that copies 

of all significant correspondence relating to the court are provided to the incoming chief; including the incoming chief in meetings relating to the court’s business; 

informing (and, perhaps, consulting with) the incoming chief about key decisions; 

having unit executives brief the incoming chief on key issues and initiatives; and 

having the incoming chief visit different courthouses and court units. Some courts 

assign the incoming chief to the court’s executive committee or to a key management role.

A smooth transition is most likely when the current chief creates a system for familiarizing the new chief judge with the court, its key people, and major issues. Chapter V.A, infra, provides more information on making the transition to chief judge. 

2. National programs

The Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office offer various types of 

assistance; this deskbook is but one example.

The Administrative Office invites each new chief judge, along with the court’s 

clerk (or executive), to an orientation program on such matters as the chief judge’s 

authority, budget and financial management, personnel issues, authorized judgeships and caseload data, and the services available to chief judges from the Administrative Office.

The Center offers a program on the leadership role of the chief judge for new 

chiefs to attend with selected unit executives. The Center also conducts an annual conference for all chief district judges, and other leadership programs for chief 

judges are held periodically.

3. Additional staff

In courts with five or more judgeships, chief district judges are authorized to employ an additional judicial assistant or law clerk to assist with the administrative 

workload. Whether or not entitled to hire an additional law clerk or judicial assistant, a chief judge should consider how to allocate the additional work that will flow 

§ I.C
3

The Office of Chief Judge of U.S. District Court

into chambers. Some chief judges arrange for additional support within the clerk 

of court’s office.

4. Caseload

The position of chief judge is time consuming. In the words of one chief judge, it 

is “not a part-time job to be worked at only when judgeship duties permit.” Some 

chief judges set aside specific periods daily or weekly to devote to chief judge responsibilities.

Many chief judges take a reduced caseload, typically in consultation with the 

outgoing chief judge and with their colleagues. Chapter III.E.1, infra, provides further discussion of the chief judge’s caseload.

E. Formal and Informal Sources of Authority

There is no single or simple statement of a chief district judge’s authority and responsibility. Many responsibilities devolve on the chief district judge as the result of 

various statutory provisions, Judicial Conference policies, and delegations from the 

director of the Administrative Office. The Administrative Office’s Compendium of 

Chief Judge Authorities (Judges Information Series no. 8, May 2013) is an extensive 

catalog of such provisions and policies. Congress and the Judicial Conference have 

assigned many responsibilities to the district court (or its active judges), to the chief 

judge specifically, or to a court officer appointed or approved by the entire court. 

Some tasks that fall to chief district judges have no specific statutory or administrative underpinnings.

Despite this lack of clear-cut formal authority, the predominant view is that 

the chief district judge is ultimately responsible for seeing that the court is administered effectively and efficiently, is in compliance with statutes and with Judicial 

Conference and circuit judicial council policies, and follows Administrative Office 

procedures.2 Some courts emphasize that all the district’s judges have a collective 

responsibility for these functions, and they downplay any special executive role for 

the chief judge. But even if judges as a group share considerable management responsibility, someone must coordinate their doing so. One person, working alone 

or through committees, must ultimately ensure that the court keeps the big picture 

in sight. Ordinarily, that is the chief judge.

F. Responsibilities

The chief district judge’s official and unofficial responsibilities fall into several basic 

categories.

2. Appendix A contains links to resources for more information on federal judicial administration on the 

national and regional levels. 

§ I.D
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

4

1. Court-management oversight

The chief judge, primarily through oversight of court unit executives, ensures that 

the court operates effectively. This responsibility includes ensuring that laws, regulations, and court policies are followed, that the needs of court employees are properly addressed, and that administrative tasks are carried out. Chapter II describes 

specific management and administrative functions. The chief judge’s oversight and 

stewardship roles have taken on added significance in light of the specific financial, 

procurement, and personnel management authorities that the Administrative Office has delegated to district courts. The Administrative Office’s Management Oversight and Stewardship Handbook (reissued July 2003) provides guidance on these 

authorities. 

2. Case-management oversight

Statutes and national procedural rules provide the chief judge with limited authority over the court’s assignment of cases and even less authority over how other 

judges manage their dockets. The chief judge, however, can monitor caseloads and 

trends and identify problems—either systemic ones or those of individual judges. 

Case-management considerations are discussed in Chapter III, infra.

3. Liaison with outside groups

The federal district court is of interest to numerous outside groups, such as bar associations, civic groups, federal and state agencies, law schools, and the press. The 

court also maintains working relationships with other government agencies, such 

as the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Marshals Service, as well as with state and 

local courts. The chief district judge is typically seen as the court’s representative 

and focal point for dealing with such groups. Chapter IV, infra, suggests ways to 

work with these outside groups. 

4. Leadership

Leadership is more than making decisions. Its essence is using a process that includes listening and communicating so that those affected by decisions and those 

who execute decisions understand and accept (even if they may not agree) how and 

why the decisions are to be implemented. The chief district judge is uniquely situated to lead the district court in determining the administrative policies and actions 

the court should initiate, continue, or discontinue. There is no single, or simple, 

way to achieve this goal. Chapter V, infra, offers some principles and guidance on 

effective leadership. 

§ I.F
5

II. The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight 

Functions

This chapter describes the chief district judge’s primary management duties. The 

Administrative Office’s Compendium of Chief Judge Authorities (Judges Information 

Series no. 8, May 2013) lists chief district judges’ responsibilities pursuant to statute, 

rules of procedure, Judicial Conference policy, and delegations from the director of 

the Administrative Office. 

The chief judge is ultimately responsible for the district court’s effective completion of administrative and management tasks, even though statutes or Judicial 

Conference policies assign some important tasks to clerks of court and even though 

other tasks have been delegated to the clerk. The Administrative Office can conduct 

a management review, which may be particularly useful to new chief district judges. 

A management review can include all of the court’s functions or only one aspect of 

the court, such as information technology or chambers management.

A. Structures and Practices of District Court Governance

A new chief district judge will inherit some existing structures, policies, and practices of court management. Early on, a new chief judge should assess these structures, 

policies, and practices to determine whether changes are needed and, if so, how to 

implement them.

1. Structures of district court governance

A few courts leave most administrative oversight to the chief judge, but most use 

one or more of the following structures:

• standing or ad hoc committees of judges, each of which supervises the operation of an office (e.g., the clerk of court or probation office), a project 

(e.g., building renovation or automation transition), a policy (e.g., rules of 

court or public outreach), or a functional area (e.g., budget, court security, 

Criminal Justice Act, or information technology);

• liaison judges—individual judges who serve in much the same roles as the 

committees described above; and

• an executive committee, consisting of the chief judge and other judges, to 

share general supervision and ensure that important information is shared 

with those who need it. Such committees are most often found in large 

courts.

Some courts involve senior judges and magistrate judges in such management 

structures, either as full partners or in a significant but lesser capacity.
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

6

2. Local administrative practices

Within the confines of national and circuit policies, district courts develop their 

own practices for administering personnel, acquiring equipment, ensuring security, 

assigning administrative responsibilities, and establishing other units and committees. These administrative practices need not be released to the public but should 

be recorded and made available to all court personnel. Local rules are usually not 

a good vehicle for documenting administrative practices, inasmuch as the Rules 

Enabling Act directs courts to submit their local rules for public notice and comment, and most aspects of the court’s internal administration are not appropriate 

for public comment.

3. Internal reports and meetings

Many courts have systematic methods for collecting and sharing information about 

the court’s units. In some courts, each court office prepares periodic reports describing the work accomplished and detailing present and projected needs and issues. In 

other courts, the chief judge, perhaps with other judges, has periodic meetings with 

the court unit executives and others (e.g., the U.S. marshal, the U.S. attorney, and 

the federal defender).

B. People 

3

1. Other judges in the district

a. New judges

The chief judge swears-in new judges and assists them in the transition to their new 

duties. Although new judges must take the oaths prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 453 and 

5 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3333, there is no prescribed format for swearing-in ceremonies. 

The Judges’ Manual, Ch. 11, has further information on judicial investitures.

i. Court-based orientation programs. Some courts have court-based orientation 

or mentor programs that help new judges learn about local rules and procedures 

and help familiarize new judges with their new colleagues, court staff, and the 

courthouse. Such programs frequently give new judges an opportunity to watch 

experienced colleagues in action, to ask questions, and to learn about important 

features of the work, practices, and policies of the court. 

Local orientation or mentor programs take various forms. Some courts designate a standing mentor judge or panel of judges. Others make ad hoc assignments as 

the need arises. Alternatively, new judges may be scheduled to spend time with and 

3. Appendix B, infra, provides links to resources for more information on specific court units and personnel. 

§ II.A
7

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

observe judges from the court who want to participate. Small districts sometimes 

arrange with nearby districts to supplement their resources and broaden the new 

judge’s exposure to different approaches.

Local orientation or mentor programs should provide new judges with the following:

• an opportunity to discuss with other judges and the clerk of court the process of setting up chambers;

• opportunities to observe courtroom proceedings and chambers activity, including chambers conferences and interaction with chambers staff;

• opportunities to observe critical proceedings, such as jury empanelment; 

civil and criminal motion calendars; Rule 16, final pretrial, and settlement 

conferences; suppression hearings; plea taking; and sentencing proceedings; 

• introductions to the various departments and officers of the court (and officers who work with the court, such as the U.S. attorney, federal public defender, and U.S. marshal) and an opportunity to learn where they are, who 

they are, and what they do; and

• a tour of court facilities.

A new judge’s focus will naturally be on setting up chambers and handling the 

caseload, so the orientation should emphasize these. Nonetheless, it is also important to familiarize new judges with the court’s organization, procedures, and culture 

and with their role in the court’s efficient and effective operation. 

ii. Federal Judicial Center orientation programs. The Federal Judicial Center invites each new district judge to two orientation programs. The first is a regional 

orientation seminar, which a judge ideally will attend soon after entering duty. It 

stresses practical instruction in court procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, judicial ethics, and sentencing, and it includes a tour of a federal correctional facility. 

Sometime later during their first year, new district judges are also invited to the 

Center’s week-long orientation seminar in Washington, D.C.—the seminar builds 

on the instruction in the initial orientation program.A similar two-step orientation 

program is offered to bankruptcy and magistrate judges in their first year on the 

bench. The Center also sends new judges a collection of its reference guides, manuals, and other materials, including the Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges (6th 

ed. 2013), Manual on Recurring Problems in Criminal Trials (6th ed. 2010), Reference 

Manual on Scientific Evidence (3d ed. 2011), and Manual for Complex Litigation, 

Fourth (2004). Orientation resources for new judges—including Center publications, media programs, and Web-based resources—can be found on FJC Online, the 

Center’s website on the judiciary’s intranet. 

§ II.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

8

iii. Administrative Office orientation programs. The Administrative Office invites 

district judge nominees to attend an individual orientation program in Washington, D.C., at the time of their confirmation hearings (the Administrative Office pays 

the travel costs). This several-hour program covers compensation, benefits, ethics, 

security, and administrative aspects of becoming a federal judge. In addition, judge 

nominees receive the Administrative Office handbook Getting Started as a Federal 

Judge (December 2005), which provides practical advice and information addressing the most frequent inquiries received from nominees and newly appointed judges during the transition to the federal bench. The Administrative Office has other 

materials available for new judges on the J-Net.

b. Active judges and judgeships

The chief district judge typically monitors the workloads of other judges on the 

court and may take steps to address issues or problems, such as caseload imbalances, 

judges who are behind in their work, illnesses or vacancies, and the overall workload 

in the district. Ways to address these issues are discussed in Chapter III.F, infra.

When a district’s caseload warrants, a district may seek Judicial Conference approval of a request that Congress create additional judgeships. Every two years the 

Statistics Subcommittee of the Judicial Resources Committee solicits requests for 

new judgeships. Requests must be supported by detailed information and forwarded through the respective circuit council. For more information, see the Biennial 

Judgeship Survey page on the J-Net. 

c. Senior judges

The chief circuit judge or circuit judicial council may designate a senior district 

judge to perform “such judicial duties within the circuit as he is willing and able to 

undertake” (28 U.S.C. § 294(c)). The chief district judge may also assign duties to a 

senior judge in that district (28 U.S.C. § 294(c)). Circuit judicial councils’ practices 

concerning senior judges’ work assignments differ; for guidance, consult circuit internal operating procedures or the circuit executive. 

Two distinct workload requirements apply to senior judges. First, in order for 

a senior judge to receive salary increases other than cost-of-living adjustments, the 

chief circuit judge must certify that the senior judge handles the workload required 

by the Judicial Conference (28 U.S.C. § 371(e)(1)). The Judicial Conference authorizes retroactive certification when a senior judge’s additional workload in a subsequent year is sufficient to offset a reduced workload in a prior year. The Conference’s Rules for Certification of Senior Judges Under 28 U.S.C. § 371 (1998) articulates 

standards for meeting the statutory work requirements (see Senior Status and Retirement for Article III Judges, Appendix I (with June 1999 update)).

§ II.B
9

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

Second, the Conference authorizes chambers and staff for senior judges only 

upon the circuit judicial council’s certification to the director of the Administrative Office that the judge is performing “substantial service” to the court to justify 

facilities, and that the number of supporting positions requested is necessary based 

on the judge’s actual workload (Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 8, § 860). The information the 

circuit judicial councils use in making those judgments is provided annually by the 

Administrative Office and is based on the caseload data routinely provided by the 

district courts. The chief district judge may provide information to assist the circuit 

council’s decision. 

Questions may occasionally arise, as when a senior judge (or a former chief 

district judge) insists on retaining chambers that other judges should have. Persuasion and compromise solve most problems, but the district court or circuit judicial 

council could presumably resolve problems by order. Consult circuit internal operating procedures and the circuit executive to determine the circuit’s approach to 

allocating chambers space and staff to senior judges.

Judicial Conference policy encourages circuit judicial councils to develop policies on courtroom sharing by senior judges and to consider judges’ workloads, 

among other things, in projecting future courtroom requirements. Guide, Vol. 3, 

Ch. 8, § 860.40. To facilitate obtaining sufficient space to accommodate senior judges and their successors, the Conference has encouraged judges to notify the President and the Administrative Office as early as possible of their intention to take 

senior status.

d. Bankruptcy judges

The 1984 Bankruptcy Act established the bankruptcy judges of each district as “a 

unit of the district court to be known as the bankruptcy court for that district.” 

Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, § 104(a), 28 U.S.C. 

§ 151. Thus, the bankruptcy judge is a judicial officer of the district court. This 

provision strengthens the judicial and administrative relationship between the district court and the bankruptcy court. Section 1334(a) of Title 28 provides that “the 

district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11 

[of the United States Code].” Section 1334(b) gives the district courts original (but 

not exclusive) jurisdiction over all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising 

in or related to cases under Title 11.

The bankruptcy judge may “hear and determine . . . and may enter appropriate 

orders and judgments” relating to all cases and core proceedings arising under title 

11 referred to that judge. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). A bankruptcy judge may hear a 

proceeding that is not a core proceeding but can only submit proposed findings of 

fact and conclusions of law to the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Core matters 

are civil proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code or in a bankruptcy case, 

including any proceedings that affect the liquidation of the estate’s assets or the ad-

§ II.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

10

justment of the debtor–creditor relationship. Core proceedings include confirmation of plans, matters concerning the administration of the estate, and the allowance 

or disallowance of claims. A non-exclusive list of “core” proceedings is contained 

in § 157(b)(2).4 Non-core proceedings, also known as related matters, include the 

debtor’s causes of action that could have been brought in state court or in federal 

district court had there been no bankruptcy case, such as a breach of contract or 

breach of warranty.

Other provisions of Title 28 of the U.S. Code tie the operation of the bankruptcy 

court to the district court. For example, while the authority to appoint the bankruptcy judges for each district is vested in the court of appeals, the authority to designate the chief bankruptcy judge is reserved to the judges of the district court and 

to the chief judge of the district court in the event that a majority decision cannot 

be reached. 28 U.S.C. § 154(b). 

Each district court may make and amend local rules governing practice and 

procedure in all cases and proceedings within the district court’s bankruptcy jurisdiction that are not inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 

A district court may, however, authorize the bankruptcy judges of the district to 

make local rules of practice and procedure for the bankruptcy court. Fed. R. Bankr. 

P. 9029.

Section 154(b) of Title 28 vests the chief bankruptcy judge with responsibility 

to ensure that the business of the bankruptcy court is handled effectively and expeditiously. To that end, the bankruptcy court may “promulgate rules for the division 

of business among the bankruptcy judges to the extent that the division of business 

is not otherwise provided for by the rules of the district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 154(a).

Note that despite the close statutory link between the district court and the 

bankruptcy court, bankruptcy clerks’ offices operate independently of the district 

clerks. Section 156(d) of Title 28 prohibits consolidation of the office of the bankruptcy clerk with the office of the district clerk without the prior approval of the 

Judicial Conference and Congress. The district and bankruptcy courts may share 

administrative services, however, such as human resources, training, and procurement. See subsection G, Shared Administrative Services, in this chapter. The bankruptcy court’s relative independence makes the personal relationships of the respective chief judges and the clerks of the two courts especially important.

4. Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), introduced the possibility that a proceeding defined as core 

under the Judicial Code may nevertheless lie beyond the constitutional power of a bankruptcy judge to adjudicate finally. Section 157(b)(2)(C) of Title 28 expressly includes as a core proceeding “counterclaims by the estate 

against persons filing claims against the estate.” The Court in Stern, in a 5–4 decision, held that a non-Article 

III bankruptcy judge cannot enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim raised by a debtor in a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) that is not resolved in the process of adjudicating the allowance of the 

underlying claim. The Court expressly stated that its decision should be interpreted narrowly and that Congress 

had exceeded constitutional limitations “in one isolated respect.” Nonetheless, owing to broad language in Stern, 

its implications are uncertain at this time.

§ II.B
11

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

e. Magistrate judges

A magistrate judge is a judicial officer of the district court who exercises the jurisdiction of the district court as delegated by statute and by the judges of the court. 

The Inventory of United States Magistrate Judge Duties (July 2009), published by the 

Administrative Office, details the jurisdiction of U.S. magistrate judges. These duties, set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636, fall into four broad categories:

1. initial proceedings in criminal cases;

2. trial and disposition of petty offenses, and of Class A misdemeanors with the 

defendant’s consent and waiver of the right to trial before a district judge;

3. pretrial matters and other proceedings referred to magistrate judges by district judges; and 

4. trial of civil cases when authorized by the district court and when consented 

to by the parties.

By rule, all district courts have authorized magistrate judges to try civil cases on 

consent. Part-time magistrate judges may try civil cases on consent if the chief 

district judge certifies that a full-time magistrate judge is not reasonably available 

in accordance with guidelines established by the judicial council of the circuit (28 

U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)). Magistrate judges’ contempt authority in criminal and civil 

cases is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e).

District courts may also assign magistrate judges “such additional duties as are 

not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” These “additional duties” typically include civil and criminal case pretrial matters, prisoner cases, Social Security appeals, and post-judgment duties. Local rules or general orders 

determine magistrate judges’ precise duties in a particular court and the manner of 

allocating work among magistrate judges. The Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary recommends the effective use of resources, “including the effective utilization of 

magistrate judges” (Judicial Conference of the United States, Strategic Plan for the 

Federal Judiciary, Strategy 2.1, at 8 (September 2010)).

The judges of the district court appoint the court’s magistrate judges. See 28 

U.S.C. § 631(b)(5). The Administrative Office pamphlet The Selection, Appointment, and Reappointment of United States Magistrate Judges (March 2010) includes 

the Judicial Conference regulations and provides guidance on appointment procedures (see Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 4).

To initiate requests for additional magistrate judge positions or changes in existing positions, the chief district judge should contact the Administrative Office. 

Once a position is authorized and funded, selection of the magistrate judge proceeds according to the statutory criteria and Judicial Conference regulations governing appointment of magistrate judges.

The chief district judge should ensure that the court regularly monitors what 

the magistrate judges are doing and at whose request. Periodic statistical reports 

§ II.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

12

from the magistrate judges can aid this monitoring function and serve as the basis 

for their office’s annual report to the court. Reports designed for local use may be 

more beneficial in monitoring case assignments and ensuring that magistrate judges are used effectively than reports the magistrate judges provide to the Administrative Office, which serve national statistical reporting functions. Some district courts 

have designated a (nonstatutory) “chief” or “administrative” magistrate judge to coordinate magistrate judges’ activities, make duty assignments, prepare reports, and 

maintain liaison with the district judges and other court officers and committees.

f. Unanticipated vacancies

If there is an unanticipated judgeship vacancy, chambers staff may remain on the 

court payroll for 90 days, with an extension of an additional 120 days if the chief 

district judge certifies to the circuit judicial council that additional staff resources 

are necessary. If necessary, additional staffing needs beyond the 120-day extension 

are funded from existing allocations to the circuits for emergency temporary law 

clerks and secretaries. See Guide, Vol. 12, § 615.50.30.

g. Judicial disability procedures

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364, establishes the statutory procedures by which the federal courts receive and handle complaints of judicial misconduct and disability. The chief circuit judge and the circuit judicial council 

have primary responsibility in these matters. The Judicial Conference has adopted 

Rules for the Processing of Certificates from Judicial Councils that a Judicial Officer 

Has Engaged in Conduct that Might Constitute Grounds for Impeachment, as well as 

Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. See Guide, Vol. 2, Pt. 

E, Ch. 4 and Ch. 3, respectively. The Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct 

and Disability considers judicial council action on judicial misconduct or disability 

complaints in accordance with these rules. Many problems may not reach the circuit 

level, however, and some that do still involve the chief district judge. 

h. Residence and place of holding court

Section 134(c) of Title 28 anticipates that it may be in “the public interest” for at 

least one judge of the district to maintain residence at or near each of the district’s 

designated places for holding court. The circuit judicial council is authorized to 

make such a determination as well as to determine which judge shall reside near the 

court if the district judges cannot agree.

i. Judicial travel

Judicial travel regulations authorize reimbursements for judges for travel to hold 

court or to attend authorized judicial meetings (as defined in the regulations) when-

§ II.B
13

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

ever they determine such travel to be necessary (see Judges’ Manual, Pt. C, Ch. 16). 

For other official travel by judges, reimbursement is authorized only when the travel 

is approved in advance by the appropriate chief judge (i.e., the chief district judge 

for district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges in the district), or, in certain instances, by the chair of the appropriate Judicial Conference or circuit judicial council 

committee. Travel costs to Federal Judicial Center programs and meetings are reimbursed by the Center; reimbursement requires the advance approval of the Center.

Judicial travel regulations also direct the chief district judge to send the director of the Administrative Office the reports on “non–case-related travel” required 

to be filed annually by all judges in the district. Travel is “non–case-related” if it is 

not directly related to the judge’s assigned cases but nevertheless involves judicial 

administration, education, or extrajudicial activities permitted by law and the Code 

of Conduct for United States Judges, and if the expenses are paid for (either directly 

or by reimbursement to the judge) by another person, an organization, or an agency 

of the federal government (see Judges’ Manual, Pt. C, Ch. 16, § 4.2).

2. Court Staff Personnel Policies and Management

a. The chief judge’s role

The district court appoints the clerk of court (28 U.S.C. § 751(a)), court reporters 

(28 U.S.C. § 753(a)), and the chief and other probation officers (18 U.S.C. § 3602). 

When a majority of the district judges cannot agree on the appointments, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 756 authorizes the chief district judge to make the appointment. The statute does 

not prescribe the form for certifying or ascertaining court approval or approval by 

a majority of the judges. In districts with separate probation and pretrial services 

offices, the chief district judge serves as a member of a panel with the chief circuit 

judge and a magistrate judge, or their designees, to select the chief pretrial services 

officer (18 U.S.C. § 3152(c)). 

While the chief district judge has ultimate responsibility for the court’s management, chief judges generally delegate most administrative duties related to court 

management (other than probation and pretrial services duties) to the clerk of 

court. The chief judge’s working relationship with the clerk is thus vital to the effective management of the court. Some courts share administrative services (such 

as human resources or financial management) among court units or with other 

courts. See section G, Shared Administrative Services, of this chapter. 

Ideally, the chief district judge’s relationship with the clerk of court and with the 

probation chief and pretrial services chief, if there is one, should be a partnership, 

in which each helps the other do his or her job better. The chief judge is the senior 

partner to be sure. But if the clerk and chief(s) are doing their jobs well, the chief 

judge’s role is to monitor, not micromanage, general operations, and to assist with 

or take action on those matters that are beyond the clerk’s or chief’s authority or 

§ II.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

14

ability to handle alone. Specifics will vary from court to court and from individual 

to individual, but the chief judge and unit executives should strive to reach a mutual 

understanding of the allocation of their time and responsibilities. Chapter V, infra, 

discusses in greater detail the relationship of the chief judge and the clerk and other 

unit executives. 

For court unit support staff (not including chambers law clerks and secretaries, 

court reporters, interpreters, and certain other employees), the director of the Administrative Office can delegate authority to establish and classify positions under 

the Court Personnel System (CPS), determine the qualifications of those positions, 

and fill them at appropriate pay levels. This authority can be redelegated to the relevant court unit officers. An incoming chief district judge should check to see what 

delegations are in place and whether new delegations or redelegations are needed.

Other personnel-related tasks that involve the chief judge include:

• approving requests for emergency law clerks and judicial assistants; 

• reviewing official adverse personnel actions taken by managers against court 

employees; and

• resolving informal disputes that the officers cannot resolve.

b. The clerk of court’s role 

In almost all district courts, the clerk of court serves as the chief administrative 

officer, implementing the court’s policies and reporting to the chief district judge. 

(A few districts have district court executives or other positions that perform this 

administrative role.) The clerk of court is responsible for the development and administration of a comprehensive personnel system for the court. The Administrative Office, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 604(a)(1) and Judicial Conference resolutions, exercises a supervisory function over the court’s personnel system and acts 

in an advisory capacity. Official policies regarding personnel and management are 

available through guidelines issued by the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office. See Guide, Vol. 12, and the Human Resources Manual.

Courts are encouraged to develop, in written form, personnel and office policies 

to inform employees of practices and policies and to guide the supervisory staff in 

upholding these practices and policies. Many courts have developed an effective 

personnel-management system that is detailed in a local personnel or office policy 

manual. The local personnel manual will generally address such matters as recruitment, termination, performance standards and evaluation, grievance resolution, 

training policies, leave policies, employment discrimination, and sexual harassment. Such a manual, if available, may serve to limit the need for the chief judge’s 

involvement in most personnel problems. 

§ II.B
15

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

c. Interviewing and hiring practices

The Federal Judicial Center’s Conducting Job Interviews: A Guide for Federal Judges 

(1999) provides guidance on interviewing applicants for court unit executive positions (clerk of court, chief probation officer, and chief pretrial services officer) and 

law clerk positions. The guide recommends a process for analyzing a job and the 

experience needed to fill it. It also provides suggestions for simple, fair, and effective 

hiring practices, as well as examples of interview questions. 

The Administrative Office has established a central online resource, called the 

Online System for Clerkship Application and Review (OSCAR), for federal law 

clerk and appellate court staff attorney hiring. OSCAR provides comprehensive and 

timely information for applicants and saves time for judges’ staff. 

d. The Court Personnel System

The Judicial Conference approved the Court Personnel System (CPS) at its September 1993 session. The CPS replaced the JSP position classification process, grade 

structure, salary schedule, supervisory grade criteria, and qualifications standards 

program for most court employees. The CPS does not apply to court unit executives 

and their chief deputies, law clerks or secretaries on the chambers staff, or court 

reporters. These employees remain under the JSP classification and compensation 

systems.

The Judicial Conference has approved CPS benchmarks reflecting current job 

duties and responsibilities performed in the courts and has approved titles and classification levels for these benchmarks, minimum qualification requirements, and a 

procedure for classifying CPS supervisory and managerial positions.

The chief judge may request a delegation of authority from the director of the 

Administrative Office to establish and classify positions under the CPS, determine 

the qualifications of those positions, and fill them at appropriate pay levels. This 

authority can be redelegated to the clerk of court.

e. Judiciary equal employment opportunity and employment dispute resolution plans

i. Judicial Conference policy. The Judicial Conference has established a national 

equal employment opportunity policy for the federal judiciary in the form of a 

Federal Judiciary Model Employment Dispute Resolution Plan (Model EDR Plan). 

The Model EDR Plan was adopted by the Conference in order to provide rights and 

protections to employees of the U.S. courts, rights comparable to those provided to 

legislative branch employees under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. 

The Model EDR Plan supersedes Appendix I (“Discrimination and Complaint Procedures”) of the Judiciary Model Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (Model 

EEO Plan), except for section VI of Appendix I (“Annual Report”), which imposes 

§ II.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

16

reporting requirements on the courts. Both the Model EDR Plan and the Model 

EEO Plan are available on the J-Net.

ii. Court employment dispute resolution plans. The Model EDR Plan is to be implemented in the local courts in the same manner as the Model EEO Plan. Each 

court must adopt and implement a local EDR Plan based on the model plan. Any 

modification of this EDR Plan by a court must first be approved in its circuit by the 

judicial council. A copy of each local court’s EDR plan and any subsequent modifications must be filed with the Administrative Office. The chief judge of each court 

submits an annual report on the implementation of its EDR Plan to the Administrative Office for inclusion in the director’s Annual Report to the Judicial Conference.

The Model EDR Plan is not intended to duplicate the protections provided for 

the resolution of complaints of judicial-officer misconduct or disability and otherwise is intended to be the exclusive remedy of the employee relating to rights enumerated under the Plan.

iii. Employment dispute resolution coordinators. The court’s employment dispute 

resolution coordinator assumes the duties of the former EEO coordinator, and the 

dispute resolution procedures and related duties set forth in the Model EDR Plan 

supersede those under the Model EEO plan.

iv. General procedures. Under the Model EDR Plan, an employee who claims a denial of the rights granted under Chapters II through VII of the plan shall seek resolution of such claims through the following procedures:

• counseling and mediation;

• an opportunity to seek review by the chief judge of the court (or a designated judicial officer) in which the alleged violation arises; and

• review of the district court’s decision under procedures established by the 

judicial council of the circuit.

For additional information concerning the dispute resolution procedures, see 

Chapter X of the Model EDR Plan. The Administrative Office can assist courts with 

questions about policy or procedures. Also helpful are the Administrative Office’s 

Judiciary Fair Employment Practices Annual Report and its Employment Dispute Resolution Bench Book for Judges (March 2011). 

f. Indemnification for improper employment practices

Judicial Conference guidelines for the indemnification of judges and employees 

who are found liable for actions taken within the scope of their employment (such 

as wrongful employment practices resulting from such administrative acts as dismissing or demoting employees) are in the Guide, Vol. 20, Ch. 3. Further informa-

§ II.B
17

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

tion on this topic can be found in The Risk of Personal Liability for Federal Judges 

(July 2002), an Administrative Office publication.

g. Temporary personnel for judges during emergencies

A judge sometimes needs additional, temporary law clerks or judicial assistants 

during emergency situations. Judicial Conference policy requires that the judge’s 

declaration of a “judicial emergency” and request for temporary assistance, along 

with the chief district judge’s concurrence, be transmitted to the circuit executive 

for approval by the circuit judicial council for whatever term the council deems 

appropriate. The Conference discourages such assistance except when there is a serious problem that cannot be solved by temporary reallocation and reassignment 

of cases.

In situations in which staff are on sick leave or maternity leave, judges may certify their need for temporary assistance to the director of the Administrative Office. 

The Conference has also approved the option of contracting with a temporary help 

service.

3. Education and training programs and other assistance

a. Orientation and continuing education

Court managers should establish and maintain formal training programs. For example, each unit or office should administer an orientation program to familiarize 

all new personnel with court personnel procedures, the organization and work of 

the court, and the federal judicial system. Continued training improves work standards and fosters upward mobility of employees.

The Federal Judicial Center provides resources and assistance in designing orientation, leadership and management training, and continuing education programs, 

including online tools, for nonjudicial court personnel such as those in clerks’ offices (including its Web-based orientation program for new court employees, Inside 

the Federal Courts). Information on its programs and services for court personnel 

can be found on FJC Online. 

The Administrative Office provides training in administrative and operational 

duties delegated by the director of the Administrative Office to court personnel. It 

conducts national and regional education and training programs pursuant to the 

director’s authority granted under 28 U.S.C. § 604. For information on Administrative Office training, consult the Guide, Vol. 12, Ch. 11.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission provides education and training to judges, 

judicial branch personnel, and practitioners in understanding and applying the 

Sentencing Guidelines. Information about the Commission’s training programs 

and educational materials on the guidelines are available on its website, http://www. 

ussc.gov.

§ II.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

18

Local training programs in the courts, arranged primarily by court personnel, 

can complement national and regional programs. The Federal Judicial Center can 

provide advice, training materials, and, in some cases, faculty, for local training. 

Courts receive budget allotments to fund training for court support staff employees 

in administrative, operational, or managerial support areas. Judges and chambers 

staff are provided training funds through a general authorization. For specific information about funding allotments for training, consult the Guide, Vol. 12, Ch. 11, 

§ 1125.

Court-training specialists are key elements in the court’s local programs. They 

are court employees who assume responsibility for identifying local training needs 

and developing programs to meet them, with the help of the Center and the Administrative Office. The Court Personnel System authorizes creating court-training 

specialist positions. These positions may be appointed in the clerk’s office, the probation office, the pretrial services office, and the bankruptcy court. In many courts, 

training specialists perform other duties as well as their training duties.

b. Law clerk orientation

The Federal Judicial Center’s website, FJC Online, has materials including videos 

to assist in orienting new law clerks, as well as educational materials and resources 

for career law clerks. In addition, the Center published Maintaining the Public Trust: 

Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks (2013) in coordination with the Judicial Conference’s Codes of Conduct Committee and the Administrative Office. 

C. Financial Matters

1. Financial statutes and authority 

The director of the Administrative Office is responsible by statute for authorizing 

and controlling the expenditure of funds appropriated to the federal judiciary. The 

director delegates authority for this function to several divisions within the Administrative Office and to chief judges. These authorities are delegated to chief judges 

with the expectation that courts and court officers will strictly comply with federal 

statutes that regulate the management and expenditure of federal funds and the 

procurement and care of federal property. Chief judges are authorized to redelegate 

these authorities, in writing, to various financial liaison officers, usually unit executives. The director has specifically authorized chief judges to retain certain budget 

authority, delegate specific authorities to judicial budget committees, or delegate all 

or specific authorities to the clerk of court (Guide, Vol. 13, Ch. 2).

2. Delegation of financial authority 

A chief district judge receives substantial fiscal and administrative authority by express delegation from the director of the Administrative Office. As “the adminis-

§ II.B
19

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

trative officer of the courts” serving “under the supervision and direction of the 

Judicial Conference,” 28 U.S.C. § 604(a), the AO director is responsible for, among 

other things:

• supervising administrative matters relating to clerk’s offices;

• setting personnel compensation;

• disbursing funds for court operations;

• paying office expenses, travel expenses, and annuities;

• purchasing law books, equipment, and supplies;

• entering into contracts to support the work of the courts;

• auditing court accounts; and

• submitting the judiciary’s budget.

28 U.S.C. §§ 604–605.

The director, however, has delegated substantial administrative and financial 

power to chief judges under 28 U.S.C. § 602(d), which provides:

The Director may delegate any of the Director’s functions, powers, duties, and 

authority . . . to such officers and employees of the judicial branch of Government 

as the Director may designate, and subject to such terms and conditions as the Director may consider appropriate . . . .

The statute also authorizes “the successive redelegation of such functions, powers, duties, and authority” as the director may deem desirable. It provides that “[a]ll 

official acts performed by such officers and employees shall have the same force and 

effect as though performed by the director in person.” 28 U.S.C. § 602(d). Chief 

judges often delegate certain financial-management roles to court unit executives. 

Guide, Vol. 13, Ch. 2, § 230.20. By subdelegating such authority, chief judges can 

empower court unit executives and staff to handle and expend public funds, purchase government property, enter into contracts, and manage a human resource 

program. All authority and funds are delegated on the express condition that the 

responsible employees comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, policies, and 

procedures. Ultimate responsibility for a court’s financial integrity rests with the 

court and its chief judge. Guide, Vol. 13, Ch. 2, § 230.20.

Chief judges may not delegate greater authority than needed to meet court 

needs. All delegations must be in writing and must specify which authorities are 

being subdelegated and to whom. Subdelegations and designations (for property, IT 

security, budget, and procurement) expire when the delegatee changes and do not 

need to be reissued when there is a change in chief judge. With the appointment of 

a new chief judge, it is recommended that the court unit executive discuss the nature 

of these positions and the associated responsibilities of the chief judge so that the 

new chief judge can determine if it is appropriate to make any changes. However, 

it is not necessary to reissue delegations made by a previous chief judge unless a 

§ II.C
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

20

change is desired. See Guide, Vol. 16, § 510.30; Guide, Vol. 15, § 130.30.10; Guide, 

Vol. 13, § 230; the Court Budget Operating Manual; and Guide, Vol. 14, § 140.15.30.

All persons in the chain of delegated responsibility, including officers and employees of the judiciary, are legally bound by strict statutes and rules designed to 

prevent the mismanagement of public moneys, including all appropriations laws, 

the Anti-Deficiency Act, and government contract laws.

Chief judges have a number of financial and budget-management responsibilities set forth in the U.S. Code and the Guide. These responsibilities include:

• ensuring that the court has adequate internal controls in place and that they 

are followed scrupulously (Guide, Vol. 11, Ch. 1, § 140);

• ensuring that the court has formal decision-making procedures in place to 

approve the budgets of court units and to review their financial operations 

(Guide, Vol. 13, Ch. 1, § 120.35);

• ensuring each court unit has an annual spending plan that is reviewed and 

approved by the designated court officials (Guide, Vol. 13, Ch. 1, § 120.35);

• ensuring that policies and procedures exist to prevent staff from obligating 

funds in excess of the amounts allotted (Guide, Vol. 13, Ch. 1, § 120.35(b)

(2)); and

• monitoring the implementation of spending plans during the fiscal year and 

overseeing any necessary and proper adjustments to the plans (Guide, Vol. 

13, Ch. 1, § 120.35).

The legal authorities of a chief judge are identified in the Judges Information 

Series publication, Compendium of Chief Judge Authorities.

3. Financial responsibilities

In exercising the financial-management authority delegated by the director of the 

Administrative Office, a chief judge’s managerial role is comparable to that of chair 

of the board of directors of a small to mid-size company. Each chief judge typically 

redelegates most day-to-day financial and procurement functions to professional 

court managers. Chief judges are responsible for supervising court managers, particularly in their handling of federal funds and their procurement and care of federal property. What matters most is that chief judges ensure that the court has an effective system in place to safeguard financial integrity. Such a system should include:

• competent, ethical staff, with clearly defined responsibilities;

• a chief judge with personal knowledge of major or sensitive operational 

events and decisions;

• a process to approve and monitor the budget;

• regular, accurate, meaningful reports from the unit executives on the status 

of funds and other key financial activities;

§ II.C
21

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

• written internal controls that are being strictly followed and regularly updated;

• open and honest internal communications and regular meetings;

• effective training programs; and

• periodic evaluations and audits.

4. Budget formulation

Section 605 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code requires the director of the Administrative 

Office, under the supervision of the Judicial Conference, to submit budget estimates 

for the federal courts to the Office of Management and Budget for inclusion, without change, in the budget that the President sends to Congress. This process begins 

sixteen months in advance of the fiscal year being considered. First, the program 

committees of the Judicial Conference review and approve budget estimates for 

their program areas. These estimates are based on caseload projections, formula 

calculations, inflationary factors, and other appropriate increases or decreases. The 

Judicial Conference’s Budget Committee considers the requests of the various program committees and forwards a recommended budget to the Judicial Conference 

for its consideration. The Conference considers and approves the budget request in 

September, twelve months in advance of the subject fiscal year. The request is combined with requests of the Supreme Court, other special courts, and judicial branch 

agencies and submitted to Congress in February, eight months before the fiscal year 

begins. Congress considers the Judiciary’s request along with the requests of other 

government agencies, and it ultimately passes an appropriation bill to provide funding for the fiscal year.

In recent years, Congress has not enacted an appropriation for the judiciary 

before the beginning of the fiscal year. Instead, Congress has enacted a “continuing 

resolution” that funds the judiciary and other parts of the government for a period 

of weeks or months, usually at a level close to the appropriation for the previous 

year. (See below in this chapter for a discussion of the effect this has.)

5. Budget execution

Budget execution for the federal courts centers on the development and use of a 

national financial plan. The plan guides and controls the expenditure of judiciary 

funds and includes separate appropriations for the salaries and expenses of federal 

trial and appellate courts, court security, defender services, and juror fees.

To help the Judicial Conference’s Executive Committee prepare a financial plan 

for the forthcoming fiscal year, approximately six months before the fiscal year begins the Administrative Office estimates funding likely to be available. The Administrative Office also estimates the needs of both centrally managed programs and allotments provided to the individual courts on the basis of anticipated workload and 

§ II.C
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

22

staffing for the coming year, as well as support costs and projected requirements. 

The Executive Committee finalizes and approves the financial plan after Congress 

enacts the appropriations. In the event Congress does not enact the judicial branch 

appropriation by the October 1 start of the fiscal year, the Executive Committee 

approves an interim financial plan to serve as a spending guide until appropriations 

are enacted. Because the final appropriation may not be known for some time, the 

chief judge and unit executives must engage in especially careful contingency planning. It is highly advisable for the chief judge to involve, or at least inform, other 

judges and court staff about such planning. 

Under the judiciary’s budget decentralization system, the Administrative Office 

allots funds to each court unit for its operations. The courts generally have substantial authority to allocate resources as required, under the oversight of the chief 

judge. The courts provide monthly spending reports to the Administrative Office.

The Judicial Conference has conditioned decentralization of budget authority 

on the understanding that participating court units have adopted procedures governing the budget approval and reprogramming processes. Accordingly, each unit of 

a district must have in place a “Budget Organization Plan.” This plan, approved by 

the chief judge and forwarded to the Administrative Office, documents each unit’s 

financial organization, planning, and decision-making structure. The plan also 

specifies the roles and responsibilities of court officials in the handling of budget 

matters. Model plans are available on the J-Net.

Understanding the Judiciary’s Budget Process, which consists of a 15-minute video and a companion guide for chief judges, provides further information on the 

requirements and procedures for budget formulation and execution.

6. Internal controls

The responsibility for the integrity of the court’s fiscal-management practices rests 

with the court and the chief judge. One of the principal means of ensuring accountability and integrity of operations is through systemic internal control. Internal control is not an annual event or occasional process, but rather the ongoing 

application of the checks and balances needed to ensure the integrity of operations. 

Internal control measures are an integral component of the court unit’s management and operations performed on an ongoing basis. Collectively, internal control 

measures are the policies, actions, and activities that provide reasonable assurance 

that assets and resources are protected from loss, waste, or abuse; operations are efficient and effective; financial reports are accurate and reliable; and business practices 

are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Internal control activities that courts use to monitor and safeguard operations 

include defined procedures, assignment of responsibility and segregation of duties, 

access restriction, control over assets, appropriate records and documentation, and 

verification and review. Court unit executives have a responsibility to establish and 

§ II.C
23

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

review internal control procedures, and chief judges have an oversight responsibility.

The Management Oversight and Stewardship Handbook (reissued July 2003) provides chief judges with simple, practical, and high-level guidance and tools for oversight and management of court resources, including official funds, personnel, and 

property. Volume 11 of the Guide (Internal Controls) contains information to assist 

courts with reviewing their internal controls. These are minimum standards and 

may be supplemented by additional controls. Principles of Federal Appropriations 

Law, also known as the “Redbook,” is a major reference work produced by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). It is a source of detailed information about 

appropriation issues.

7. Audit of moneys in custody of court personnel

The clerk of court, as the court’s financial officer, is accountable for a wide range of 

financial activities:

• certifying appropriated and other funds in the treasury for travel and normal operations and maintenance;

• collecting and accounting for funds received for court services in accordance 

with the frequency schedule established by the Judicial Conference; and

• accounting for other deposited funds that pass through the courts to individuals, corporations, and trustees.

The director of the Administrative Office has a statutory responsibility under 28 

U.S.C. § 604(a)(11) to conduct audits of the courts. The Administrative Office uses 

an independent public accounting firm and its own auditing office to conduct these 

audits. The audit cycle is approximately every two-and-a-half years for large courts 

and every four years for smaller courts. The court audit includes an attestation to 

the fairness of the accounting reports, evaluations of internal controls and compliance with financial-management requirements, and tests of financial transactions. 

The Administrative Office is also responsible for performing audits whenever a 

court changes its clerk of court, and a chief judge may request that the Administrative Office conduct a special audit whenever there is reason to suspect problems. All 

audit reports are forwarded to the circuit chief judge and the circuit executive. Chief 

district judges are entitled to receive all audit reports and should oversee follow-up 

actions.

8. Certifying officer program

The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000 provided the statutory basis for establishing additional certifying officer positions within the judiciary, paralleling 

authority that has worked well in the executive branch for over 60 years. See 28 

U.S.C. § 613. Historically, the clerk of the district court, as the disbursing officer, 

§ II.C
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

24

also served as the certifying officer for approving payments for goods and services 

acquired by all court units within the district and for appellate court units and any 

Federal Public Defender Office for which the district disburses.

Under the 2000 Act, the director of the Administrative Office, with the concurrence of the respective chief judge, may designate additional certifying officer 

positions within the judiciary to separate the certifying and disbursing functions. 

In most courts, each court unit executive has assumed similar responsibilities, authorities, and liabilities as those of executive agency certifying officers covered by 31 

U.S.C. § 3528.

Certifying officers are “accountable officers” and are held to the same standards 

of liability and relief as their counterparts in the Executive Branch. Certifying officers are responsible for the existence and correctness of the facts cited in a request 

for payment and its supporting papers, the legality of the proposed payment under 

the appropriation or fund involved, and the correctness of the computations.

The liability of a certifying officer is enforced in the same manner and to the 

same extent as provided by law with respect to the enforcement of the liability of 

disbursing and other accountable officers. A certifying officer will be required to 

make restitution to the United States for the amount of any illegal, improper, or 

incorrect payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or misleading certification, 

as well as for any payment prohibited by law or that did not represent a legal obligation under the appropriation or fund involved. The liability of certifying officers is 

not affected by any lack of fault or negligence on their part, but rather is strict and 

automatic. The fact that an improper payment has occurred raises a presumption of 

liability on the part of the accountable officer, and the burden of proof to rebut the 

presumption rests with the accountable officer. In the absence of a certifying officer 

appointed under statutory authority, the disbursing officer also assumes the duties, 

responsibilities, and liability of the certifying officer.

9. Operating without a budget

Courts will receive guidance if the legislative process fails to produce an appropriation bill or continuing resolution to fund court operations. Even without an 

appropriation, the judiciary may be able to fund continuing operations for a limited period using funds such as fees. The Administrative Office will provide specific guidance about operating in such circumstances. Generally, the Administrative 

Office’s position is that all functions and services necessary to exercise the courts’ 

constitutional responsibilities should continue. Functions unrelated to the resolution of cases in which jurisdiction has been established should be suspended, and 

obligations should not be incurred unless absolutely necessary. Guide, Vol. 13, Ch. 

2, § 220.30.

§ II.C
25

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

10. References

Financial-management policies and stewardship guidance for chief judges are set 

forth in the Guide, Vol. 13 (Finance and Budget); Guide, Vol. 11 (Internal Control); 

and the Management Oversight and Stewardship Handbook.

D. Facilities, Security, and Emergency Preparedness

1. Space and facilities program

a. Administrative Office and the chief judge

The director of the Administrative Office has the statutory responsibility to “[p]

rovide accommodations for the courts” through the acquisition, management, alteration, and construction of facilities. 28 U.S.C. § 604(a)(12). Chief judges should 

participate actively in all of the major functional areas of the space and facilities 

program: long-range facilities planning; space acquisition and release of space; 

space alterations and construction; cyclical facilities maintenance; and daily building operations and parking policies.

b. Long-range facilities planning 

The asset management planning (AMP) process, including long-range facilities 

planning, was approved by the Judicial Conference in March 2008. The planning 

process includes the following:

• forecasting caseload growth in incremental timeframes;

• projecting the number of judges and staff needed to meet the forecasted 

caseloads, taking into consideration historical judgeship and staff growth;

• conducting comprehensive courthouse tours and assessments;

• determining the amount and type of space needed owing to operational and 

staff changes; and

• comparing projected space needs with the capacity of existing facilities.

Administrative Office staff will assist court representatives in long-range facilities planning sessions and development of the items listed above. The chief district 

judge, acting as coordinator, customarily appoints a team leader, often either the 

district court clerk or the district court executive, to work with Administrative Office staff to schedule a planning session. The team leader should then select a planning team consisting of representatives from the circuit, district, and bankruptcy 

courts and the probation, pretrial services, and federal public defender’s offices, and 

at least one representative from each of the district’s divisions. The General Services 

Administration (GSA) regional account manager and building manager, as well as 

members of the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Attorney’s Office, should be present 

at each session.

§ II.C
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

26

c. Space acquisition and release

The acquisition or release of space involves the court, the circuit judicial council, 

the Administrative Office, and the GSA. Circuit judicial councils must always approve accommodations, and the director of the Administrative Office is statutorily 

charged with providing accommodations to the courts. If the circuit has received 

a space and facilities delegation from the director, the circuit will ask the GSA to 

acquire the space for space assignments that are below the prospectus level.5 As of 

December 2013, circuits that have received such a delegation are the First, Second, 

Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth.

When a court identifies a need to acquire space, the request is forwarded to its 

circuit judicial council. For requests below the prospectus level, if the council agrees 

that the space is necessary, it transmits the request to the GSA.6 For circuits that do 

not have a delegation, the circuit-approved under-prospectus level space request is 

sent to the Administrative Office. All prospectus-level requests, regardless of whether the circuit has delegated authority, must be sent to the Administrative Office, 

which transmits requests it receives to GSA through an occupancy agreement planner. Upon receipt of a space request, GSA will implement steps to either provide 

government-owned space or leased space to meet the court’s need.

At its September 2008 session, the Judicial Conference approved the institution 

of a circuit rent budget (CRB) process that requires all new space requests to reflect 

consideration of the existing available inventory, cost for improvements, and future 

rent implications. CRB requests are reviewed annually during the June committee 

meetings of the Committee on Space and Facilities. The circuits are required to 

submit their CRB requests by no later than March for the Administrative Office to 

complete a thorough review of the requests.

Similarly, a court must ask its circuit judicial council to approve a request to 

release space. If a request is approved by the council, a circuit with a delegation 

will ask the GSA to release the space. Circuits without a delegation will transmit 

the court’s request to the Administrative Office for action. However, an entire facility can be closed only if the circuit judicial council recommends and the Judicial 

5. Prospectus space projects are projects costing in excess of an amount fixed annually by GSA and requiring line-item approval by the authorizing and appropriating committees in both houses of the Congress. 

Further, prospectus projects involving new courthouses or annexes are prioritized and ranked in the Judiciary’s 

Five-Year Courthouse Project Plan approved by the Judicial Conference. The plan is provided to the GSA to seek 

funding from Congress as part of the President’s budget request. 

6. The one exception to this is the Fifth Circuit, which may approve lease-construction projects. A 

lease-construction project, also known as a lease construct courthouse, refers to the circumstance in which a 

private developer constructs the facility to the lessee’s (the GSA on behalf of the judiciary) specifications on 

the developer’s land. The U.S. Courts Design Guide is applicable in the build-out of the court spaces, and the 

Interagency Security Committee’s Security Design Criteria apply to the entire building and site. This type of 

courthouse generally contains one or two courtrooms at most and chambers. The rent for these projects must 

be below the prospectus level in the year the project is initiated.

§ II.D
27

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

Conference approves closure. In addition, Congress has asked to be notified when 

facilities are to be closed. On Conference approval of a closure, the Administrative 

Office will request that the GSA close the facility and notify Congress.

d. Space alterations and construction

Space alteration projects fall into two categories: (1) projects that are less than the 

prospectus level (a threshold amount fixed annually by GSA), and (2) projects that 

are equal to or greater than the prospectus level (and therefore must be approved by 

Congress through line items in GSA’s annual budget). Under budget decentralization, funds are allocated to each circuit judicial council to fund projects throughout 

its circuit.

Courts have limited authority to perform tenant alterations or other construction and must rely on the GSA to make alterations through a process called a reimbursable work authorization (RWA).7

 For projects that are less than the prospectus 

level, circuit and court unit executives have authority to sign RWA requests to the 

GSA for tenant alterations costing up to $25,000. The circuit judicial council must 

approve alterations costing more than $25,000 but less than the prospectus level.

Additional information on space alterations and related matters is available in 

the Guide, Vol. 16, Ch. 3.

e. Cyclical facilities maintenance

The administrator of the GSA has delegated to the director of the Administrative 

Office authority to procure certain cyclical maintenance services up to $100,000 in 

contract value directly from private sector vendors. The director has redelegated 

this authority to the courts. The cyclical facilities maintenance program provides 

funding to court units for the specific cleaning, repair, and replacement services 

authorized by this redelegation.

To obtain cyclical maintenance services, a court can either issue a reimbursable 

work authorization (RWA) to GSA requesting that it procure such services or, under the cyclical facilities maintenance program, the court can procure the services 

from a commercial vendor. Services from a commercial vendor are procured in accordance with the policies and procedures contained in the Judiciary Procurement 

Program Review Procedures, the Judiciary Purchase Card Program, and the Guide, 

Vol. 14.

Regardless of the method used, courts must consult with their respective GSA 

building manager on all cyclical facilities maintenance projects to ensure that the 

GSA will authorize completion of the work by the outside vendor and that the work 

7. As of December 2013, only the district court for the Northern District of Alabama operates facilities under a building delegation signed by the director of the Administrative Office and the administrator of the GSA. 

The court is authorized to conduct procurements up to the limits of its delegation. 

§ II.D
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

28

will be accomplished according to building standards. Courts are encouraged to 

first determine whether the appropriate GSA office can provide the needed services 

on more favorable terms than those offered by a commercial vendor. If GSA procures the needed services, it will charge a fee, generally calculated as a percentage of 

the price. If a commercial vendor is used to perform the work, GSA retains the right 

to inspect the project to ensure it meets all regulatory requirements and to charge a 

fee for such inspection.

The Cyclical Facilities Maintenance Desk Reference, which reflects the formal delegation and provides guidance on implementation of the cyclical facilities maintenance program, has been posted on the Facilities page of the J-Net. 

f. Daily building operations

The chief judge may need to know about miscellaneous matters pertaining to daily 

building operations, such as space rental, parking policies, and use of utilities outside normal working hours. Advice or assistance concerning these matters can be 

obtained from the clerk of court, the circuit executive, or the Administrative Office. 

Extensive online guidance on space and facilities matters is also available on the 

Facilities page on the J-Net.

2. Court security and emergency preparedness

a. Court security program

i. Role of the U.S. Marshals Service. The U.S. Marshals Service, a bureau of the Department of Justice, is responsible for the security of the federal courts, providing 

security for judges and members of the judicial family. 28 U.S.C. § 566(a). A major 

part of the marshals service’s mission is to ensure that courthouses and courtrooms 

are safe. It has been successful in providing a safe and secure environment for the 

operation of the federal courts through the development of effective court security techniques. It is essential that courts establish an effective liaison with the U.S. 

marshals office in their districts and become familiar with their policies and programs. At the national level, the Administrative Office maintains a liaison with the 

Marshals Service and oversees the Judicial Facility Security Program (discussed in 

subsection ii, below), which is funded by the judiciary.

In the event of any threat to a federal judge or courthouse, contact the Marshals 

Service. 

ii. Security programs. The following are security programs managed by the U.S. 

Marshals Service.

• Technical Assistance Program. The program provides technical assistance 

in surveying and determining security requirements for federal court facilities. The Marshals Service undertakes an analysis and security inventory 

§ II.D
29

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

of court facilities and makes recommendations to the local court security 

committees for instituting security systems, devices, and procedures.

• Courtroom Security Program. Security at federal court proceedings isprovided by the physical presence in the courtroom of one or more deputy 

marshals. The U.S. Marshals Service, however, is not required to provide a 

deputy marshal for all court proceedings. In March 1982, an agreement was 

reached between the Judicial Conference and the U.S. Attorney General that 

the Marshals Service would provide physical security for high-risk proceedings. In March 2003, the Judicial Conference amended its policies on courtroom security to require a deputy U.S. marshal in the courtroom during all 

criminal proceedings in which a defendant is present, including proceedings 

before magistrate judges, unless the presiding judge determines a marshal is 

not required; and a court security officer (CSO) in all civil proceedings in 

which a party is present, including bankruptcy proceedings, upon the determination of the presiding judge. The Judicial Conference also reaffirmed, 

notwithstanding the policies established above, that the presiding judge may 

determine the level of security necessary in a particular proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 566(b). CSOs, however, should never be used in a highrisk proceeding without the presence of U.S. marshals.

• Protective Investigations Program. The Marshals Service conducts protective investigations on individuals suspected of posing a risk to judges and judicial employees. They analyze threats and inappropriate communications 

and determine the appropriate protective response. Each district office has 

a deputy marshal trained in conducting these investigations. The Marshals 

Service notifies the FBI upon receipt of all inappropriate communications, 

and joint investigations are conducted when necessary. More information 

about this program can be obtained from the U.S. marshal in each district.

• Personal Security Program. When the need arises, this program provides 

for the personal security of federal judges and judiciary employees. Personal 

security is tailored to the needs of the protectee resulting from Marshals Service risk assessment. Protective measures can include a 24-hour protective 

detail and/or portal-to-portal transportation. Federal judges who do not 

have a residential alarm system may qualify for a government-purchased 

and installed system. Additional information about how judges can obtain 

home security systems is available on the J-Net.

• Judicial Facility Security Program. Using funds provided by the judiciary, 

the Marshals Service contracts with private security firms to provide CSOs. 

The primary duties of CSOs are to provide a security presence at federal 

courthouses and judicial areas of multitenant federal buildings housing 

court operations. The CSOs provide security screening by using magnetom-

§ II.D
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

30

eters and X-ray security screening equipment. They also provide access control for parking lots and garages and conduct interior and exterior roving 

patrols. Like deputy U.S. marshals, CSOs are armed. CSOs are deputized by 

the Marshals Service, but this authority does not extend beyond the work 

site. The Judicial Facility Security Program also provides resources for the 

purchase, installation, and maintenance of security systems and equipment 

for judicial areas.

iii. Security committees

• Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Security. The Committee on 

Judicial Security has jurisdiction over all court and judicial security matters. It reviews and monitors security policy for the judiciary and makes 

recommendations for changes when deemed advisable. The committee’s responsibilities include reviewing the provision of security services by the U.S. 

Marshals Service, the Federal Protective Service (FPS), and the GSA. The 

committee meets semiannually and submits recommendations on a wide 

range of court security matters to the Judicial Conference. Suggestions for 

agenda items can be directed to the Administrative Office.

• Court Security Committees. Each judicial district has a court security committee (CSC) consisting of the following: the U.S. marshal for the district, 

who serves as principal coordinator of the committee; the chief district judge 

(or judge designee); a magistrate judge; a representative of the bankruptcy 

court; a circuit representative in districts in which there is a court of appeals 

or the chambers of a circuit judge; the U.S. attorney, where appropriate; the 

clerk of court; and a representative of the GSA, where appropriate. The responsibilities of the court security committee are to develop and implement 

a district-wide security plan and to meet periodically to identify security 

problems and recommend solutions. The local court security committee is 

responsible for addressing the security concerns of the entire judicial family, including judges, chamber staffs, clerks, probation and pretrial services 

officers, librarians, public defenders, and other members of the court. This 

responsibility includes the security for all judicial areas within federal buildings as well as any leased space that has court staff on site. Any building security countermeasures and/or enhancements proposed by the CSC, including 

Federal Protective Service (FPS) contract guards, must first receive approval 

from the Administrative Office.

• Building Security Committees. In Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities, issued in June 1995 following the April 1995 bombing of the Alfred 

P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

recommends the establishment of building security committees (BSCs) for 

each federal facility under GSA’s control. Unlike Court Security Commit-

§ II.D
31

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

tees, which consist of representatives of the court family and address security issues involving the courts, BSCs address the security requirements of 

multitenant federal buildings and consist of representatives from all of the 

federal agencies that occupy the building and the GSA. BSCs are tasked with 

evaluating the building’s physical security requirements against the standards 

outlined in the above mentioned DOJ report. Each BSC should forward to 

the GSA its requests and cost estimates for the security enhancements necessary to comply with the standards. Any building security countermeasures 

and/or enhancements proposed by the BSC, including FPS contract guards, 

must first receive approval from the Administrative Office.

iv. Security surveys and plans. Each district marshal should conduct an annual 

standardized and comprehensive court security survey of each judicial facility in the 

district. The marshals should also develop a written judicial security plan for each 

judicial facility within the district, based on the results of the court security survey. 

This plan should include all security policies and procedures for the facility.

v. CSO staffing standards. The number of CSO positions allocated to a particular 

district is determined based on a facility-by-facility application of a staffing formula 

developed by the Marshals Service and endorsed by the former Judicial Conference 

Committee on Security and Facilities. The staffing formula limits the assignment of 

CSO positions to full-time places of holding court with a judicial officer in residence 

or at a visiting location where court is routinely held two or more weeks a month. 

The total number of CSO positions assigned to a particular district is determined by 

adding the number of CSOs that each facility within the district is entitled to under 

the formula. Each CSO contract specifies the location (facility) where the CSO is to 

be assigned and the number of CSO hours authorized for that location.

Although the total number of CSO positions allocated to a district is based on 

a facility-by-facility analysis, where the CSO positions are actually assigned in the 

district is determined locally by the U.S. marshal and the district’s court security 

committee. If a district wishes to reassign CSOs from one facility to another, a request to modify the CSO contract should be forwarded to the Marshals Service’s 

Judicial Security Division.

vi. Role of the Administrative Office. The Administrative Office provides advice 

and assistance to the judiciary on security matters. It is responsible for assisting in 

the formulation of security policies for the judiciary, monitoring the Marshals Service’s provision of security services to the judiciary, overseeing the implementation 

and financial management of the Judicial Facility Security Program, working with 

the Service on security policies and procedures, reviewing the Service’s formulation 

§ II.D
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

32

of the annual court security appropriation request, and providing advice to court 

officials on security matters.

vii. Moving to new facilities—security issues. When a court begins to consider a 

move to new facilities, it is essential that the chief judge contact the district’s U.S. 

marshal. Security concerns are best addressed when the U.S. marshal is involved at 

an early stage in any relocation discussions and before site selection has been made. 

Through that process, the chief judge can determine from the marshal the type and 

level of security that should be provided at the new location.

b. Emergency preparedness

The judiciary is largely dependent on the GSA to provide and maintain its official 

workplaces and on the Marshals Service to make those workplaces secure. Nevertheless, each court is responsible for establishing procedures, known as “occupant 

emergency plans,” to safeguard lives and property during emergencies affecting that 

court, and for planning to ensure continuity of court operations in the event of a 

natural or manmade disaster that extends more than a few days.

Under GSA regulations, the highest ranking official of the primary agency in 

each federal building is the “designated official” who oversees emergency planning 

to ensure that occupant emergency plans are made and that employees are designated to undertake emergency response duties should the need arise. The court security committee or the Building Security Committee in a given facility usually takes 

the lead in developing occupant emergency plans and may also assist in developing 

plans for continuity of operations.

Further information on emergency preparedness can be found on the J-Net.

E. Information Technology

1. Long Range Plan for Information Technology in the Federal Judiciary

The Administrative Office provides a variety of computer equipment and specific 

software applications to the federal judiciary, including case management/electronic case files (CM/ECF). The Administrative Office also maintains the Data Communications Network (DCN), which provides electronic mail services for the courts 

and access to the judicial branch’s intranet (J-Net) and the public Internet.

The various computer software applications available to the courts and their 

current and projected status are described in the most recent Long Range Plan for 

Information Technology in the Federal Judiciary. This plan, first issued in 1983, is revised annually after review by the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Information 

Technology. The committee also sets priorities for implementation of information 

technology (IT) projects that may be funded from the Judiciary Information Technology Fund, which is administered by the Administrative Office under the com-

§ II.D
33

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

mittee’s direction. In developing strategies for the implementation of information 

technology, the Administrative Office communicates with advisory groups of judges, clerks of court, and other court employees.

2. Setting local priorities

Local court technology staff implement and maintain nationally developed systems 

available from the Administrative Office and also adapt or develop applications to 

meet their local court’s needs. Each clerk’s office (district and bankruptcy) and each 

probation and pretrial services office is allocated information technology staffing 

and funding.

There are several approaches to managing a court’s IT structure. Some districts 

have separate systems managers and systems staff for the clerks’ offices and probation and pretrial services offices. Some districts have developed formal arrangements for the offices to share technology resources and determine common goals 

and priorities. In other districts, collaboration may be less formal. Some districts 

have consolidated their IT resources under one umbrella, with a single systems 

manager coordinating the resources of all offices in the district.

3. Case management/electronic case files (CM/ECF)

As a general rule, information that a judge needs regarding cases can be obtained 

from the CM/ECF system utilized in the court. For example, the CM/ECF software 

comes installed with a variety of standard case-management reports that can be 

used for case administration and quality-control purposes. 

In addition to the standard reports, many courts have developed reports that 

meet the individual needs of their judges and their clerk’s office staff. Clerks’ offices either possess the local programming skills to produce ad hoc reports for court 

management and for judges or obtain support from another court to develop reports for local use. Accordingly, the chief judge may consult the clerk of court to 

determine the court’s reporting needs and capabilities.

Automated reports generated from CM/ECF can be used in a variety of ways in 

the court. Most prominently, automated reports are used for quality control of the 

data that goes into the database, case-management, and executive level reports for 

court managers. In addition, the clerk’s office can provide a variety of automated 

case information in reports on an ad hoc basis.

The CM/ECF Chambers Handbook is available on the J-Net to assist judges with 

the use of CM/ECF. In addition to information concerning legal and policy issues 

that judges were most concerned with during the implementation process, the 

handbook contains the following: information about chambers use of CM/ECF; 

information regarding software functionality; statistics; and a glossary of common 

terms used with respect to CM/ECF.

§ II.E
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

34

4. Electronic courtrooms, audio records, and electronic transcripts

Various technologies can be used in the courtroom to help manage cases, to reduce 

trial time and litigation costs, and to improve fact-finding, juror understanding, 

and access to court proceedings. The Judicial Conference endorses the use of technologies in the courtroom, including video-evidence presentation systems, videoconferencing systems, and electronic methods of taking the record. Subject to the 

availability of funds and priorities set, the Conference recommends that courtroom 

technologies be considered necessary and integral parts of courtrooms undergoing 

construction or major renovation and be retrofitted into existing courtrooms or 

those undergoing tenant alteration as appropriate. 

The Administrative Office has contracts with several companies for the design 

of courtroom audiovisual systems and for their installation. For more information, 

go to Courtroom Technology on the J-Net.

The Federal Judicial Center’s Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A Judge’s 

Guide to Pretrial and Trial (2001) provides case management and legal guidance 

to judges on the use of courtroom technologies. Another resource is the Center’s 

Roundtable on the Use of Technology to Facilitate Appearances in Bankruptcy Proceedings (Aug. 11–12, 2005, Washington, D.C.). 

5. Telephone systems and telecommunications

The clerk of court serves as the court’s “telephone coordinator.” Although the duties 

of coordinator may be delegated, the clerk remains responsible for the proper performance of those duties. Each circuit executive’s office has a telecommunications 

coordinator responsible for coordination of telephone activities in that circuit. The 

coordinator is the court’s liaison with vendors, the circuit executive, the Administrative Office, and the GSA. The coordinator is responsible for arranging service 

maintenance, the purchase of new or additional equipment, and the certification 

of invoices. Courts should seek assistance as soon as possible if there is to be major 

renovation or new construction that will involve telecommunications issues. Telecommunication guidance can be found on the Telephony site on the J-Net. In addition, assistance with telecommunications can be obtained from the Administrative 

Office.

6. Library service

The federal court library system was established at the circuit court level. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 713(a). Pursuant to § 713(b), the circuit librarian may, with the approval of the 

court, appoint assistants in such numbers as approved by the director of the Administrative Office. A headquarters library exists at each circuit headquarters with 

staffed satellite libraries established in many courthouses across the country.

§ II.E
35

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

To efficiently utilize funding for legal resources and minimize duplication, the 

chief judge should encourage judges, especially those collocated with a library, to 

first consider the legal resources available in court libraries and online. This approach often will go a long way toward addressing the court’s need for publications. 

Sharing of resources among judges also is encouraged. To the extent that additional 

materials are deemed essential, the Guide contains a listing of suggested resources 

that judges may request and others that can be provided subject to availability of 

funds. See Guide, Vol. 21, Ch. 3, § 330.20. Contact your librarian or the Administrative Office for assistance with any library matter.

Another valuable tool for legal research is the availability of computer-assisted 

legal research (CALR). Two main systems, Lexis and Westlaw, are available to all 

judiciary personnel. These services provide desktop access to the full text of all reported state and federal cases, selected unreported cases, rules of civil and criminal 

procedure, ALR annotations, selected law reviews, and specialty materials on a wide 

variety of subjects. For password access, training, or assistance with the systems, 

contact the CALR coordinator or local satellite librarian. For additional information about CALR, contact the circuit librarian or the Administrative Office.

In addition to Lexis and Westlaw, other online resources are available, including 

HeinOnLine, the Oxford English Dictionary, and the Law Library Microform Consortium (LLMC) collection of online government and other historical documents. 

These resources are available without password to all judiciary users. Additional online resources also may be made available within each circuit by the circuit libraries 

in order to meet the unique research needs of that circuit. A list of links to legal and 

general research resources is available on the J-Net; more detailed information is 

available on each circuit library’s webpage.

7. Training support

IT training is available at both the national and local levels. At the national level, 

training support for court staff is provided primarily through the Administrative 

Office’s Systems Deployment and Support Division (SDSD) Training Branch. The 

SDSD Training Branch provides training for staff on applications that are supported nationally. Much of this training takes place at the training center in San Antonio, 

Texas. In addition, SDSD has developed online computer-based training (CBT) and 

written training materials. Go to the SDSD Training Branch website for more information, including training schedules.

Specialized IT training for judges is available, including how to use specific software applications. FJC Online and the J-Net contain IT training resources for judges 

in various formats, including the Chambers Online Automation Training electronic 

learning modules. The Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office have 

partnered to train local court staff to provide training and assistance specifically for 

judges. A new chief judge should check with the clerk of court to see whether the 

§ II.E
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

36

court has had such training. If not, the chief judge may want to see whether such 

training can be provided. 

IT training is also provided at the local court level. One or more individuals 

within the clerk’s office and chambers may be involved in the training. Such training can also be provided by personnel from other court units under a sharing arrangement or by outside trainers brought in to train on specific applications when 

appropriate. Materials and expertise to support local training can be located and/

or developed locally or nationally. Local talent in the area of training has also been 

a great resource for supplementing and further developing IT skills. The clerk of 

court should have information on the availability of local IT training.

8. Personal use

To protect the security of the judiciary’s electronic systems and information, the 

Judicial Conference approved a national minimum standard defining appropriate 

personal use of government office equipment subject to the right of each court unit 

to impose or maintain more restrictive policies. Individual courts are responsible 

for enforcing appropriate use policies. Personal Use of Government Office Equipment 

(Including Information Technology) is available on the J-Net’s Information Technology page or through the Administrative Office.

9. Additional information

For more information about the judiciary’s information technology programs, including Judicial Conference policy, security and privacy issues, and managing your 

local IT program, see the Guide, Vol. 15, Judges’ Manual, Ch. 20, or contact the Administrative Office.

F. Procurement and Property Management

The director of the Administrative Office has delegated to chief judges the authority and responsibility for procurement and management of goods and services in 

their respective courts. See Guide, Vol. 1, Ch. 6, §§ 630, 640. The chief judge, in 

turn, should delegate the authority and responsibility for property procurement 

and management to a procurement liaison officer, a custodial officer, and a disposal 

officer. To minimize the vulnerability of property to fraud or abuse, no one person 

should serve in all three property-management positions.

1. Procurement liaison officer

The procurement liaison officer is usually the clerk of court, but the chief judge may 

designate another employee. The chief judge should designate the court’s procurement liaison officer in writing. A copy of the designation should be retained in the 

§ II.E
37

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

chief judge’s administrative file and a second copy should be sent to the Administrative Office.

Designations of procurement liaison officers become effective once the designee certifies that he or she has “read, understood, and will comply with Volume 14, 

Chapter 1 of the Guide.” Upon designation by the chief judge and certification by 

the designee, the procurement of goods and services becomes the responsibility of 

the procurement liaison officer.

2. Custodial officer

The custodial officer is responsible for receiving, storing, and maintaining inventory 

lists of all equipment, furniture, and other property that costs $250 or more and was 

obtained by procurement, transfer, or donation. The chief judge should designate a 

custodial officer in writing. A copy of the designation letter should be maintained 

in the judge’s file and a second copy should be forwarded to the Administrative 

Office. The custodial officer also must report excess property to the disposal officer 

(discussed below).

3. Disposal officer

The chief judge should designate a disposal officer, usually the chief deputy clerk, 

who is responsible for approving the proper disposal of excess and surplus property.

4. Additional resources

Information on the judiciary’s procurement program and specific procurement 

policies is found in the Guide, Vol. 14. Information on property management and 

further description of the property management functions regarding IT resources 

can be found in the Guide, Vol. 15, Ch. 5.

G. Shared Administrative Services

The judiciary has maintained a long standing effort to contain costs and improve 

efficiency, and the sharing of administrative services is one tool in this continuing 

effort. Generally, shared administrative services can mean sharing with other court 

units in the same district, sharing administrative services with other courts in the 

same circuit, or even sharing such services with other court units outside the district 

and circuit. 

Courts have developed and implemented several means of sharing administrative services with other court units. Administrative services that could be shared 

include human resources, information technology, finance and budget, contracts 

and procurement, property management, space and facilities management, and 

training.

§ II.F
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

38

Chief judges should be aware of past and current efforts to share administrative 

services (both with respect to their own courts and with respect to other courts) and 

encourage their courts’ management to explore new and different ways of sharing 

services. The sharing of administrative services offers the possibility of reducing 

costs and improving efficiencies, but implementing shared services can be complicated because of entrenched practices and attitudes and because of concerns about 

job security and responsiveness of service. Therefore each opportunity should be 

thoroughly examined for likelihood of success and to ensure continued operational 

effectiveness.

Because of a high level of interest, efforts have been made in recent years to 

study, collect, and develop information on sharing administrative services. To learn 

more about the topic, generally, chief judges should consult the Shared Administrative Services page on the J-Net. Chief judges should also be aware of JShare, an 

online resource for courts to offer or seek to share services with other courts. 

H. Strategic Planning

Long-range planning is actively promoted in the federal courts. See Strategic Plan 

for the Federal Judiciary, September 2010. Planning enables courts and court units 

to establish objectives for the future, evaluate their results, and implement changes 

when needed. It offers a useful mechanism for examining major issues in a systematic manner and for determining how to allocate scarce resources.

The Administrative Office has developed many resources for courts to use in 

conducting their own long-range planning—these resources are available on the 

J-Net’s Long-Range Planning site. One such resource is a “mini-guide” identifying 

ten things chief judges can do to support and strengthen planning efforts in their 

courts. In addition, the site includes several sample long-range plans developed by 

district courts throughout the country.

Commitment from all the judges, the clerk of court, and all court units is important to the success of any plan or initiative. To assist courts that wish to engage 

in long-range planning, the Administrative Office has developed a handbook, Planning Handbook for Federal Courts. The handbook suggests an approach to establish 

a planning process and to producing a plan. The long-range planning process and 

materials in the handbook may be used by courts or court units at any level. The 

handbook presents the mechanics and basic methodologies for going through the 

planning process. It also recommends that a local planning committee be established to provide the substance and context for planning decisions. The Planning 

Handbook is available on the J-Net’s long-range planning site.

The Federal Judicial Center also has several resources on strategic planning, 

available on FJC Online. The Center periodically conducts strategic planning workshops and provides advice to individual courts to help them develop and implement 

strategic plans.

§ II.G
39

The Chief District Judge’s Management and Oversight Functions

I. Reporting Requirements

To enable the director of the Administrative Office to fulfill statutorily mandated 

responsibilities, each month each court is responsible for assembling and transmitting to the Administrative Office certain data extracted from the court’s docket. In 

addition, certain reports must be prepared and filed. The Administrative Office uses 

these data to compile statistical information about the work of the federal courts. 

The Administrative Office and circuit councils use the data to evaluate requests 

from district courts, such as for judicial assistance. The Administrative Office has 

developed training materials, which incorporate the use of CM/ECF.

1. Statistical reporting

The director of the Administrative Office is required to present statistical information on the caseload of the courts to the Judicial Conference and the Congress. 28 

U.S.C. § 604(a)(2), (3). Accordingly, each district court is responsible for extracting, 

correcting, and transmitting specific docket data to the Administrative Office. The 

data are compiled, analyzed, and published in statistical reports on the operations 

and caseloads of all federal courts (e.g., the Annual Report of the Director, Federal Court Management Statistics, Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics). In general, the 

court data are collected by the clerk of the court and sent to the Administrative 

Office electronically. In addition, each district judge must send a monthly report of 

trials and other judicial activity (Form JS10) to the Administrative Office, usually as 

an electronic online form.

The clerk of court is generally responsible for the accurate and timely processing 

of all the case-related statistical forms and the transmission to the Administrative 

Office of data extracted from the docket. These statistical reports provide information necessary to the effective operation of the court system and to meet congressional reporting responsibilities.

The Criminal Statistical Reporting Guide, the Civil Statistical Reporting Guide, 

and the Guide, Vol. 18, Ch. 3, contain explicit instructions on the preparation of 

manual statistical reports and the forms to be used. 

The Guide, Vol. 18, Ch. 5, § 510, also contains filing instructions for the district 

judge’s quarterly report of matters that have been under advisement for over 60 

days. These reports must be completed by the judges personally, and the chief judge 

should ensure that they are handled correctly and submitted on time.

While the statistical data provided to the Administrative Office and the programs and manuals relating to the collection and transmission of those data are 

used primarily by the clerk’s office, the chief judge should be aware of the statistical information available. Oversight of the statistical program will keep the judge 

informed of court operations and the possible need for internal changes. The statistical information is valuable both for internal court-management purposes and 

§ II.I
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

40

to prepare and justify requests for court resources. The Administrative Office can 

assist in preparing specially tailored reports, including weighted caseload by judge, 

division, and county and/or zip code within a district, as well as comparative analyses of specific aspects of a court’s caseload and/or case processing relative to other 

districts.

2. Intradistrict reports

The chief judge may choose to initiate an informal practice of periodic reporting 

within the district. The chief judge can access the district’s case-filing and case-management reports through the electronic case-management system. In order to obtain additional information not available through CM/ECF, the chief judge may ask 

that court units in the district submit periodic reports. Such reports generally focus 

less on statistics and more on the court’s accomplishments and problems, as well as 

projections for the future. Reports may include personnel data; budget information 

and projections for the next fiscal year; space and facilities information, especially 

if any changes, additions or renovations are planned or underway; the status of 

case-management or other courthouse issues; and any other topics relevant to the 

district as a whole.

The practice of intradistrict reporting to the chief judge varies from district to 

district. In districts where a chief judge initiates or continues such a reporting practice, it is advisable to apprise the entire district well in advance of any submission 

deadlines, as well as the topics to be covered and the specific format (if any) to be 

used.

§ II.I
41

III. The Chief District Judge and Case Management: 

Responsibilities and Options

The chief judge plays a role in many decisions affecting the district court’s disposition of cases, such as what type of case-assignment system to use, when to seek 

additional judicial assistance, and what procedures to use for such activities as juror selection and court reporting. Chief judges have also tried to ensure that the 

case-management systems used in their courts are effective, particularly in light of 

the Speedy Trial Act deadlines (18 U.S.C. §§ 3161–3174) and statutory reporting 

requirements for pending cases (28 U.S.C. § 476). Circuit judicial councils and chief 

circuit judges may also play a role in dealing with case-management problems.

A. Local Rules

1. Purpose

The use, and even the existence, of local rules has long been the subject of controversy, as has judicial rule making generally. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705 

(2010). District courts, and especially chief judges, should consider the purposes 

their local rules are to serve and the appropriate processes for their adoption, modification, and distribution to the bar.

Local rules generally should specify how lawyers and the court should proceed 

during litigation. In addition, a handbook or webpage for attorneys explaining 

court procedures, and perhaps significant variations in the practices of the court’s 

individual judges and magistrate judges, can assist attorneys in filing and preparing cases and thus reduce the number of questions they put to the clerk’s office. In 

adopting local rules, courts should consult with the bar, in addition to providing the 

statutorily required “appropriate public notice and opportunity for comment” (28 

U.S.C. § 2071(b)).

Local rules are usually not a good vehicle for documenting administrative practices, inasmuch as the Rules Enabling Act directs courts to submit their local rules to 

public notice and comment, and most aspects of the court’s internal administration 

are not appropriate matters for public comment. 

A preferable alternative may be to publish descriptions of the court’s administrative policies as internal operating procedures or general orders.

2. Authority, public comment, and distribution

The chief judge should oversee local rule making. The Rules Enabling Act, as well as 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 83 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57, authorize district courts, by majority action of their judges, to make and amend rules 

of practice that are not inconsistent with the federal rules. The Judicial Conference 
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

42

has adopted a numbering system for local rules that corresponds with the relevant 

federal rules of practice and procedure. See Fed. R. App. P. 47; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018 

and 9029; Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 83; and Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 57. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 83 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57 

both specify that the making and amending of local rules require public notice and 

comment. Likewise, 28 U.S.C. § 2071(b) requires “public notice and an opportunity 

for comment” before district courts can promulgate new rules, although a court 

may prescribe rules without public notice and opportunity for comment if “there 

is an immediate need” for the rule (28 U.S.C. § 2071(e)). Congress has also directed 

courts of appeals and district courts to appoint advisory rules committees to study 

their rules of practice and internal operating procedures and to make appropriate 

recommendations (28 U.S.C. § 2077(b)).

Local rules take effect when the district court directs, and those rules remain in 

effect unless the court amends them or the circuit judicial council abrogates them. 

Circuit judicial councils are required to review local rules periodically for consistency with the federal rules (28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(4)) and to modify or abrogate local 

rules that fail to comply.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 83 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57 

direct that copies of local rules be furnished to the circuit judicial council and the 

Administrative Office and be made available to the public. The miscellaneous fee 

schedules, promulgated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1930, allow the courts 

to charge fees for copies of the local rules, commensurate with the cost of providing 

either paper or electronic copies, or to distribute them free of charge. Courts have 

posted their local rules on their public websites, which can be accessed through the 

Internet at http://www.uscourts.gov. 

B. Places and Times of Holding Court

District courts, divisions of the court in some districts, and places of holding court 

are prescribed in 28 U.S.C. §§ 81–131. Section 141 of Title 28 authorizes special 

sessions of court. Although Congress has told district courts not to hold “formal 

terms” of court (28 U.S.C. § 138), in practice many courts continue to honor the 

concept, especially in districts with more divisions than judges. As a result, judges 

specify when they will be available at the various divisions. The court is to determine the times of holding court, and a court may pretermit a court session with 

circuit judicial council approval (28 U.S.C. §§ 139–140).

Occasional pressure to increase the number of places of holding court in a district, perhaps to benefit the local bar or enhance the prestige of a community, led the 

Judicial Conference to recommend that Congress establish new places of holding 

court only upon a strong showing of need, corroborated by data, and with the support of the chief district judge and circuit judicial council. The Conference will not 

consider proposals to change the geographical and organizational configurations 

§ III.A
43

The Chief District Judge and Case Management

of federal judicial districts unless both the district court and circuit judicial council 

have approved the change and filed a brief report with the Committee on Court 

Administration and Case Management summarizing their reasons.

C. Jury Matters

The Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861–1878, provides the judicial 

machinery for selecting federal juries. The chief judge should ensure that the court 

follows the statute and Judicial Conference policies and that the court has procedures in place to ensure compliance with the law. These include procedures for 

proper treatment of prospective jurors, juror orientation, and effective juror utilization. The chief judge should monitor the court’s jury utilization statistics. See Guide, 

Vol. 4, Ch. 3, for information on jury matters. 

The Administrative Office’s annual Report on Juror Utilization may also prove 

helpful. The Center has produced two media programs that courts can use for juror 

orientation: The Federal Grand Jury: The People’s Panel (2009) and Called To Serve

(2013), a program on petit juries. The Center sent DVD copies of these programs 

to all district courts. Additional copies can be ordered on FJC Online. The Administrative Office’s Handbook for Trial Jurors Serving in the United States District Courts

(October 2007) and Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors (October 2007) (Forms HB 

100 and 101) can be downloaded from the J-Net.

In some districts, instructing the grand jury is a function traditionally assumed 

by the chief district judge. The Center’s Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges

§ 7.04 (6th ed. 2013) includes grand jury instructions approved by the Judicial Conference.

D. Statutory and Other Requirements

1. Speedy Trial Act

The Speedy Trial Act of 1974, as amended (18 U.S.C. §§ 3161–3174), requires each 

district court to have a plan describing the court’s goals and performance under the 

Act. The chief district judge should be familiar with the court’s plan. 

The chief judge should give special attention to judicial emergencies and suspensions of the Act’s time limits. Although used sparingly, 18 U.S.C. § 3174(a) authorizes the chief district judge, “after seeking the recommendations of the planning 

group,” to apply to the circuit judicial council for a suspension of up to a year of the 

Act’s time limits for commencement of trial (18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)). Under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3174(e), the chief judge may also order a thirty-day suspension, but a request for 

a longer suspension pursuant to subsection (a) must be made by the chief judge to 

the council within ten days of the entry of such order.

§ III.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

44

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 (28 U.S.C. §§ 651–658) requires 

each district court to “devise and implement its own alternative dispute resolution 

program, by local rule adopted under [28 U.S.C.] section 2071(a), to encourage 

and promote the use of alternative dispute resolution in its district.” Under the Act, 

courts have a number of obligations, including providing litigants with at least one 

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process, adopting procedures for making ADR 

neutrals available, establishing qualifications and training requirements for neutrals, adopting local rules on confidentiality and disqualification of neutrals, and 

designating an employee or judge to administer the ADR program. 

The chief judge has no specific obligations under the Act but should ensure that 

the Act’s requirements are met. This responsibility could be delegated to another 

judge or to a committee of judges and bar members. Courts have found that an 

ADR program is more likely to meet the needs of judges and attorneys, and thus is 

more likely to be used, if both groups are involved in designing the program. The 

Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management 

has prepared Guidelines for Ensuring Fair and Effective Court-Annexed ADR (1997). 

The Federal Judicial Center’s Guide to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR (2001) 

provides information on the costs and benefits of various ADR procedures. 

3. Civil Justice Reform Act

Congress enacted the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 in response to a perception 

that civil litigation in federal district courts costs too much and takes too long. The 

Civil Litigation Management Manual was produced in response to the CJRA, under 

the direction of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and 

Case Management, with substantial contributions from the Federal Judicial Center 

and the Administrative Office. The Judicial Conference approved the second edition 

of the manual in March 2010. 

Although most CJRA provisions expired in 1997, the Conference’s May 1997 

final report to Congress included recommendations that remain in place:

• continue the use of attorney and other litigant representative advisory 

groups in the districts to assess the courts’ dockets and propose methods for 

reducing cost and delay;

• encourage judges in complex civil cases to set early and firm trial dates and 

shorter discovery periods;

• encourage district courts to make effective use of magistrate judges;

• increase the chief district judge’s role in case management;

• encourage use of intercircuit and intracircuit assignments of judges;

§ III.D
45

The Chief District Judge and Case Management

• extend education regarding efficient case management to the entire legal 

community; and

• where appropriate, encourage the use of electronic technologies in the district courts.

The report also endorsed the national statistical reporting requirements in the CJRA.

E. Case Assignments

Section 137 of Title 28 directs district courts to adopt rules or orders that specify 

how cases will be assigned to the individual district judges. The chief judge is “responsible for the observance of such rules and orders, and shall divide the business 

and assign the cases so far as such rules and orders do not otherwise prescribe.” The 

chief judge or the court sometimes delegates this responsibility to the most senior 

active judge in a division or court location.

1. Chief district judge’s caseload

The chief judge needs to decide whether to take a reduced caseload. Some chief 

judges are reluctant to reduce their caseloads, either because they fear appearing to 

shirk responsibilities that will devolve on other busy judges or because they regard 

resolving cases as the essence of a judgeship and thus a full caseload as their primary 

obligation. However, to create the conditions under which all judges can meet their 

responsibilities, the chief judge should give proper attention to a court’s systemic 

administrative needs. The conventional view, at least in larger courts, is that a chief 

judge should not carry a full caseload.

To reduce the caseload, the chief judge might take only criminal cases or only 

civil cases, or take a reduced percentage of case assignments—civil, criminal, or 

both. The chief judge can take responsibility for only particular types of cases or 

matters, such as pre-indictment motions or grand jury instructions. Reassignment 

of current cases is inefficient and impedes an effective case-management system.

Congress has assigned one type of case to chief district judges: rendering judgments on settlements accepted by the Attorney General in veterans’ suits over life 

insurance (38 U.S.C. § 1984(i)).

2. Random assignment

Most district courts use an automated case-assignment system, available from the 

Administrative Office—the system permits courts to use a variety of approaches to 

random assignment. For example, a court may decide simply to assign each new 

case randomly to the judges, or a court may decide to assign cases randomly within different divisions of the district or within categories of cases, such as civil and 

criminal or routine and complex. 

§ III.D
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

46

3. Protracted, difficult, or unusual cases

Most protracted, difficult, or unusual cases will be effectively handled by the judges 

to whom they are assigned, but at least two types of cases may require intervention 

by the chief judge: frivolous or repetitive litigation (frequently pro se) and assignments made by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

A litigant who files repeated cases generally viewed as meritless is a court problem rather than simply a problem of the judges who happen to receive the cases. 

Courts also have specific obligations under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 

(Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321) to screen cases filed by prisoners to determine 

whether the cases should be docketed or dismissed.

The burden placed on the court by repetitive litigation can be alleviated in two 

ways. First, all cases from the litigant can be assigned to the judge who received the 

litigant’s first case. This approach provides some means of monitoring issues that 

the court has already dismissed, but it might unduly burden a single judge. Second, 

the court or the appropriate committee can order the clerk of court to accept no 

more pleadings from the litigant without approval of the chief district judge or 

another designated judge, who may be assisted by a pro se law clerk in reviewing 

the complaints. This approach focuses responsibility and relieves most of the court 

of the burden of dealing with the problem. A danger with either approach is that 

continual meritless pleadings of “frequent filers” might obscure the infrequent meritorious claims that such litigants might file.

Transfer of a case to a district judge by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 

Litigation may also affect the ability of a district judge or a district court to manage its caseload. The statute authorizing MDL transfers (28 U.S.C. § 1407(b)) calls 

for the consent of the district court before making such an assignment. If faced 

with a request for the court’s consent to such a transfer, it is appropriate to discuss 

with the district judge the anticipated impact of the transfer, exploring, for example, 

any foreseeable need to modify future case assignments or redistribute the district 

judge’s current caseload. If the magnitude of the proposed transfer is large, other 

members of the district court may be consulted in deciding whether to consent to 

the transfer.

Random case-assignment systems can create unequal workloads if a judge gets 

an especially burdensome case along with a normal distribution. The Judicial Conference, while rejecting screening and assignment of difficult cases to judges on a 

nonrandom basis, has recommended (1) that districts with multicategory case-assignment systems consider establishing one or more categories for protracted or 

complex cases and (2) that districts consider establishing a procedure for voluntary 

transfer of an already-assigned case back to random assignment, incorporating into 

the procedure the need for an agreement between the chief judge and the judge 

originally assigned the case.

§ III.E
47

The Chief District Judge and Case Management

4. Cases under civil priority statutes

Some of the so-called civil priority statutes impose special case-assignment duties 

on the chief judge. For example, if neither the defendant nor the Attorney General asks for a three-judge panel in a voting rights case, or if the Attorney General 

certifies a public accommodations case or employment discrimination case as one 

of “general public importance” yet does not request a three-judge panel, the chief 

district judge is “to designate a judge” in the district to hear the case on an expedited basis. If no judge in the district is available, the chief district judge should ask 

the chief circuit judge to assign a judge (either district or circuit) to the district to 

hear the case. (See 42 U.S.C. § 1971(g), voting rights; 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-5(b), public 

accommodations; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(b), employment discrimination—in some 

districts, magistrate judges often hear these “expedited EEO cases”.)

The chief district judge is to order expedited treatment as well for civil RICO 

cases that are certified by the Attorney General to be of “general public importance” 

(18 U.S.C. § 1966). It is also the chief judge’s responsibility to advise the chief circuit judge when the Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice seeks an 

injunction in connection with pre-merger notification and waiting periods requirements, so that the chief circuit judge can appoint a district judge to hear the request 

(15 U.S.C. § 18a(f)).

F. Backlogs and Delays

1. Use of judges other than those in regular service in the district

A district court may call upon judges other than its complement of active district 

and magistrate judges to help deal with cases on a regular or special basis. Assistance 

is usually available from the district court’s own senior judges. In addition, Congress has authorized temporary intracircuit and intercircuit assignments of Article 

III judges to relieve backlogs or to assist courts whose resources are strained by 

recusal, vacancies, or judicial illness or disability (28 U.S.C. §§ 291, 292). There is 

also a statutory provision for emergency assignment of magistrate judges (28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(f)).

a. Chief district judge’s role

Requests for assistance from visiting Article III judges are usually initiated by the 

chief district judge and are made to the chief circuit judge. Once the request is made, 

procedures differ depending on whether the visiting judge comes from inside or 

outside the circuit. For intracircuit assignments, the chief circuit judge is authorized 

to designate circuit or district judges to serve temporarily on another district court 

within the circuit (28 U.S.C. §§ 291(b), 292(b)). In some circuits, judicial council 

committees or the circuit executive, with oversight by the chief circuit judge, may 

§ III.E
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

48

manage the intracircuit assignment process. Intercircuit assignments require the 

consent of the Chief Justice, who is authorized by statute to assign active circuit and 

district judges and judges of the Court of International Trade to serve temporarily 

on a district or appellate court of another circuit upon a chief circuit judge’s presentation of a certificate of necessity (28 U.S.C. §§ 291(a), 292(d), 293). The Administrative Office has posted forms and other guidance on visiting judges on the J-Net.

b. Standards for temporary intercircuit assignments

The Judicial Conference Committee on Intercircuit Assignments assists the Chief 

Justice in making temporary assignments of Article III judges. The committee develops guidelines in consultation with the Chief Justice to provide direction to the 

committee and courts seeking temporary help (Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 5, § 530.20).

Circuits lending active judges cannot borrow judges from other circuits, and 

those borrowing active judges cannot lend judges. However, this “lender/borrower rule” does not apply to senior judges or in situations in which all judges of the 

borrowing court have been disqualified in the case in question. With respect to active judges, the lender/borrower rule may also be relaxed in appropriate situations 

provided the chief district judge of the lending court is consulted to ensure that the 

needs of that court are met first. The chief circuit judge must consent to the assignment of an active judge from that circuit, but senior judges can consent to their own 

assignment.

A judge assigned to work on an appellate court should serve for at least one regular sitting on the circuit to which he or she is assigned. A judge assigned to work 

on the general calendar of a district court should serve at least two weeks.

The Judicial Conference has also approved guidelines for intracircuit and intercircuit assignments of magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636(f) (Guide, Vol. 3, 

Ch. 7, § 720), and intercircuit assignments of bankruptcy judges under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 155(a) (Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 6, § 630).

c. Host court’s responsibilities to visiting judges

When a visiting judge is assigned, the district court and the chief district judge have 

several responsibilities. These responsibilities often fall immediately to the clerk of 

court. When a division in a multidivision court is to receive visiting judges, the responsibilities should be assigned to personnel in that division.

Visiting judges and their staff should be provided with suitable hotel accommodations, adequate chambers and courtroom arrangements, and support staff when 

needed. Judicial Conference guidelines allow a judge on assignment to bring up to 

two staff members; the host court is expected to furnish any additional staff. Whenever possible, the host court should ensure that a courtroom deputy and other support services are available.

§ III.F
49

The Chief District Judge and Case Management

The host court should also make sure that the visiting judge’s cases are ready 

for trial, a task that is frequently overlooked. Some courts use a “visiting judge’s 

checklist” to guide clerk’s office personnel in reviewing each case to be certain that a 

pretrial conference has been held and no motions are undecided when the judge arrives. The visiting judge should receive a copy of the complaint and response (or the 

indictment), any pretrial orders, and other necessary papers. A telephone discussion 

with the judge can ensure that everything needed is available.

It is important for the clerk to schedule cases to accommodate the judge’s visit 

and then to advise attorneys of the trial dates. Suggestions regarding visiting judges 

are presented in The Use of Visiting Judges in the Federal District Courts: A Guide for 

Judges and Court Personnel (Federal Judicial Center 2006 update).

2. Chief district judges and case delay 

Many chief district judges regard dealing with delayed civil cases as one of their 

responsibilities, although there are no statutory provisions directing them to do so 

and there is no agreed-upon definition of “case delay.” Working with the clerk of 

court, the chief judge—or a judge designated by the chief judge—should routinely 

examine the court’s caseload statistics and the reports described in section F.3 of 

this chapter.

Reducing case delay can be difficult, particularly when the delay appears to be 

the result of a judge’s inability to manage his or her caseload. Some courts have established “calendar committees” to relieve the chief judge of the day-to-day responsibility for monitoring caseloads and resolving problems of case delay.

Whether case delay is pervasive throughout the court or limited to certain judges, the first step in reducing it is to identify the extent and causes of delay. This begins with analysis of the case-management data, but more is required than simply 

perusing statistical reports. It is important to discuss and analyze the reports at 

judges’ meetings or in other forums and to plan a court-wide effort to reduce delay.

When case delay is a problem of a specific judge, the chief judge (or a designee) 

can meet informally with that judge to try to understand the cause and determine 

what help might be needed. The circuit judicial council can assist. A letter or telephone call from the chief circuit judge requesting an inquiry about a judge’s delinquent cases can provide an opportunity to raise the issue with that judge. One 

possible remedy in this situation is to shift cases from the judge with the backlog to 

other judges, although that may penalize judges who manage their caseloads more 

efficiently.

Delay in civil litigation is sometimes beyond the court’s control. Some delay is 

a natural consequence of the particular litigation. Sometimes delay results from the 

impact of criminal filings on the civil docket, extended judicial vacancies, or related 

proceedings. When case delay results from factors largely beyond the court’s con-

§ III.F
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

50

trol, consider recording that situation in brief memoranda for reference in responding to inquiries from the circuit judicial council or the media.

However, case delay sometimes results from poor case management or other 

factors within the court’s or individual judge’s control. Some court-wide changes 

that chief district judges have made or encouraged to help their courts deal with 

unacceptably large numbers of delayed cases include

• giving judges time off from criminal cases to concentrate on delayed civil 

cases;

• adjusting the civil-assignment system to temporarily suspend or reduce case 

assignments to a judge who has fallen behind;

• assigning cases by type or complexity to provide greater balance in judges’ 

workloads (see section E of this chapter);

• ensuring that new judges do not receive a disproportionate number of old 

cases or cases other judges simply do not want to handle;

• making greater use of magistrate judges (including encouraging parties to 

consent to trials by magistrate judges);

• making better use of ADR processes;

• placing limits on trial length and discovery;

• making better use of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42 (concerning consolidation and bifurcation) and 56 (concerning summary judgment);

• requesting help from visiting judges;

• encouraging senior judges to assist by taking cases;

• using creative adaptations of calendaring systems as alternatives to the individual calendar system, including joint trial calendars and pairing of judges 

to assume trial assignments;

• borrowing law clerks; and

• loaning to judges with case delays the extra personnel to which chief district 

judges are entitled.

A useful tool for dealing with case delay is the Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition (2010). 

In addition to all of these measures to help alleviate delay, it is important to 

establish an expectation that judges will take case management seriously and be 

committed to furthering the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of their cases. 

The chief judge can bolster this expectation greatly by setting a good example of 

effective case management.

§ III.F
51

The Chief District Judge and Case Management

3. Circuit judicial councils and case-flow management 

Statutory provisions authorize the circuit judicial council’s oversight of case-flow 

management and intervention in poorly administered district courts. The councils’ 

statutory charter holds that “regular business of the courts need not be referred to 

the council” except when “an impediment to the administration of justice is involved” (28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(3)). However, as noted, the statute also provides a circuit judicial council with the blanket mandate to “make all necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within its 

circuit” (28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1)), and directs “[a]ll judicial officers and employees of 

the circuit . . . [to] promptly carry into effect all orders of the judicial council” (28 

U.S.C. § 332(d)(2)).

The circuit judicial councils are to be provided with statistical data involving district court dockets. Administrative Office statistical reports are first received by the 

chief circuit judge, who is then required by 28 U.S.C. § 332(c) to submit the reports 

to the council for “such action thereon as may be necessary.” The Administrative 

Office must “prepare and transmit semiannually to the chief judges of the circuits, 

statistical data and reports as to the business of the courts” (28 U.S.C. § 604(a)(2)). 

Pursuant to this charge, the Administrative Office distributes its Judicial Business 

of the United States Courts. The data and reports, along with the director’s recommendations, are “public documents” also submitted to the Judicial Conference, the 

Attorney General, and Congress (28 U.S.C. § 604(a)(2)–(4)).

A semiannual public report, which 28 U.S.C. § 476 directs the Administrative 

Office to prepare, contains, for each district judge and magistrate judge, lists of 

motions pending for more than six months, bench trials submitted more than six 

months ago, and civil cases pending for more than three years. Additional reports, 

required by the Judicial Conference, show Social Security cases and bankruptcy appeals that are pending beyond acceptable time frames. The Judicial Conference has 

adopted uniform standards for determining when cases and motions are subject 

to the reporting requirements. Any questions regarding reporting requirements 

should be addressed to the Administrative Office.

§ III.F
52

IV. The Chief District Judge and Representing the Court 

A. Outside Groups

1. The public

The chief judge usually represents the court at various public events and official ceremonies and often receives speaking invitations from bar groups and civic groups. 

The court should also have procedures in place for dealing with groups that visit 

the courthouse and with the public generally (including procedures for what to do 

if it appears a visitor to the court may become violent or attempt to disrupt a court 

proceeding). 

The Federal Judicial Center brochure, Welcome to the Federal Courts (2013), 

helps federal courts explain their function and introduce visitors to the courthouse. 

It is available on FJC Online, and courts can order printed copies from the Administrative Office to have available for court visitors. The Center has a Web-based 

program called Inside the Federal Courts, which explains the role and organization 

of the federal courts, as well as the civil, criminal, appellate, and bankruptcy processes. It is available to the public at http://www.fjc.gov. Judges and court officers 

who speak about the courts to community and civic groups can refer to the History 

of the Federal Judiciary page on FJC Online and on the Center’s Internet site—

these pages contain talking points on the federal judiciary, its origins, and judicial 

independence. The history site also contains teaching materials about historically 

significant cases in the federal courts. 

The Administrative Office publishes and distributes the publication Understanding the Federal Courts, which is available on the J-Net and on the judiciary’s 

public website, http://www.uscourts.gov. In addition, the Administrative Office operates a community and educational outreach program and makes available materials to assist courts that want to participate in outreach events (e.g., student Law Day 

programs). See section IV.A.4, infra, concerning international visitors. 

2. The bar

a. Admission

The court has considerable discretion as to the procedures for admitting attorneys 

to its bar. Mail-in procedures and definite times for any swearing-in ceremonies can 

simplify the process.

b. Conduct and disciplinary action 

Traditionally, attorney licensing and discipline have been within the sphere of state 

authority (this can create special problems in the case of federal prosecutors). Federal court rules often vary from state rules and sometimes conflict with them. Inter-
53

The Chief District Judge and Representing the Court

pretations of even the same written text may differ. Most districts simply incorporate the state rules of professional responsibility as the source of substantive ethical 

standards. In multidistrict states, different districts may take different approaches.

The Judicial Conference approved the Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement of the American Bar Association in 1978, and amendments in 1979 and 

1984. These rules provide, inter alia, for courts to inform the ABA National Lawyer 

Regulatory Data Bank of their disciplinary actions so that all courts will have access 

to information on disciplinary action taken by any court against an attorney. The 

Conference has urged all courts to adopt the Model Rules and emphasized the importance of reporting disciplinary actions to “all licensing authorities with jurisdiction over the attorney or attorneys disciplined.” 

c. Admission fees

The court may retain attorney admission fees that it collects in excess of the Judicial 

Conference minimum and use them “only for purposes which benefit the members 

of the bench and the bar in the administration of justice” (Guide, Vol. 13, Ch. 12, 

§ 1220). Examples of such purposes are attorney admission proceedings, attorney 

discipline proceedings, periodicals and publications for court libraries for which 

appropriated funds are not available, lawyer lounge facilities, and charts and stands 

for courtroom use. Attorney admission fees may not be used to supplement appropriated funds and may not be used to pay for materials or supplies available from 

statutory appropriations. Under no circumstances should such funds be used to 

supplement the salary of, or provide any benefit to, a court officer or employee. For 

policies and procedures relating to attorney admission fees, see Guide, Vol. 13, Ch. 

12.

d. Services

The chief judge is typically the initial contact between the court and members of the 

bar with regard to certain court services provided to attorneys. Courts frequently 

sponsor educational programs for members of the bar. Clerks often make presentations to bar groups or organize or participate in programs dealing with court procedures. Some clerks’ offices run periodic seminars on court procedures for legal secretaries or paralegals. All of these educational measures help to avoid problems with 

filings and thus reduce the work of the clerk’s office. By making attorneys aware of 

court requirements and encouraging compliance, these measures also reduce the 

need for the court to take remedial action.

The relationship of the clerk and the entire clerk’s office staff with attorneys is 

governed by the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees. All employees should be 

made aware of Canon 3C:

§ IV.A
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

54

A judicial employee should never influence or attempt to influence the assignment of cases, or perform any discretionary or ministerial function of the court in 

a manner that improperly favors any litigant or attorney, nor should the judicial 

employee imply that he or she is in a position to do so.

3. The media

Courts can do several things to assist the media. All courts have public websites 

on the Internet, which they can use to provide basic information about the court, 

including its location, contact information, calendars, rules, and procedures. The 

Administrative Office has produced a toolbox of resources for use in the design and 

development of court Internet websites; the toolbox is available on the J-Net. Some 

courts prepare press announcements on non-case subjects, such as appointments or 

retirements, the elevation of a judge to a higher court, the promulgation of new local rules, or the institution of new case-processing procedures, which can be posted 

on the court’s website as well as distributed to the media.

When members of the media contact the court, some courts either have public 

information officers or have designated someone knowledgeable in court processes and policies—usually the clerk of court or a person on the clerk’s staff—as the 

court’s liaison between journalists and judges or other court officials. That person 

must be made aware of areas that the court views as inappropriate for comment. 

Clerks and court staff are required by the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees 

to refrain from public comment about pending proceedings. Canon 3D should be 

brought to the attention of all employees:

A judicial employee should avoid making public comment on the merits of a 

pending or impending action and should require similar restraint by personnel 

subject to the judicial employee’s direction and control.

There is often significant media pressure when a case elicits intense public interest, 

and staff may need to be reminded of this prohibition. The Administrative Office 

can provide advice and assistance to courts on media relations.

The Federal Judicial Center’s Web-based program Inside the Federal Courts can 

help journalists learn about the role and organization of the federal courts. It is 

available on the Center’s public website, and many courts have links to it on their 

public websites.

4. International visitors

The judiciary often hosts foreign jurists who wish to learn more about the judicial system within the United States. In addition, judiciary representatives from the 

United States are sometimes invited by foreign representatives to visit their countries to learn about a country’s legal system or to assist its judiciary with legal reform 

efforts. The Judicial Conference’s Committee on International Judicial Relations co-

§ IV.A
55

The Chief District Judge and Representing the Court

ordinates with the numerous agencies and institutions involved with international 

judicial reform and the rule of law and provides information about judicial independence, legal traditions, and effective court administration in the United States. 

In addition, the Federal Judicial Center, through its International Judicial Relations 

Office, provides information to judicial and legal officials from foreign countries.

Neither the Committee nor the Center uses judiciary funds to conduct programs 

assisting foreign entities. Rather, support comes from the sponsoring organization, 

usually USAID, the State Department, a foundation, an international organization, 

or a foreign country. The Committee and the Center also do not initiate their own 

programs. Rather, they serve as resources to other organizations, responding to requests for assistance to the extent it is appropriate and feasible. Judges and court 

administrators are encouraged to complete the Committee’s online questionnaire 

concerning international activity. This questionnaire seeks to identify the international interests, experiences, and special abilities of judges and court professionals 

to link requests for assistance to those individuals who might best be able to apply 

the assistance.

Both the Center and the Administrative Office have developed materials about 

the federal judiciary that have been translated into other languages, as well as materials for judges to use when speaking to foreign visitors. These can be found on the 

international judicial relations pages on FJC Online and on the J-Net.

B. Other Government Agencies 

1. U.S. attorney

Each district has a U.S. attorney, whose responsibility is to “prosecute or defend, for 

the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is 

concerned . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 547(2). The U.S. attorney is appointed by the President 

with the consent of the Senate for a four-year term (28 U.S.C. § 541) and may continue to serve beyond the four-year term until a successor is appointed. In the event 

of a vacancy in the office of a U.S. attorney, the U.S. Attorney General may appoint 

an interim U.S. attorney until the vacancy is filled, but not for longer than 120 days. 

If no permanent presidential appointment is confirmed by the Senate within that 

time, the district court may appoint a U.S. attorney to serve until the vacancy is 

filled (28 U.S.C. § 546(d)). Maintaining liaison with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on 

matters such as scheduling, prisoner handling, and courthouse operation contributes to the efficient operation of the district court. 

2. General Services Administration (GSA)

The General Services Administration (GSA) is an executive branch agency that 

serves, in effect, as the landlord for executive agencies and the federal judiciary. It is 

§ IV.A
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

56

responsible for courthouse construction, renovation, and maintenance. Generally, 

the field office manager (or, for a building operated through Commercial Facility 

Management, the commercial facility manager) is the primary GSA official responsible for maintaining GSA-operated buildings. 

3. U.S. Marshals Service and Federal Protective Service

See Chapter II.D.2.a, supra, on court security.

4. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a legislative branch agency, 

studies the performance and expenditures of the federal government, primarily executive branch agencies. It performs most of its studies at the request of Congress. 

The GAO occasionally conducts studies of federal judicial administration. GAO reports sometimes become the source of congressional inquiries at the time of the 

courts’ appropriations hearings. They may also be referred to the Judicial Conference and result in internal recommendations for change.

The GAO conducts field research in the courts, often interviewing judges and 

support personnel, as well as Judicial Conference members or committee chairpersons and Administrative Office and Federal Judicial Center staff. The GAO sometimes selects particular districts as illustrative and subjects them to more intensive 

analysis.

The GAO usually advises the Administrative Office when it proposes to contact particular district courts and personnel, whereupon the Administrative Office 

advises the chief district judge to anticipate the GAO request. A chief district judge 

who is contacted by the GAO but has not heard from the Administrative Office 

should contact the Administrative Office.

5. State and local courts

Good working relationships with state and local courts in a district court’s jurisdiction can help a district court resolve scheduling conflicts. Courts should explore 

sharing some services, such as jury rolls, and should promote cooperation in addressing common problems. In some states, councils of state and federal judges 

meet periodically to promote cooperation and coordination between the two judiciaries. The Manual for Cooperation Between State and Federal Courts (Federal 

Judicial Center 1997) describes the work of state–federal judicial councils as well as 

numerous other less formal means of cooperation and collaboration between state 

and federal courts. 

§ IV.B
57

V. The Chief District Judge as Leader: Doing What’s Best for 

the Court

Many judges become chief judge with no formal training and limited practical experience in leading and managing an organization. Hence, many chief judges, especially new ones, express interest in learning about leadership. This chapter, based 

largely on reported experiences of chief judges and other leaders, suggests leadership 

principles and techniques that chief judges may want to adopt, particularly when 

they first begin their duties as chief judge. While other chapters of this deskbook 

are about “what” and “why,” this chapter is about “how.” The topics are not in order 

of importance; their importance will vary from judge to judge and from court to 

court. At the end of the chapter are several scenarios involving court-management 

issues to help chief judges prepare for and anticipate possible leadership challenges 

before they arise.

A. Making the Transition to Leader

Some courts, primarily larger ones, have mechanisms for preparing an incoming 

chief judge for the position. For example, in some courts an incoming chief judge 

chairs one of the court’s management committees (see Chapter II.A.1, supra), represents the court on the circuit judicial council, or otherwise is brought into the 

court’s management and administrative decision making processes. Even in the absence of formal transition practices, some outgoing chief judges prepare their successors by, for example, including them in management meetings with court unit 

executives, copying them on management-related letters, memoranda, and emails, 

and briefing them on significant management issues facing the court. 

Below are three steps a new chief judge can take to assume leadership during 

the transition period shortly before and immediately after taking the office of chief 

judge. 

1. Learning about the court 

Just as in judging cases, the job of chief judging requires making the best decisions 

possible with the facts available at the time. Gathering the facts needed to make 

management decisions involves collecting information and educating oneself. But, 

while judging cases requires being detached and impersonal, leading depends on 

personal relationships that inspire confidence and commitment in others. 

Early visits with the clerk of court and other unit executives are a good first step 

toward gathering facts and building relationships. These meetings will help the new 

or incoming chief judge get better acquainted with the unit executives and learn 

more about each unit executive’s operations and major areas of emphasis and concern, such as finance, procurement, IT, and human resources. Whether to discuss 
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

58

ideas and goals or more specific expectations for the unit executives at these initial 

meetings will depend on the circumstances. Unit executives and other employees 

will want some guidance, but the new chief may need to learn more about the organization and its people and to discuss initiatives with colleagues before proposing specific goals, especially if they may involve major change. The first goal at the 

outset is to create an atmosphere in the court in which the staff know that they can 

communicate openly with the chief judge.

Similarly, a new chief judge who is not well acquainted with the chief circuit 

judge, the circuit executive, or the district’s chief bankruptcy judge should try to 

meet with these individuals before or soon after becoming chief. Use the chief judge 

orientation at the Administrative Office to get acquainted with their offices and staff 

and to learn whom to call when help is needed. Other valuable sources of guidance 

and information include the Compendium of Chief Judge Authorities (May 2013) 

and the Management Oversight and Stewardship Handbook (reissued July 2003), 

both published by the Administrative Office and available on the J-Net.

It is also good to establish contacts with outside agencies and constituencies 

in anticipation of future needs. Even a judge with long-standing personal contacts 

with the local media, law school and other educational personnel, and the state judiciary may find it helpful to meet with them upon becoming chief judge to enhance 

lines of communication and cooperation. The chief judge’s contacts with outside 

agencies are likely to multiply and to expand to include institutions like GSA.

And, of course, talking with the other judges on the court, finding out what 

problems they have, and asking them what help they need, not only educates the 

new chief judge but helps to establish him or her as the leader among coequals. 

2. Changing perspective

District judges do much of their work in isolation, especially those in smaller districts who may sit in single-judge courthouses or other remote offices separated 

by distance from other judges. Judges become used to working and thinking independently. When judges think of “court management,” they may focus on what they 

need to manage their own chambers and caseloads. 

Court governance, however, involves the common good. Chief judges must expand their perspective from managing their chambers to managing the court as an 

institution. Instead of “What is best for my court?” the chief judge must consider 

“What is best for the court?” Sometimes that means disappointing one or more 

colleagues or employees for the sake of achieving a court-wide good. Sometimes 

it means declining to take an expedient short-term solution in the interest of accomplishing a longer-term goal. Sometimes it means shielding the clerk of court 

from other judges who are trying to influence decisions, for example, about space 

or equipment. “What is best for the court” is the standard by which the chief judge 

§ V.A
59

The Chief District Judge as Leader

should measure all management decisions and is the ultimate goal of court governance.

3. Establishing leadership

Acquiring the title of “chief judge” occurs by operation of law. Acquiring the respect 

of one’s colleagues and staff and earning their acceptance as “leader” occurs over 

time and as a result of the chief judge’s conduct and actions.

Experienced chief judges recommend that a new chief establish leadership slowly but consistently. Leadership should become part of the chief judge’s daily activity. 

Below are some steps that a new chief judge can take to build a leadership style so 

that other judges and court staff will look upon him or her as leader:

• Communicate information regularly

• Walk around and talk to other judges and court staff often. One-on-one 

conversations are particularly important with people at all levels. 

• Send memos, messages, and notes thanking people and congratulating people on milestones and achievements, or to mark holidays or other special 

occasions for the court.

• Ask people what they need to do their job better.

• Offer suggestions for others to consider. But be careful not to appear to micromanage, particularly at the outset. Leading is about providing direction, 

not necessarily providing answers. 

B. Leadership and Management Skills and Techniques

One chief judge defined “leadership” this way: 

Leadership doesn’t mean doing everything yourself. It means making the ultimate decisions, but using all of the resources at your disposal to do what is best for 

the court.

There is no “best way” to lead a court, or any organization, and no single set of 

guidelines on how to be a good leader. Moreover, the court’s needs and management 

priorities may vary over time. The ten subsections below present some basic leadership practices that experienced chief judges, as well as executives and managers 

outside of the courts, recommend. In addition, new chief judges can read articles 

on leadership and management in the business sections of national newspapers and 

magazines, and can consult books on management, some of which are listed in the 

bibliography.

1. Enhancing collegial leadership

In a collegial organization like a district court, colleagues share authority and responsibility to one degree or another. Effective chief judges use good-faith consul-

§ V.A
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

60

tations and, in many cases, joint decision making to produce effective outcomes. As 

one chief judge said:

Talk to other judges and solicit their points of view when it’s appropriate to do 

so. You may not always be able to reach consensus, but it’s important that you try 

to do so, especially when it comes to major issues that affect the court as a whole.

Methods for keeping colleagues informed and involved vary with the size and 

geography of the court. They include holding scheduled meetings with a prepublished agenda (consider teleconferencing or using other technology to meet when 

schedules and distance make it difficult for all to attend meetings); holding informal 

meetings regularly over lunch or coffee; systematically forwarding relevant correspondence from the circuit, the Administrative Office, the Federal Judicial Center, 

and similar sources; and sending email updates on key matters. Involving other 

judges in court management, on committees or as single liaisons, helps keep others 

informed and interested in the court’s administration.

Another tool for encouraging judges to be involved in court administration and 

for enhancing collegiality is a local orientation program for new judges that complements the orientation programs of the Center and the Administrative Office. A 

local orientation program can introduce a new judge to his or her duties and the 

practices and procedures followed in the court. It can also give the new judge a sense 

of appreciation and responsibility for the court as an institution and for the other 

judges and staff who work in it. Chapter II.B.1.a, supra, provides further discussion 

of local orientation programs for new judges.

2. Building relationships

Chief judges should build on their relationships with all of the court’s constituencies, especially colleagues and court unit executives. As President Lyndon B. Johnson 

famously said: “The best time to make friends is before you need them.” Cultivate 

these relationships by keeping people informed, soliciting their views, recognizing 

their achievements, and, when necessary, making corrections. All of this contributes 

to solid relationships.

Schedule regular, routine meetings with unit executives. Although some meetings and contacts may offer no immediate payback, they are of lasting value in creating an atmosphere in which staff know that they can communicate openly. “It 

gives them the confidence that they can communicate little problems before they 

become big problems,” one chief judge said. 

Small gestures can say and mean a lot. A thank-you is always welcome, particularly when it is delivered in person or in a handwritten note. Some courts have staff 

appreciation events at which judges, for example, serve breakfast to staff. Celebrations and other events offer opportunities for the chief judge to talk with people 

one on one. As leadership expert R. Dale Lefever advised chief judges at a Center 

§ V.B
61

The Chief District Judge as Leader

workshop on leadership, “People won’t care how much you know until they know 

how much you care.” 

3. Listening

Being a good listener is a key to successful leadership. Chief judges have no doubt 

developed listening skills in the courtroom that they can put to good use in their 

leadership role, but listening as a leader is different from listening as a judge. “You 

have to listen very carefully and have to, at first, withhold your views,” one former 

chief judge said. “You need to seek to coalesce people around an idea and find consensus. That’s the most effective way, as opposed to saying ‘here’s the strategy that 

we’re going to follow.’” 

The more someone knows about the organization and, especially, the people in 

it, the more effective he or she can be as a leader. “Get as much information as possible from as many sources as possible,” one chief judge said. By visiting and talking 

with staff informally at their work sites, a leader may learn things that people would 

be less likely to talk about in a different setting. Moreover, a visit by the leader can 

boost employees’ morale, even if it is just to say “hello.” 

Avoid getting hung up on rank or protocol. Court staff are usually deferential 

to judges and to chief judges in particular, and while that may contribute to the 

dignity of the court, it could also insulate the chief judge from very real and necessary feedback to improve the court’s management. People in the lowest ranks of 

the official hierarchy often have helpful insights about the organization’s activities 

and performance and should be encouraged to share them. A good example comes 

from a Navy ship commander, whose casual conversation with a sailor helped him 

discover that he could save thousands of dollars in paint costs by switching to rustproof fittings on the ship—a practice that is now standard Navy-wide.8

 Leaders like 

this commander have discovered a basic truth: it’s not a person’s rank but a person’s 

knowledge that counts in making organizational improvements. 

4. Consulting

Closely related to good listening skills is effective consultation. Consider who should 

be involved in various decisions and how to reach well-informed decisions and consensus efficiently. Failure to consult adequately can lead to poor decisions and lack 

of support. “People will accept a decision if they participate in making it,” one chief 

judge said, emphasizing the need for “buy-in.” This does not mean including everyone who might have an interest in every meeting, but at least weigh the potential 

costs of exclusion when determining whom to invite.

8. D. Michael Abrashoff, Retention Through Redemption, Harv. Bus. Rev., Feb. 2001, at 137–41.

§ V.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

62

Make a special effort to include in a meeting or decision-making process those 

who are not inclined to agree with your own positions. One chief judge said: “Get 

dissenting opinions, with no repercussions for dissenting.” Another said to “allow 

people to disagree and vent, but always keep your focus on what’s best for the court.” 

Be mindful of what psychologists call “groupthink,” the tendency of decision-making groups to form a consensus before making a sufficiently rigorous analysis of their assumptions or the consequences of their beliefs. Groups can quickly 

form the illusion of consensus and block out any dissenting opinions. Ask lots of 

questions, question assumptions, and, as new information and perspectives emerge, 

be willing to go back over ground that may have been covered already. 

When a decision is made, continue to build consensus by giving credit to all 

who participated in the process. “Have no ego,” one chief judge said. “Pass the credit 

around.” 

5. Sharing information

Keeping people informed is an important element of leadership. Often, people fail 

to follow procedures, policies, or priorities not because they disagree with them but 

simply because they are operating with different information. 

The chief judge is uniquely positioned to facilitate information sharing. The 

court’s internal website provides numerous possibilities, such as newsletters, blogs, 

announcements, and other notices. Regular meetings are important, as are informal events such as brownbag lunches, after-hours get-togethers, and celebrations 

of special occasions. The chief judge can encourage and monitor communications 

without originating every communication or being present at every event.

Do not be afraid to repeat the same message. “Even if you’ve already said it, say it 

again,” one chief judge advised. This is especially important, for example, in difficult 

budgetary times, when the message about cost consciousness cannot be repeated 

often enough. 

6. Persuading 

Management expert Jay Conger describes “effective persuasion [as] a negotiating 

and learning process through which a persuader leads colleagues to a problem’s 

shared solution.” He identifies four essential steps to effective persuasion:

1. Establish credibility. In the workplace, credibility grows out of two sources: 

expertise and relationships.

2. Frame goals in a way that identifies common ground with those to be persuaded. Even a goal with a lot of credibility must identify shared benefits. 

This often means viewing the world not through one’s own eyes, but through 

the eyes of those to be led—and asking “What’s in it for me?”

§ V.B
63

The Chief District Judge as Leader

3. Use various kinds of evidence. Effective persuaders supplement numerical 

data with examples, stories, metaphors, and analogies to make their positions come alive.

4. Connect on a personal level. Good persuaders show their own strong commitment to the position they are advocating. More important, effective persuaders have a good sense of their audience’s attitude and feelings, and they 

adjust the tone of their arguments accordingly. Effective persuaders often 

canvass key staff members who have a good feel for the mood and expectations of those to be persuaded and test possible reactions to proposals in 

advance.9

Commands are not likely to be effective in today’s workforce. This may be especially true in courts, not only with respect to other judges, but also as to employees. 

Senior employees are often far more familiar with their office’s or section’s work 

than the chief judge is. Moreover, senior employees know that the tenure of an individual chief judge is limited. Court employees can generally be counted on to fulfill 

their duties capably, but, like employees everywhere, they are more likely to pursue a 

given course of action when they are convinced of its value. Persuade by consensus. 

Find shared values and emphasize “what is good for the court.” 

7. Clarifying expectations

Clear expectations are essential in relations with the key managers in the court. 

Court unit executives are almost always highly skilled and capable professionals on 

whom the chief judge will rely heavily. But even those who have extensive experience in running court operations need to understand what the chief judge wants, 

and the chief needs to understand what they want. Think of court governance as a 

collegial process, a partnership between the judges and court unit executives.

Two things that most employees want (and all need) are guidance and feedback. 

The clerk of court, the chief probation officer, and the chief pretrial services officer 

should each know what the chief judge sees as the most important things they must 

do in their jobs. These are the four or five things on which the chief judge will evaluate their performance. Court managers deserve answers to the questions, “What 

is expected of me?” and “How will I know that I am successful at my job?” The response should focus on the results the chief judge expects, relative to specific tasks 

and responsibilities. For example, is it the number of docket entries per day that is 

important? Or is it a reduction in problems with chambers? The more specific the 

guidance, the better these managers will be able to prioritize their work, and the 

fewer surprises there should be. 

9. Jay Conger, The Necessary Art of Persuasion, Harv. Bus. Rev., May–June 1998, at 86.

§ V.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

64

It is important to have difficult conversations early, especially when the court is 

confronting management challenges. As one management expert puts it, “prevention is better than intervention.”10

8. Monitoring the court

The chief judge must reinforce his or her expectations of court managers. Just saying what is expected carries little weight if there is no feedback or follow-up. Monitoring the court necessitates monitoring performance and providing candid and 

constructive comments on it. Lack of feedback can lead to complacency in an underperforming employee and frustration in an excelling worker. It is important to 

correct a failure to meet standards, to recognize when standards are met, and to 

reward superior performance.

Monitoring performance does not mean “micromanagement.” The mechanisms 

for supervision, and the level of detail involved, vary. Mechanisms include regular 

meetings, activity reviews, reports, and briefings. Occasional visits to court officers 

(“management by walking around”) can be an effective way to check on things that 

would never appear in a report. 

Delegating some oversight activities to colleagues can make monitoring more 

efficient. “You can’t do it all yourself,” one former chief judge cautions. “Even in the 

small districts you can have one or more of your colleagues develop particular areas 

of expertise.” The important thing is for the chief judge to stay sufficiently informed 

and to ensure that others are informed in order to identify potential problems and 

deal with them early. When a problem does arise, assess it fully and take prompt 

corrective action if necessary.

9. Dealing with problems

There is no textbook solution for dealing with problems, particularly people problems. Problems come in all forms, and most do not have a perfect—or sometimes 

even a very good—solution. As one chief judge said, “Some problems are just facts.” 

Nevertheless, problems seldom get better with time, and it is usually best to confront an issue early, before it becomes a major problem.

When a leader is faced with a problem, careful gathering of the facts, accompanied by objectivity, common sense, and compassion for the people affected, are important elements in finding a solution. Identify resources that are available to help 

with the problem. Moreover, consulting with colleagues (such as chief judges of 

other similar size district courts), key staff, and appropriate subject-matter experts 

almost always contributes to a better solution.

10. R. Dale Lefever, Leadership Role of the Chief District Judge (Federal Judicial Center, Apr. 24, 2013).

§ V.B
65

The Chief District Judge as Leader

Particularly difficult are problems associated with the performance of another 

judge, such as physical or mental infirmity. These problems require sensitivity to 

the judge’s professional independence and personal pride. Formal mechanisms exist (see Chapter II.B.1.g, supra) but are not always required. It is usually helpful to 

discuss possible approaches with colleagues, the chief circuit judge, the circuit executive, or another trusted adviser, but take care to protect the privacy and reputation 

of the judge in question. Seeking the advice of a doctor or other professional may 

also be useful. Having a close friend and trusted colleague discuss the problem in a 

sensitive but candid way with the judge concerned has worked in some situations. 

Judges falling behind on their work is another occasional problem. If the problem is temporary—owing to illness or an exceptionally large and complex case—

several tools are available, such as temporarily reallocating work or requesting visiting judges from inside or outside the circuit (see Chapter III.F, supra). Chronic 

problems are more difficult. Many courts circulate to all judges reports of caseloads 

and backlogs of all judges in the court. This approach creates an incentive for all to 

carry their share, but it can also create resentment. Some courts gather to discuss 

techniques that individual judges and the court as an institution can use to expedite 

disposition of cases.

In some instances, the chief judge may wish to discuss the backlog with the 

judge concerned or ask another experienced colleague to do so. Again, approach 

the judge in a nonconfrontational way, which gives the judge concerned an opportunity to ask for help, and the chief judge an opportunity to offer it. If the problem 

continues, the chief judge may decide not to appoint the judge to positions within 

the court’s governing structure and may advise the chief circuit judge to consider 

the problem when making appointments to circuit positions and commenting on 

suitability for positions on Judicial Conference committees.

Another occasional challenge is helping the clerk of court or other staff deal 

with competing (and sometimes unrealistic) requests put to them by other judges. 

Some courts have internal policies that cover some of these issues and have committees of judges that review some categories of requests. The chief judge need not get 

involved personally in each problem, but should be accessible so that the clerk can 

discuss such matters with the chief discreetly. If the clerk is following established 

court policy, be especially careful before directing an exception. The chief judge 

should not micromanage the clerk’s office, nor allow other judges to micromanage 

it, but the perspective and stature of the chief are vital and can be uniquely instrumental in helping. 

10. Establishing a vision

Leadership and management literature is full of talk about “vision.” What is “vision,” 

where does it come from, and why is it important? Basically, “vision” refers to the 

§ V.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

66

core values and broad goals that the leader brings to the job. They become the guiding principles for setting priorities, making decisions, and executing policies.

To say that a chief judge should have vision does not mean defining the mission 

of the district court. That’s been done in the Constitution, in statutes and rules, and 

in mission statements that individual courts have adopted. Indeed, the mission is 

summed up well in Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: “to secure the 

just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of any action.” Within the confines of 

these authorities, however, there is room for emphasis on certain goals and values 

over others.

Nor does having a vision necessarily mean that every new chief judge should enter office with the intent of making major changes. Rather, “each new judge should 

think about ways to make the court better,” one chief judge said. Vision may be 

something quite measurable (like a new courthouse that serves the needs of the 

court and the public), or it may be more amorphous (like solid relations with the 

local bar or a district court workforce with a high sense of public service and ethics). 

One chief judge stated a goal to “demystify the legal process—to make the court a 

little friendlier place for others.” Another sought “to make our court as user-friendly 

as possible.” 

Unlike leaders in other sectors, who are often chosen at least in part for their 

demonstrated vision, a chief judge attains the position on the basis of the fortuity 

of birth and appointment dates. That provides a weak mandate and makes it necessary to adopt a vision that represents either an existing consensus or one that other 

judges will support.

Why is vision important for chief district judges? Some dismiss vision as something for the private sector. It is enough, they say, for government officials to know 

that they serve the “public interest.” In fact, when one considers the Speedy Trial 

Act and other statutes, jury management plans, court reporter plans, GSA requirements, circuit judicial council plans, and Administrative Office guidance and procedures—not to mention colleagues who point out that all judges on the court have 

the same certificate of appointment—one might well think that the last thing a chief 

judge needs to worry about is vision.

It is precisely because of all those pressures that some bigger picture of what the 

court should be is needed. Establishing a vision of the kind of court that the chief 

judge wants to promote—and that the rest of the court accepts—will provide a 

steady guide in the face of inevitable egos, power struggles, or turf wars. “It serves as 

the rudder for the ship you’re running,” one chief judge said. “Otherwise it’s more 

of a reaction—putting out fires, responding to problems.”

One government official put it this way:

You have to be prepared to have a daily interaction between the philosophical 

and the real. If you don’t allow for that you become a lunatic. You’re just a crazed 

participant in the political system. That’s something you have to comprehend. But 

§ V.B
67

The Chief District Judge as Leader

the penalty of not having a philosophy is a total lack of direction, getting easily 

bogged down, and atrophy.11

In short, “[u]nless you know where you’re going, and why, you cannot possibly get 

there.”12

C. Leadership and Management Scenarios

Below are several scenarios involving court management issues that the Federal Judicial Center uses in its workshop, the Leadership Role of the Chief District Judge. 

The scenarios are included here for consideration because, as one chief judge said, 

the best time to think about a problem is before it becomes a problem. At the workshop, new chief judges, with the assistance of faculty, including experienced chief 

judges, discuss the scenarios and how they might handle these issues in their court. 

The discussion questions are also included for consideration.

Scenario 1: Engaging the full court in budget reduction

With continuing budgetary constraints in the judiciary, there is considerable stress 

on the court’s ability to meet its mission. It will be important, therefore, for the 

chief judge to oversee the development of a budget that ensures the core services of 

the court are preserved and all options for reductions are fully reviewed (e.g., staff 

cuts and furloughs; a curb on spending for space renovations, staff training, judicial 

travel, and upgrades in technology). 

The severity of the budget reductions will require, for the first time, a courtwide approach where efficiencies across court units and even within chambers and 

support for senior judges will need to be part of this comprehensive review. Judicial 

Conference policy calls for examination of shared administrative services among 

court units. Such possible sharing affects not only the units and services involved, 

but all judges and staff who rely on such services. Also, decisions made at the national level could affect funding for chambers—but even if such central funding is 

untouched, to what degree can and should chambers “share the pain” as local funds 

are reduced? 

This court has five Article III judges, two senior judges, and two magistrate 

judges, as well as two bankruptcy judges, with two locations about 70 miles apart. 

In the past, the budget process has been managed by the chief judge and the three 

unit executives. However, the need to conduct a comprehensive review of the court’s 

budget will require a broader representation if the best decisions are to be made and 

full ownership of the final plan is to be achieved.

11. Kim Beazley, Australian Minister of Employment, Training and Education, quoted in Richard N. Haass, 

The Power to Persuade: How To Be Effective in Government, the Public Sector, or Any Unruly Organization 

(1994), at 43.

12. Warren Bennis, On Becoming a Leader 39–40 (1994).

§ V.B
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

68

Questions for discussion

• How would you inform the judges as to the scope and severity of the budget 

cuts and the impact of these reductions on the work of the court?

• How would you approach the judges regarding the need for chambers to 

participate in the development of a court-wide budget-reduction plan? 

• What strategies would you recommend for involving the bankruptcy court 

as well as probation and pretrial services?

• How would you work with the unit executives and solicit their ideas as to the 

proposals being considered for budget reductions? 

• How should the other judges be involved in the development of the final 

budget and the reductions that will need to be made?

• Would you consider using a committee of judges and unit executives to help 

resolve the budget issues facing the court?

• How would you deal with additional services associated specifically with 

criminal cases, including those provided by the Bureau of Prisons and the 

federal defenders, where budgets are equally constrained?

• What kinds of outreach would you attempt with your congressional delegation, to inform them of the consequences of budgetary constraints on the 

court’s operations?

Scenario 2: Preparing to manage judicial and staff transitions

The changing demographics and the realities of an aging workforce affect all organizations, but they have a special application for the courts, where often there is a 

lag time in the appointment of new Article III judges, uncertainties as to who will 

take senior status, as well as budget limitations in the replacement of senior staff. 

This court currently has four Article III judges, three senior judges, and three 

magistrate judges. Three of the four Article III judges are eligible to take senior 

status within the next twelve-month period when the youngest judge will become 

the chief judge. On the staff side, the clerk, after twenty-five years, has announced 

his retirement later this year with five of the senior staff eligible to retire within the 

next four years. In addition to losing key individuals, there is the less tangible, but 

equally important issue of the loss of important “institutional memory,” as well as 

the limitations on replacing staff because of the severe budget reductions.

All of these potential changes have caused considerable angst among the staff 

where morale is in decline owing to the frequent discussions about furloughs, budget cuts, and increased workloads for existing staff.

§ V.C
69

The Chief District Judge as Leader

Questions for discussion

• How should the current chief judge begin to address these significant transitions? How, if at all, should the incoming chief judge be engaged in this 

process?

• How can either the current or the incoming chief judge best determine the 

plans of the other judges who are eligible to take senior status, but are not 

required to do so?

• How can the chief judge and his/her colleagues, assisted by the clerk of court 

and other unit executives, prepare for the potential arrival of three new Article III judges within the next several years? 

• How can the chief judge and his/her colleagues, assisted by the clerk of court 

and other unit executives, prepare for and manage a succession plan and 

initiate the efforts required to attract and retain the qualified staff in a time 

when salary and promotional options are limited by the budget?

Scenario 3: Senior judge performance

In the past year, you have received about a dozen informal complaints from attorneys regarding the judicial performance of one of the senior judges, with three such 

complaints coming to you within the last month. The judge often is late to court, 

loses concentration during hearings, and is falling behind in the timely disposition 

of cases. The judge’s courtroom deputy has informed you through the clerk of court 

that she has concerns about the judge’s ability to manage the current caseload. You 

are aware of some health issues with which the senior judge is dealing.

Possible courses of action for consideration and discussion:

• Discuss the issue with the senior judge based on what you know now. (How 

much do you tell him about the information you have received?)

• Gather additional information or advice from other judges and staff, as discreetly as you can; from a trusted medical professional; and/or from your 

circuit chief judge. (In any event, should you inform your circuit chief 

judge?)

• Ask a colleague who is especially close to the senior judge if he or she has 

observed any problems, and if he or she will talk with the judge 

• Take steps to reduce the senior judge’s caseload. 

• Do nothing. 

Scenario 4: Personal misconduct

A career law clerk for an Article III judge informs you about a significant alcohol 

problem she has observed with this judge. The judge has been absent from the bench 

§ V.C
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

70

on an increasingly regular basis (reported as health issues by the judge), has had alcohol-laden breath at times early in the day, and has made inappropriate comments 

to chambers staff, which they have attributed to the effects of alcohol abuse. 

Possible courses of action for consideration and discussion:

• Attempt to gather more information—if so, how would you do this? Do you 

have an obligation to try to get more information?

• Decide whether to discuss this directly and privately with your chief circuit 

judge.

• Discuss the matter with the judge in question, if you believe the comments 

by the career law clerk are accurate. If the judge denies the accuracy of the 

information, should you drop the matter?

• Commit to protecting the identity of the law clerk who came to you. What 

would be the best strategies for doing this?

Scenario 5: Case management

The chief judge would like to standardize the role of the court’s three magistrate 

judges. The chief judge receives support from three of the five Article III judges 

(and all three magistrate judges, who have respectfully complained that the current 

practice makes them less efficient than they would like to be). The other two Article 

III judges, however, strongly object. One of them says: “Nobody is going to tell me 

how to use my magistrate judges; I will retire rather than be forced to do anything I 

don’t want to do. I have been working with magistrate judges in the same way for a 

long time and reject any requests to alter my practices.” 

Possible courses of action for consideration and discussion:

• Discuss the matter with all five Article III judges. Should the magistrate 

judges participate in all or part of such a meeting? What “groundwork” 

might you lay for such a meeting?

• Meet individually with the two judges who object to discuss their concerns. 

After hearing their concerns, decide whether and how to try to persuade 

them to change their minds.

• Move ahead with the three supportive judges and standardize procedures, 

leaving the other two judges to do what they will.

• Keep the status quo. In which case, should you discuss this further with the 

three supportive judges and/or the magistrate judges?

§ V.C
71

Appendix A: Federal Judicial Administration

See generally Russell Wheeler, A New Judge’s Introduction to Federal Judicial Administration

(Federal Judicial Center 2003).

National Level

Chief Justice of the United States

Guide, Vol. 1, Ch. 3

Judicial Conference of the United States

The Judicial Conference of the United States and Its Committees (August 2013)

Guide, Vol. 1, Ch. 4

Reports of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

Guide, Vol. 1, Ch. 5

Judges’ Manual, Ch. 4

Federal Judicial Center

Guide, Vol. 1, Ch. 7

FJC Online

Regional Level

Circuit Judicial Councils

Guide, Vol. 1, Ch. 10

Judges’ Manual, Ch. 2, § 1

Chief Circuit Judges

Compendium of Chief Judge Authorities (Judges Information Series No. 8)

Guide, Vol. 1, Ch. 11, § 1110.20

Circuit Executives

Guide, Vol. 1, Ch. 10, § 1020
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

72

Appendix B: District Court Units and Personnel

U.S. Bankruptcy Judges

Appointment and reappointment

The Selection, Appointment, and Reappointment of U.S. Bankruptcy Judges 

Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 3

Judges’ Manual, Ch. 8, Pt. B

Tenure and discipline

Bankruptcy judges are appointed to fourteen-year terms (28 U.S.C. §§ 152(a)(1), 

153(a)). They are subject to the judicial discipline procedures of 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–363, 

which, inter alia, authorize the circuit judicial council to remove them from office (28 

U.S.C. § 354(a)(3)(B)) on the grounds and conditions for removal listed at 28 U.S.C. 

§ 152(e). The Administrative Office, after consultation with the circuit judicial councils, assists the Judicial Conference in determining the judges’ official duty stations and 

places of holding court (28 U.S.C. § 152(b)(1)). Section 152(c) authorizes bankruptcy 

judges to hold court in such additional places as the business of the court may require.

Assignment

Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 6, § 630

Judges’ Manual, Ch. 7, § 3

Recall

Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 11 (ad hoc recall) 

Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 10 (extended service recall)

Judges’ Manual, Ch. 10

U.S. Magistrate Judges

Authority

Inventory of United States Magistrate Judge Duties (July 2009)

Appointment and reappointment

The Selection, Appointment, and Reappointment of United States Magistrate Judges

(March 2010) 

Regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States Establishing Standards and 

Procedures for the Appointment and Reappointment of United States Magistrate Judges (Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 4)
73

Appendix B

Tenure and Discipline

Full-time magistrate judges are appointed to eight-year terms; part-time magistrate judges are appointed for four years. Magistrate judges are subject to the judicial discipline procedures of 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–363, which, inter alia, authorize the 

circuit judicial council to remove magistrate judges from office (28 U.S.C. § 354(a)

(3)(B)) on the grounds and conditions for removal listed at 28 U.S.C. § 631(i).

Assignment

Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 7

Recall

Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 1 (ad hoc recall)

Guide, Vol. 3, Ch. 12 (extended service recall)

Judges’ Manual, Ch. 10

Employees

Clerk of court

Judges’ Manual, Ch. 3, § 4.2

District Clerks’ Manual

L. Scott Messinger, Order in the Courts: A History of the Federal Court Clerk’s Office

(Federal Judicial Center 2002)

Courtroom deputies

Judges’ Manual, Ch. 24, § 3

District Clerks’ Manual, Ch. 15

Pro se law clerks

District Clerks’ Manual, Ch. 8, § 8.07

Probation officers and pretrial services officers

Guide, Vol. 8

Court reporters

Guide, Vol. 6

Judges’ Manual, Ch. 24, § 2
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

74

Court interpreters

Guide, Vol. 5

Judges’ Manual, Ch. 24, § 4

Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees 

Guide, Vol. 2, Pt. A, Ch. 3

Defender Services

Generally

Guide, Vol. 7

Criminal Justice Act (CJA) requirements

Guide, Vol. 7, Pt. A

Defender organizations

Guide, Vol. 7, Pt. A, Ch. 4

Code of Conduct for Federal Public Defender Employees

Guide, Vol. 2, Pt. A, Ch. 4
75

Selected Bibliography

All of the documents listed here are available either on the J-Net (the Administrative 

Office’s site on the judiciary’s intranet at http://jnet.ao.dcn) or on FJC Online (the 

Federal Judicial Center’s site on the judiciary’s intranet at http://fjconline.fjc.dcn), 

as is significant additional information of possible interest to chief judges. 

Case Management

Judicial Conference of the United States, Civil Litigation Management Manual (2d ed. 

2010)

William W Schwarzer & Alan Hirsch, The Elements of Case Management: A Pocket 

Guide for Judges (Federal Judicial Center, 2d ed. 2006)

Nicholle Stahl-Reisdorff, The Use of Visiting Judges in the Federal District Courts: A 

Guide for Judges and Court Personnel (Federal Judicial Center, updated 2006)

Court Governance

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Compendium of Chief Judge Authorities 

(Judges Information Series no. 8, October 2002)

Russell Wheeler, A New Judge’s Introduction to Federal Judicial Administration 

(Federal Judicial Center 2003)

Information Technology

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Long Range Plan for Information 

Technology in the Federal Judiciary (2012, updated periodically)

Federal Judicial Center, Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A Judge’s Guide to 

Pretrial and Trial (2001)

Judicial Branch Administrative Policies

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Guide to Judiciary Policy 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Judges’ Administrative Manual

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Reports of the Proceedings of the Judicial 

Conference of the United States

Judicial Conference of the United States, Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary 

(September 2010)
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

76

Judicial Branch Agencies

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Activities of the Administrative Office of the 

United States Courts (annual)

Federal Judicial Center, Annual Report

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Overview of Panel

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing 

Statistics

Leadership and Management 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Management Oversight and Stewardship 

Handbook (reissued July 2003)

Warren Bennis, On Becoming a Leader (1990)

Richard N. Haass, The Power to Persuade: How To Be Effective in Government, the 

Public Sector, or Any Unruly Organization (1994)

James Kouzes & Barry Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge: How to Make 

Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations (5th ed. 2012)

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., The Powers to Lead (2010)

Catherine D. Perry, From the Bench: Lessons Learned As A New Chief Judge, 38 

Litigation no. 1 (2011)

Michael E. Siegel, The President as Leader (2012) 

Personnel

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Judiciary Fair Employment Practices Annual 

Report (annual)

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Model Employment Dispute Resolution 

Plan (2010)

David K. Hendrickson, Conducting Job Interviews: A Guide for Federal Judges

(Federal Judicial Center 1999)

Public and Media Materials

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Understanding the Federal Courts (available 

on the U.S. courts’ public website, http://www.uscourts.gov)
77

Selected Bibliography

Federal Judicial Center, History of the Federal Judiciary (available on the Center’s 

public website at http://www.fjc.gov, as well as on FJC Online)

Federal Judicial Center, Inside the Federal Courts (available on the Center’s public 

website at http://www.fjc.gov, as well as on FJC Online)

Federal Judicial Center, Welcome to the Federal Courts (2013) (pamphlet)

Other

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Risk of Personal Liability for Federal 

Judges (Judges Information Series no. 7, 2d ed., July 2002)

James G. Apple et al., Manual for Cooperation Between State and Federal Courts 

(Federal Judicial Center 1997)
The Federal Judicial Center 

Board 

The Chief Justice of the United States, Chair 

Judge John D. Bates, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Judge Catherine C. Blake, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 

Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman, U.S. District Court for the Western District of 

New York 

Judge James F. Holderman, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

Judge Kent A. Jordan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 

Judge Michael M. Melloy, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 

Chief Judge C. Ray Mullins, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia 

Judge Kathryn H. Vratil, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas 

Director 

Judge Jeremy D. Fogel 

Deputy Director 

John S. Cooke 

About the Federal Judicial Center 

The Federal Judicial Center is the research and education agency of the federal judicial 

system. It was established by Congress in 1967 (28 U.S.C. §§ 620–629), on the recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 

By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States chairs the Center’s Board, which also 

includes the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and seven judges 

elected by the Judicial Conference. 

The organization of the Center reflects its primary statutory mandates. The Education 

Division plans and produces education and training for judges and court staff, including 

in-person programs, video programs, publications, curriculum packages for in-court 

training, and Web-based programs and resources. The Research Division examines and 

evaluates current and alternative federal court practices and policies. This research assists 

Judicial Conference committees, who request most Center research, in developing policy 

recommendations. The Center’s research also contributes substantially to its educational 

mission. The Federal Judicial History Office helps courts and others study and preserve 

federal judicial history. The International Judicial Relations Office provides information 

to judicial and legal officials from foreign countries and assesses how to inform federal 

judicial personnel of developments in international law and other court systems that may 

affect their work. Two units of the Director’s Office—the Information Technology Office 

and the Editorial & Information Services Office—support Center missions through technology, editorial and design assistance, and organization and dissemination of Center resources.