Deskbook for Chief Judges of

U.S. District Courts

Third Edition

Federal Judicial Center

2003

This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of

the Center’s statutory mission to develop and conduct education programs

for the judicial branch. The views expressed are those of the authors and

not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.

iii

Summary Table of Contents

Foreword xiii

Abbreviations Used for Standard Sources xv

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

Current Status 1

II. The Chief District Judge as Leader 5

III. Federal Judicial Administration at the National Level 25

IV. Federal Judicial Administration at the Regional Level 39

V. District Court Units and Personnel; Other Related Agencies 47

VI. The Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions

71

VII. The Chief District Judge and Case Management: Responsibilities and

Options 97

Selected Bibliography 117

Index 121

v

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword xiii

Abbreviations Used for Standard Sources xv

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

Current Status 1

A. Evolution of the Office 1

B. Qualifications and Term of Office 2

C. Declining the Office, Resignation, and Incapacity 2

II. The Chief District Judge as Leader 5

A. Elements of the Leadership Role of the Chief District Judge 5

1. Formal and Informal Sources of Authority 5

2. Responsibilities 6

a. Strategic leadership 6

b. Court-management oversight 6

c. Case-management oversight 7

d. Plans and reports 7

e. Requests and appeals to the circuit judicial council 7

f. Sensitive issues of judicial performance 7

g. Liaison with outside groups 8

3. Relationship of the Chief Judge with Other Constituencies 8

4. Structures and Practices of District Court Governance 9

a. Structures of district court governance 9

b. Relationship with the bankruptcy court 9

c. Local administrative practices 10

d. Internal reports and meetings 10

5. Preparation and Orientation for New Chief District Judges

10

a. Local programs 10

b. National programs 11

c. Additional staff 11

d. Caseload 12
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

vi

B. Leadership and Management Skills and Techniques 12

1. Enhancing Collegial Leadership 13

2. Building Relationships 13

3. Listening 14

4. Consulting 15

5. Sharing Information 17

6. Persuading 18

7. Clarifying Expectations 19

8. Monitoring the Court 20

9. Dealing with Problems 20

10. Establishing a Vision 22

III. Federal Judicial Administration at the National Level 25

A. Chief Justice of the United States 25

B. Judicial Conference of the United States 26

1. Membership 26

2. Duties and Responsibilities 26

a. Federal court management 27

i. Determining and implementing administrative policies 27

ii. Formulating management recommendations 28

iii. Making intercircuit and intracircuit assignments of

judges 28

iv. Determining need for judgeship positions 29

v. Judicial conduct and financial reporting 29

b. Federal rules of practice and procedure 30

c. Legislative advice and liaison 31

3. Operations and Procedures 32

a. Frequency, location, and attendance of meetings 32

b. Bringing matters before the Conference 32

c. Reports of Conference actions 33

4. Committees 33
Contents

vii

C. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 34

1. History and Authority 34

2. Organization and Functions 34

3. Publications and Reports 35

4. Investigative Services 36

D. Federal Judicial Center 36

1. History and Authority 36

2. Organization and Functions 36

3. Publications, Reports, and Programs 37

E. U.S. Sentencing Commission 37

1. History and Authority 37

2. Organization 37

3. Publications and Reports 37

IV. Federal Judicial Administration at the Regional Level 39

A. Circuit Judicial Councils 39

1. History and Authority 39

2. Membership 39

3. Functions 40

a. Review, clearance, and oversight of court business 40

b. Review of judicial disability or misconduct complaints

42

4. Circuit Judicial Conferences 43

B. Chief Circuit Judges 43

C. Circuit Executives 44

D. State–Federal Judicial Councils 45

V. District Court Units and Personnel; Other Related Agencies 47

A. U.S. Bankruptcy Judges 47

1. Authority 47

2. Appointment 48

3. Tenure, Discipline, Assignment, and Recall 49

4. Appointment of a Bankruptcy Court Clerk 50
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

viii

B. U.S. Magistrate Judges 51

1. Authority 51

2. Appointment 52

3. Tenure, Discipline, Assignment, Reappointment, and Recall

53

4. Chief District Judges and the Work of Magistrate Judges 55

C. Employees 55

1. Appointments; Code of Conduct 55

2. Clerk of Court 57

a. Appointment 57

b. Staffing 57

c. Duties 57

d. Courtroom deputies 58

e. Pro se and death penalty law clerks 58

i. Pro se law clerks 58

ii. Death penalty law clerks 59

3. Probation Officers and Pretrial Services Officers 59

a. Appointment 59

b. Probation officers and clerical staff 59

c. Pretrial services officers 60

d. Chief district judge’s responsibility for the probation

office and pretrial services office 61

4. Court Reporters 61

a. District court responsibility 61

b. Court reporting management plan 61

c. Types of reporting services 62

d. Appointment and compensation 62

5. Court Interpreters 63

D. Federal Public Defenders, Community Defenders, and Other

Methods of Providing Representation 64

1. Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Requirements 64

2. Methods of Providing Representation 64

3. Compensation and Administration 65
Contents

ix

E. External Agencies 66

1. General Services Administration (GSA) 66

2. U.S. Marshals Service 67

3. U.S. Attorney 68

4. General Accounting Office (GAO) 68

5. State and Local Courts 69

VI. The Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions

71

A. People 71

1. Other Judges in the District 71

a. New judges 71

i. Court-based orientation programs 72

ii. Federal Judicial Center orientation programs 72

iii. Administrative Office orientation programs 73

b. Senior judges 73

c. Unanticipated vacancies 75

d. Judicial disability procedures 75

e. Residence and place of holding court 75

f. Judicial travel 76

2. Court Staff Personnel Policies and Management 76

a. The chief judge’s role and responsibility 76

b. Interviewing and hiring practices 77

c. Judiciary equal employment opportunity and employment dispute resolution plans 78

d. Indemnification for improper employment practices 79

e. Temporary personnel for judges during emergencies 79

3. Education and Training Programs and Other Assistance 80

a. Orientation and continuing education 80

b. Law clerk orientation 81
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

x

4. Outside Groups 82

a. The Public 82

b. The Bar 82

i. Admission 82

ii. Conduct and disciplinary action 82

iii. Services 83

c. The Media 84

B. Budget and Fiscal Matters 84

1. Budget Formulation 84

2. Budget Execution 85

3. Audit of Moneys in Custody of Court Personnel 86

4. Certifying Officer Program 87

C. Buildings and Equipment 88

1. Space and Facilities Program 88

a. Administrative Office and the chief judge 88

b. Long-range planning 88

c. Space acquisition 89

d. Space alterations and construction 89

e. Daily building operations and parking policies 90

2. Court Security and Emergency Preparedness 90

a. Court security program 90

b. Emergency preparedness 92

3. Equipment, Supplies, and Services 92

a. Procurement authority 92

b. Management of court property 93

c. Information technology 93

d. Library service 95

D. Statistical Reporting 96
Contents

xi

VII. The Chief District Judge and Case Management: Responsibilities and

Options 97

A. Local Rules 97

1. Purpose 97

2. Authority, Public Comment, and Distribution 98

B. Places and Times of Holding Court 99

C. Jury Matters 100

1. Random Selection 100

2. Reports and Analyses 100

3. Juror Utilization 101

4. Juror Orientation 102

5. Grand Juries 102

a. Special grand juries 103

b. Instructions 103

D. Statutory and Other Requirements 103

1. Speedy Trial Act 103

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 104

3. Civil Justice Reform Act 105

E. Case Assignments 106

1. Chief District Judge’s Caseload 106

2. Random Assignment 107

3. Protracted, Difficult, or Unusual Cases 107

4. Cases Under Civil Priority Statutes 108

F. Backlogs and Delays 109

1. Use of Judges Other Than Those in Regular Service in the

District 109

a. Chief district judge’s role 109

b. Standards for temporary assignments 110

i. Intracircuit assignments 110

ii. Intercircuit assignments 110

c. Host court’s responsibilities to visiting judges 111
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

xii

2. Chief District Judges and Case Delay 112

3. Circuit Judicial Councils and Case-Flow Management 114

Selected Bibliography 117

Index 121
xiii

Foreword

This deskbook is one element of the Federal Judicial Center’s efforts

to assist chief judges in meeting the increasingly complex challenges

of leading their district courts. It describes those challenges and 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 should also 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

you probably won’t read the deskbook from cover to cover but will

use particular chapters and sections to help you deal with specific

issues. Therefore, there is some overlap and extensive crossreferences. The Detailed Table of Contents and the Index can help

you identify portions of the deskbook most likely to have the information you need.

The deskbook contains two types of materials. Much of it summarizes numerous statutes and Judicial Conference policies and describes relevant resources and assistance available from the Center

and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Other portions,

in particular Chapter II, provide suggestions to consider as you approach your role as chief judge and as you confront particular matters. These suggestions are based on comments from experienced

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.

Center staff members John Cooke, Kay Loveland, Jennifer Evans

Marsh, Michael Siegel, Sylvan Sobel, Donna Stienstra, Elizabeth

Wiggins, Thomas Willging, and Russell Wheeler are the primary

contributors to this third edition. Martha Kendall and Matt Sarago

provided invaluable editorial and reference assistance in the preparation of this edition. The Center is grateful to the judges, court personnel, and Administrative Office staff members who read and

commented on portions of the text.
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

xiv

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.

Fern M. Smith, Director

Federal Judicial Center
xv

Abbreviations Used for Standard Sources

Guide—Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures. The Guide is a

multivolume set provided to all judges by the Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts. It can be accessed on the J-Net.

JCUS Report—Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference

of the United States, which can be found on the J-Net. Previously,

JCUS Reports were included in the Annual Report of the Director,

which also contained Activities of the Administrative Office of the U.S.

Courts and Judicial Business of the U.S. Courts.

J-Net—the Administrative Office’s Web site 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 Web site on

the courts’ intranet at http://jnet.fjc.dcn.

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 and Current Status

A. Evolution of the Office

The title and concept 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 on 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 (discussed in section I.B, infra) 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, there are essentially no single-judge districts, and it is not uncommon for a district to have ten or more

judgeships. The number of court staff—clerk’s office employees,

probation and pretrial services officers, pro se and death penalty law

clerks—has also grown. Court budgets have expanded, and reliance

on information technology has increased. In response to these

trends and to the courts’ needs to manage their operations more efficiently, the director of the Administrative Office has delegated

substantial operational authority to the courts. All of these factors,

coupled with district judges’ membership on the Judicial Conference

and circuit judicial councils, have transformed the office of chief

district judge.

 

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

2

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.

Whether seniority is the best method for choosing chief judges

has been debated from time to time.2 The Long Range Plan for the

Federal Courts adopted by the Judicial Conference in 1995 reiterates that chief judges of the district and appellate courts “should

continue to be selected on the basis of seniority subject to statutory

limitations on age and tenure.” The commentary to this provision,

however, calls for study of possible alternatives and for providing

training and technical assistance to chief judges to help them discharge their administrative responsibilities (Judicial Conference of

the United States, Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts, Implementation Strategy 47b, at 81–82 (Dec. 1995)).

 

2. See, e.g., Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System,

Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, A Preliminary

Report 108 (April 1975); Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate

System, Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change 68 (June

1975). For the arguments for and against the seniority system, see Russell R.

Wheeler & Gordon Bermant, Federal Court Governance: Why Congress

Should—and Why Congress Should Not—Create a Full-Time Executive Judge,

Abolish the Judicial Conference, and Remove Circuit Judges from District Court

Governance 76 (Federal Judicial Center 1994).

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
Office of Chief District Judge: History and Current Status § I.C

3

position of chief judge then devolves pursuant to the statutory criteria. The statute also provides that “[i]f a chief judge is temporarily

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)).

5

II. The Chief District Judge as Leader

This chapter provides an overview of the responsibilities that chief

district judges generally exercise, the various constituencies with

which they must deal, structures and practices of district court governance, and educational and staff assistance available to chief

judges. It also summarizes some basic leadership and management

techniques used by chief judges and by leaders in non-judicial public

and private organizations. Chapter VI discusses many of the chief

district judge’s specific duties.

A. Elements of the Leadership Role of the Chief District

Judge

1. Formal and Informal Sources of Authority

As a new chief judge, you may be surprised to learn that there is

no single or simple statement of your authority and responsibility.

(There is no equivalent to 28 U.S.C. § 154(b), which says, “The

chief judge of the bankruptcy court shall insure that the rules of the

bankruptcy court and of the district court are observed and that the

business of the bankruptcy court is handled effectively and expeditiously.”)

Many responsibilities devolve on you as the result of disparate

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, October 2002), available from the AO’s Article III

Judges Division, 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 and in

compliance with statutes, Judicial Conference and circuit judicial
§ II.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

6

council policies, and Administrative Office regulations. 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—collectively or through an executive

committee—someone must coordinate their doing so. One judge is

better able to integrate the court’s activities than a group would be.

Much information does not regularly reach all the judges. 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.

2. Responsibilities

Your official and unofficial responsibilities fall into several basic

categories.

a. Strategic leadership

As chief district judge, you are uniquely situated to lead the district court in determining the administrative policies and actions

the court should initiate, continue, or discontinue. Courts have

adopted a variety of structures and procedures for making policy decisions. Whatever form these take, the chief judge ordinarily plays a

pivotal role in the development of court policy.

b. Court-management oversight

The chief judge, primarily through oversight of court unit executives, ensures that the court operates effectively. This responsibility includes making sure that laws, regulations, and court policies

are followed, that the needs of court employees are properly addressed, and that administrative tasks are carried out. Many of your

management and administrative functions are described in Chapter

VI of this deskbook.

Chief judges attend to some oversight tasks personally and delegate some to other judges or to supporting personnel. You cannot

delegate ultimate responsibility for these tasks, however. Even when

statutes or rules assign tasks directly to other personnel or the court

as a whole, if problems arise, other judges, court employees, and the

public will look to you for solutions. Your oversight and stewardship
The Chief District Judge as Leader § II.A

7

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

(2001) provides guidance on these authorities. The handbook can

be found on the J-Net.

c. Case-management oversight

Statutes and national procedural rules provide you with limited

authority over the court’s assignment of cases and even less authority over how other judges manage their dockets. You are, however,

well positioned to monitor caseloads and trends and to identify

problems—either systemic ones or those of individual judges. Dealing with problems of individual judges is discussed in section B.9 of

this chapter, and case management, in Chapter VII.

d. Plans and reports

Statutes and Judicial Conference policy call for district

courts—only rarely for chief judges, specifically—to file numerous

reports and plans with the circuit judicial council, the Administrative Office, or other entities. You should ensure that required reports

are timely filed, and you may choose to review some reports in order

to monitor court business.

e. Requests and appeals to the circuit judicial council

District courts need circuit council approval of some actions,

and councils may have to resolve differences between district judges

that they cannot resolve themselves. The chief district judge usually

serves as the contact with the circuit judicial council. Section

IV.A.3, infra, provides further discussion of circuit judicial councils.

f. Sensitive issues of judicial performance

You may be the initial or only person consulted concerning the

fact, or the allegation, of another judge’s mental impairment, substance abuse, poor judicial temperament, or prejudicial or otherwise

improper conduct. Circuit-level mechanisms exist for receiving and

handling complaints, but not all issues of this sort need reach that

level; you may be able to resolve some issues informally, perhaps

working with the chief circuit judge. Sections II.B.9, IV.A.3.b, and
§ II.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

8

VI.A.1.d, infra, provide further discussion of how to deal with judicial performance.

g. 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 chief district judge is typically

seen as the court’s representative and focal point for dealing with

such groups.

3. Relationship of the Chief Judge with Other Constituencies

A basic, but sometimes overlooked, aspect of leadership is a

clear understanding of the various constituencies with which the

leader must deal.3 Various groups affect, and are affected by, the district court’s operations. First are those who set the rules and guidelines under which you must operate. This group consists of Congress; the Judicial Conference of the United States, which provides

policies and guidance; and the Administrative Office, which promulgates regulations under the direction of the Judicial Conference;

the General Services Administration; and the circuit judicial council. To change or deviate from these rules and guidelines normally

requires authorization from one or more of these groups. In addition

to establishing rules, these entities, as well as the Federal Judicial

Center, can provide help in addressing issues and problems.

Your colleagues constitute another important group. They can

be a source of advice and support. Other chiefs can be especially

valuable as advisers and sounding boards. Other judges on your

court are more than colleagues: They share a collective role in managing the court. How they exercise this collective role varies, depending on, among other things, the court’s size, organization, and

culture.

People and organizations outside the court have a great interest

in the court. These groups include the public generally and the

court’s bar, bar associations, civic associations, state courts and

 

3. The discussion in this section is based in part on Richard N. Haass, The

Power to Persuade: How to Be Effective in Government, the Public Sector, or Any

Unruly Organization 1–2 (1994).
The Chief District Judge as Leader § II.A

9

judges, state and local government agencies and officials, schools,

and the media.

Those who work for the chief judge and the district court are an

extremely important constituency. The court unit executives and

the employees whom they supervise serve as valuable advisers to you

and carry out the day-to-day execution of court policies.

Other parts of this deskbook describe these constituencies in

greater detail. Section B of this chapter provides suggestions for

dealing with some of them.

4. Structures and Practices of District Court Governance

A new chief district judge will inherit some existing policies and

practices of court governance. Early on, assess these policies and

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

to implement them.

a. 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), project (e.g., building renovation or

automation transition), policy (e.g., rules of court or public

outreach), or 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.

b. Relationship with the bankruptcy court

The relationship of the district court with the bankruptcy court

differs from that with other parts of the court. The bankruptcy
§ II.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

10

court’s relative independence makes the personal relationships of

the respective chief judges and the clerks of the two courts especially important. Section V.A, infra, discusses the administrative

relationship of the district and bankruptcy courts.

c. 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.

d. 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 others, 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).

5. Preparation and Orientation for New Chief District Judges

a. Local programs

Continuity between the outgoing and incoming chief judges is

important. The transition should begin about 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;
The Chief District Judge as Leader § II.A

11

having unit executives brief the incoming chief on key issues and

initiatives; and having the incoming chief visit different courthouses

and court units. Also, courts often 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.

b. National programs

The Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office offer

you various types of assistance before and after you become chief;

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 Federal Judicial Center offers an annual three-day conference for all chief district judges. Incoming chief judges are invited to

attend with the incumbent in the year preceding their assumption of

the position. The Center offers other leadership programs for chief

judges as well, some of which include unit executives. And in the

Center videotape Making the Transition: From District Judge to Chief

District Judge, experienced chief judges discuss issues and responsibilities a new chief judge should know about. The video is available

from the Center’s Information Services Office.

c. Additional staff

In courts with five or more judgeships, chief district judges are

authorized to employ an additional secretary or law clerk to assist

with the administrative workload. Whether or not you are entitled

to hire an additional law clerk or secretary, you should consider how

to allocate the additional work that will flow into your chambers.

Some chief judges arrange for additional support within the clerk of

court’s office.
§ II.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

12

d. 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. You should consider

whether to do so, probably in consultation with the outgoing chief

judge and with your colleagues. Section VII.E.1, infra, provides further discussion of the chief judge’s caseload.

B. Leadership and Management Skills and Techniques

Many judges become chief judge with no formal training and

limited practical experience in leading and managing an organization. This section discusses some topics in which chief judges, especially new chief judges, often express interest. Other parts of the

deskbook describe established structure and process—the agencies,

rules, and practices in the judiciary that you should know about.

Those parts are primarily about “what,” and occasionally “why.” The

discussion in this section, based largely on reported experiences of

chief judges and non-judicial leaders, suggests leadership principles

and techniques that you may want to adopt. It is about “how.” The

topics are not in order of importance; their importance will vary

from judge to judge.

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. In addition to

the advice in the rest of this chapter, other valuable sources of guidance and information include the Management Oversight and Stewardship Handbook (2001) published by the Administrative Office4

;

articles on leadership and management in the business sections of

national newspapers and magazines; and books on management,

some of which are listed in the bibliography.

 

4. On pages 4–8, the handbook lists six management oversight practices: delegate; set standards; establish effective governance mechanisms; encourage cooperation and open communication; establish a reporting and review process; and ensure

that the court develops plans. The handbook is available on the J-Net.
The Chief District Judge as Leader § II.B

13

1. Enhancing Collegial Leadership

In a collegial organization like a district court, colleagues share

authority and responsibility to one degree or another. Your job is to

use good faith consultations and, in many cases, joint decision

making to produce effective outcomes.

There are various ways to keep your colleagues informed and

involved. These methods vary with the size and geography of the

court. They include holding scheduled meetings with a prepublished

agenda; 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 e-mail 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 Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office. A local orientation program can introduce a new judge to his or her new

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. Section VI.A.1.a, infra, provides further discussion of

local orientation programs for new judges.

2. Building Relationships

Building relationships takes time, but it is a great investment.

As the saying goes, “The best time to make friends is before you

need them.” Good relationships with members of all the court’s constituencies are valuable, but the relationships with colleagues and

court unit executives are especially important. Most likely, you already know your colleagues reasonably well, but you may be less familiar with court unit executives. Early visits with the unit executives are a good first step. These meetings will help you learn more

about each unit executive’s operations and major areas of emphasis

and concern, as well as get better acquainted with the unit execu-
§ II.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

14

tives. Whether you should also discuss 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 you 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.

Similarly, if you are not well acquainted with the chief circuit

judge, the circuit executive, or the district’s chief bankruptcy judge,

try to meet with these individuals before or soon after becoming

chief.

Furthermore, it is good to establish contacts with outside constituencies in anticipation of future needs. Even a judge with longstanding 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.

Once you establish these relationships, you need to maintain

them. Keep people informed, solicit their views, recognize their

achievements, and, when necessary, make corrections. All of this

contributes to solid relationships. Although some meetings and contacts may offer no immediate payback, they are of lasting value.

3. Listening

Being a good listener is a key to successful leadership. You have

no doubt developed listening skills in the courtroom that you can

put to good use in your leadership role. One management expert

describes effective listening as “listening with a non-rebutting

mind.”5

The more you know about the organization and, especially, the

people in it, the more effective you can be as a leader. Furthermore,

avoid getting hung up on rank or protocol. People in the lowest

ranks of the official hierarchy often have helpful insights about the

organization’s activities and performance. A good example comes

 

5. Isaiah Zimmerman, Address at the Federal Judicial Center Conference of

Chief District Judges, Seattle, Wash. (Apr. 13, 2000).
The Chief District Judge as Leader § II.B

15

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 rust-proof fittings on the ship—a practice

that is now standard Navy-wide.6 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.

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, as illustrated in an article about Colin Powell:

[A] maintenance worker in the parking garage beneath the State

Department headquarters building asked Ruth Davis, a Foreign

Service executive, if she had met the new Secretary of State,

Colin Powell. Davis said she had, and was in fact on the way to

meeting with him. “Well, we’ve met him, too,” another maintenance worker chimed in. “He came over here and said ‘hi’ and

asked us what we were doing. It was great.”7

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.

Psychologists warn of “groupthink,” the tendency of decisionmaking 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. Psychologist Irving Janis has documented the phenomenon in studies of juries and presidential decision making. Janis points out that in the Bay of Pigs incident, President Kennedy’s advisers were much too quick to reinforce Kennedy’s notion that he could liberate Cuba by sending in troops and

 

6. D. Michael Abrashoff, Retention Through Redemption, Harv. Bus. Rev., Feb.

2001, at 137–41.

7. Brian Friel, The Powell Leadership Doctrine, 23 The Government Executive

no. 7, at 22 (June 2001).
§ II.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

16

fomenting a revolution against Fidel Castro.8 Learning from his Bay

of Pigs mistakes, during the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy took specific measures to ensure an open and honest debate among members

of an “executive committee” of top officials he created to deal with

the crisis. One measure he took was to leave the room during various stages of the committee’s deliberations.9

Another deliberate choice Kennedy made was to use a questioning technique to continually probe when his advisers floated

proposals and plans. He asked, for example, “Have you thought out

all the consequences of this course of action?” “What if we do this?”

“How do you think the U.S.S.R. would react if we did this?”10

In a different context, Sir Charles Powell, a close adviser to

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for seven years, observed:

What she really enjoyed was argument. She tested views out in argument. She sometimes took outrageous positions simply just to

see what you would suggest. But if at the end of the discussion she

thought your view was better than hers, she would shamelessly

adopt your view, without of course ever admitting that she had

changed her mind at all. It was a seamless transition. Therefore, it

wasn’t nearly as difficult as people think, provided they were prepared to argue with her.11

You should make a special effort to include in a meeting or decision-making process those who are not inclined to agree with your

own positions. “Inclusion creates the opportunity for a better product, since even those who disagree with you might have something

useful to contribute. New ideas surface; familiar ones get improved.”12 Moreover, if you exclude those who hold different views,

they may well feel they have no stake in the decision made and may

 

8. Irving L. Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and

Fiascoes 132–58 (1982).

9. Robert F. Kennedy, Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis

53 (1999).

10. Statements attributed to John F. Kennedy, in The Cuban Missile Crisis: A

Case Study in Decision-Making (The Hathaway Group, Advanced Knowledge, Inc.

1999).

11. Charles Powell, quoted in Haass, supra note 3, at 75.

12. Haass, supra note 3, at 157.
The Chief District Judge as Leader § II.B

17

be less likely to support it. This doesn’t mean you should include

everyone who might have an interest in every meeting, but you

should at least weigh the potential costs of exclusion when determining whom to invite.

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.

William Kristol, when chief of staff to Vice President Quayle,

described the importance of regular staff meetings:

Sharing information is extremely important. It is underrated.

Simply making sure that everyone who needs to know knows

things is a big task in government. We had effective meetings

where nothing was decided and I didn’t say a word, but at least the

legislative guy told the press guy what he had to know to answer

questions, and the domestic policy guy found out information

from the legislative guy. It’s very evident that everyone gets so

wrapped up around their own little ball of wax . . . . You have to

try very hard to pull people together. The centrifugal forces—the

forces that push you out—are stronger.13

Althea Caldwell summarized the importance of a leader’s sharing information with employees:

Information empowers. When employees understand the vision

and goals that have shaped their jobs and the results they are expected to achieve, they are more likely to give of themselves and

contribute suggestions for more effectively achieving the results.14

You are uniquely positioned to facilitate information sharing.

Some tools for sharing information are newsletters and various forms

of meetings. You can encourage and monitor these communications

without originating every communication or being present at every

meeting.

 

13. William Kristol, quoted in Haass, supra note 3, at 138.

14. Althea O. Caldwell, Establishing Controls, in AMA Management Handbook 1–46 (American Management Association, 3d ed. 1994).
§ II.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

18

6. Persuading

Different people are persuaded differently. Franklin Delano

Roosevelt “knew how to persuade one person by argument, another

by charm, another by a display of self-confidence, another by flattery, another by encyclopedic knowledge.”15

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, they 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.

Richard Neustadt bolsters the point. In Presidential Power, he

observed, not only about legislators but even about executive

branch officials, that their “willingness to act upon the urging of the

[President] turns” on whether they see the action as right for them.

“The essence of a President’s persuasive task is to convince [them]

that what the White House wants of them is what they ought to do

for their sake and on their authority.”16

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:

• Establish credibility. In the workplace, credibility grows out

of two sources: expertise and relationships.

• 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?”

 

15. James MacGregor Burns, Leadership 375 (1985).

16. Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power 27 (1980).
The Chief District Judge as Leader § II.B

19

• Use various kinds of evidence. Effective persuaders supplement numerical data with examples, stories, metaphors, and

analogies to make their positions come alive.

• 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.17

7. Clarifying Expectations

Clear expectations are essential in your relations with the key

managers in the court. Court unit executives are almost always

highly skilled and capable professionals on whom you will rely

heavily. Those in your court may have extensive experience in running court operations, but they need to understand what you want,

and you need to understand what they want.

Two things that most subordinates 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

you see as the most important things they must do in their jobs.

These are the four or five things on which you will evaluate their

performance. The more specific the guidance, the better these managers will be able to prioritize their work, and the fewer surprises

there should be.

Court managers deserve an answer to the question, “How will I

know that I am successful at my job?” The response should focus on

the results you expect, 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?

 

17. Jay Conger, The Necessary Art of Persuasion, Harv. Bus. Rev., May–June

1998, at 86.
§ II.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

20

8. Monitoring the Court

You need to reinforce your expectations of court managers. Just

saying what you expect 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.

The important thing is to stay sufficiently informed and to ensure

that others are informed so that you can identify potential problems

and deal with them early. When a problem does arise, you need to

assess it fully and to 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 even a very good—solution. As one chief

judge said, “Some problems are just facts.” Nevertheless, problems

seldom get better with time. 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 in

finding a solution. Moreover, consulting with colleagues, key staff,

and appropriate subject-matter experts almost always contributes to

a better solution.

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 infra section

IV.A.3.b) but are not always required. You will usually find it help-
The Chief District Judge as Leader § II.B

21

ful 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 with the judge concerned in a sensitive but candid way has

worked in some situations.

Another occasional problem are judges who are behind in their

work. 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 infra section VII.F). 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, you may wish to discuss the backlog with the

judge concerned or ask another experienced colleague to do so. If

the problem continues, you 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. You need not get involved personally in each problem, but you should be accessible so that the clerk

can discuss such matters with you discreetly. If the clerk is following

established court policy, be especially careful before directing an

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

22

10. Establishing a Vision

Leadership and management literature are full of talk about “vision.” What is “vision,” where does it come from, and why is it important? Basically, “vision” refers to the 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 that

you should define 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.”18

Within the confines of these authorities, however, there is room for

emphasis on certain goals and values over others. 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 recently 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 you consider the Speedy Trial Act and other statutes,

jury management plans, court reporter plans, GSA requirements,

circuit judicial council plans, and AO guidance and proce-

 

18. Judicial Conference of the United States, Long Range Plan for the Federal

Courts, 6–7 (Dec. 1995) also contains a mission statement developed by the Conference’s Committee on Long Range Planning. The Plan is available on the J-Net.
The Chief District Judge as Leader § II.B

23

dures—not to mention colleagues who point out that all judges on

the court have the same certificate of appointment—you might well

think that the last thing you need to worry about is vision.

It is precisely because of all those pressures that you need some

bigger picture of what the court should be. Establishing a vision of

the kind of court that you want to promote—and that the rest of the

court accepts—will provide you with a steady guide in the face of

inevitable egos, power struggles, or turf wars. 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 the penalty of not

having a philosophy is a total lack of direction, getting easily

bogged down, and atrophy.19

In short, “[u]nless you know where you’re going, and why, you cannot possibly get there.”20

 

19. Kim Beazley, Australian Minister of Employment, Training and Education,

quoted in Haass, supra note 3, at 43.

20. Warren Bennis, On Becoming a Leader 39–40 (1994).

25

III. Federal Judicial Administration at the

National Level

The chief district judge works within a network of offices and agencies responsible for the management and administration of the federal judicial system.21 Congress has vested superintending authority

in two bodies: the Judicial Conference of the United States and circuit judicial councils.

The Judicial Conference exercises considerable authority,

largely derived from its “supervision and direction” of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in the performance of its many administrative tasks (28 U.S.C. §§ 604, 605, 612). The circuit judicial

councils, however, are the only agencies that have statutory authority to issue orders about judicial administration.

The Conference and the councils, and individual courts, are

served by two national support agencies: the Administrative Office

and the Federal Judicial Center. This chapter describes federal judicial administrative offices and agencies at the national level; Chapter IV describes those at the regional level.

A. Chief Justice of the United States

The Chief Justice is at the apex of the pyramid of federal judicial administration. Other members of the Supreme Court, unlike

members of the highest court in some state systems, are largely free

of administrative responsibilities for the system. Statutes confer

various responsibilities on the Chief Justice. Ex officio duties include

presiding over the Judicial Conference and chairing the Board of the

Federal Judicial Center. In recognition of the Chief Justice’s special

administrative responsibilities, Congress created the position of administrative assistant to the Chief Justice in 1972 (28 U.S.C.

§ 677). The administrative assistant serves the Chief Justice in internal Supreme Court administrative matters as well as in matters

related to the entire federal judiciary.

 

21. For a closer look at the evolution of federal court governance, see Wheeler,

supra note 1.
§ III.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

26

The Chief Justice’s administrative role derives from statutory

assignments, the inherent authority of the office, and the incumbent’s personal disposition. Starting with Chief Justice Taft, incumbents have used the office to direct the attention of federal judges,

Congress, the executive branch, the bar, the media, and the public

to systemic problems in the administration of justice and to mobilize

resources to deal with those problems.

B. Judicial Conference of the United States

Congress created the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges in

1922 (42 Stat. 838) at a time when many states were creating “judicial councils” to coordinate internal judicial improvements. In 1948,

Congress changed the conference’s name to the Judicial Conference

of the United States (62 Stat. 902).

1. Membership

The Judicial Conference consists of twenty-six members, in addition to the Chief Justice as presiding officer: the chief judges of

the thirteen courts of appeals; a district judge from each regional

circuit, elected to three-year to five-year terms by the district and

circuit judges of their circuits; and the chief judge of the Court of

International Trade.

The director of the Administrative Office serves as secretary to

the Judicial Conference. The Office of the Judicial Conference Executive Secretariat assists the director by coordinating administrative support for the Conference.

2. Duties and Responsibilities

The Judicial Conference’s responsibilities are conferred by statute.22 In some areas, the Conference has specific authority to implement its policies; in others, Congress has vested authority in the

director of the Administrative Office, who functions under Conference supervision. In still other areas, the Conference merely recommends or requests action by judges or other court personnel. Un-

 

22. Section 331 of Title 28, when read in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. §§ 604,

605, and 612, sets out the basic responsibilities.
Federal Judicial Administration at the National Level § III.B

27

like circuit judicial councils, the Conference does not have general

authority to make orders for the “effective and expeditious administration of justice” (see infra section IV.A.1).

The Judicial Conference’s functions fall into three categories:

federal court management, maintenance of federal rules of practice

and procedure, and legislative advice and liaison.

a. Federal court management

The Judicial Conference determines the federal courts’ national

administrative policies, recommends management improvements to

the courts, and makes specific decisions about the courts’ staffing

and budgeting. These responsibilities involve several tasks.

i. Determining and implementing administrative policies

The Judicial Conference’s most visible and pervasive responsibility is management and oversight of the judicial system’s statistical

reporting, budget, personnel policies, and logistical support. No single statutory charge gives the Conference plenary authority in these

areas. The Conference’s responsibilities are derived from various

legislative directives, the most important of which issue not to the

Conference but to its administrative agent, the Administrative Office.

The Administrative Office executes national administrative

policies of the federal judiciary. The agency’s core duties and its relationship to the Judicial Conference are described in 28 U.S.C.

§§ 604, 605, and 612. As stated in section 604: “The [Administrative Office] Director shall be the administrative officer of the courts,

and under the supervision and direction of the Judicial Conference

of the United States, shall . . . .” The statutes then enumerate a wide

range of tasks, including preparing the federal judicial budget for

submission to the Conference and then to Congress; establishing

general standards for classification and compensation of all third

branch personnel except judges and certain excepted employees;

disbursing and auditing funds appropriated for the courts’ operations; providing court accommodations; gathering and publishing

statistics on the courts’ work; developing a long-range information

technology plan for the courts; and overseeing court information
§ III.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

28

technology efforts “to ensure the effective operation of existing systems and control over development of future systems.”23

ii. Formulating management recommendations

Not all Judicial Conference actions create binding directives.

The Conference is also authorized to “submit suggestions and recommendations to the various courts to promote uniformity of management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business.”

Thus, for example, in 1996, the Conference “strongly urge[d]” the

circuit judicial councils to use their order-making authority to permit television coverage of appellate court proceedings and to disallow such coverage of district court proceedings (JCUS Report, Mar.

1996, at 17). The Administrative Office, responsible for carrying out

Conference policies, is the source of much administrative and management advice given to the courts.

iii. Making intercircuit and intracircuit assignments of judges

Section 331 of Title 28 authorizes the Judicial Conference “to

make a comprehensive survey of the condition of business in the

courts of the United States and prepare plans for assignment of

judges to or from circuits or districts where necessary” (28 U.S.C.

§ 331). The Conference, however, does not regularly make systemic

“plans” for intercircuit assignments as described in the statute (see

infra section VII.F.1.b, on requesting and providing for visiting

judges). Implementing statutes authorize the Chief Justice to assign

active circuit judges to serve temporarily on other courts of appeals

(28 U.S.C. § 291(a)), to assign active district judges to serve temporarily on a district or court of appeals of another circuit (28 U.S.C.

§ 292(d)), and to maintain a “roster of senior judges” able and willing to sit temporarily on courts outside their own circuit and to assign such judges to do so (28 U.S.C. § 294(d)) (see infra section

VII.F.1.b). The chief judge of a circuit may designate district judges

within the circuit to serve temporarily on the court of appeals or in

other district courts within the circuit (28 U.S.C. § 292(a), (b)),

 

23. Other statutory assignments also specify the relationship between the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office. For example, 28 U.S.C. § 456(a)

mandates that the director prescribe (“with the approval of the Judicial Conference”) regulations governing reimbursement for judges’ travel.
Federal Judicial Administration at the National Level § III.B

29

and may designate circuit judges to serve temporarily on a district

court within the circuit (28 U.S.C. § 291(b)).

iv. Determining need for judgeship positions

The Judicial Conference develops biennial recommendations

for legislation to create additional circuit and district judgeships,

and by statute is to submit recommendations to Congress “from time

to time . . . regarding the number of bankruptcy judges needed and

the districts in which such judges are needed” (28 U.S.C.

§ 152(b)(2)). The Conference also determines, subject to funding

by Congress, the actual number, location, and salaries of full-time

and part-time magistrate judges, based on Administrative Office

surveys and recommendations from the circuit judicial councils and

district courts (28 U.S.C. §§ 633(c), 634(b), (c); see infra section

V.B).

v. Judicial conduct and financial reporting

The Judicial Conference is a source of advice and authority in

matters pertaining to judicial conduct and financial reporting, including codes of conduct, financial disclosure reports, and judicial

discipline.

• Codes of conduct. The Judicial Conference has adopted, and

periodically revises, a Code of Conduct for United States

Judges, and similar codes for supporting personnel. A judge

may seek advice from the Conference’s Committee on

Codes of Conduct on whether an action contemplated by

the judge, such as receiving outside income or using chambers and staff for certain activities, contravenes any rules or

regulations. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat.

1716) authorizes the Conference to issue regulations concerning gifts, outside earned income, honoraria, and outside

employment. The Committee on Codes of Conduct also

renders advice on the Act and these regulations.

• Financial disclosure reports. The Judicial Conference has established the Committee on Financial Disclosure to implement the ethics in government statute, which deals primarily with financial disclosure reports (5 U.S.C. app. 4

§§ 101–111). The committee receives and reviews financial
§ III.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

30

disclosure reports submitted by judges and high-salaried judicial branch personnel.

• Judicial discipline. The Judicial Conference may grant petitions to review how a circuit judicial council disposed of judicial misconduct or disability allegations (28 U.S.C.

§ 356(b)). As authorized by statute, the Conference created

a Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders (JCUS Report, Sept. 1982, at 120), and the

Conference has adopted rules for processing certificates

from circuit judicial councils that assert impeachable conduct by a judge (Guide, vol. III-A, sec. C, ch. II, exhibit B3). (The statutory provisions are 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–363.)

b. Federal rules of practice and procedure

Section 331 of Title 28 directs the Judicial Conference to “carry

on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general

rules of practice and procedure” prescribed for use in the federal

courts. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2074 (generally referred to as

the Rules Enabling Act), the Judicial Conference’s Committee on

Rules of Practice and Procedure (Standing Committee) oversees

separate advisory committees’ preparation of new and amended rules

of evidence and rules of criminal, civil, appellate, and bankruptcy

procedure. The advisory committee sends the proposals it recommends to the Standing Committee so that they can be circulated to

the public, including notice in the Federal Register, for public hearings and comment. The Standing Committee then sends its proposed rule changes to the Judicial Conference for review and approval.24 If the Judicial Conference approves them, proposed

changes are sent to the Supreme Court, which may submit them to

Congress (not later than May 1 for any given year). Amendments

 

24. The Standing Committee has documented its procedures and those of its

advisory committees in Procedures for the Conduct of Business by the Judicial Conference Committees on Rules of Practice and Procedure (1997), a publication available

from the Rules Committee Support Office of the Administrative Office and on the

Internet at http://www.uscourts.gov.
Federal Judicial Administration at the National Level § III.B

31

take effect after the following December 1 “unless otherwise provided by law.”25

The Rules Enabling Act also authorizes local rules of court (28

U.S.C. § 2071(a)). As amended by the 1988 Judicial Improvements

and Access to Justice Act (102 Stat. 4642), 28 U.S.C. § 331 requires the Judicial Conference to review rules of courts, “other than

the Supreme Court and the district courts, for consistency with Federal law” and permits the Conference to modify or abrogate inconsistent rules. District courts were omitted because review of their

rules is left to the circuit judicial councils, which may abrogate or

modify them (28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(4); see also infra section VII.A).

c. Legislative advice and liaison

Title 28 directs the Chief Justice to report to Congress on the

Conference’s “proceedings . . . and its recommendations for legislation” (28 U.S.C. § 331). The nature of the legislative process makes

it unrealistic for Congress to rely much on this brief report, however. Thus, Conference committee members, working through the

Administrative Office’s Office of Legislative Affairs, frequently correspond with and testify before congressional committees; Administrative Office officials occasionally testify as well.

The Conference comments on bills Congress refers to it and

suggests other legislative changes on its own initiative. The Office

of Legislative Affairs serves as a liaison between the Conference and

Congress.

The Judicial Conference distinguishes legislative policy matters

from matters of judicial administration and has traditionally maintained that the judiciary should take a position on the latter but not

on the former. It frequently comments on how proposed legislation

would affect the federal judicial workload.

 

25. Rules of evidence do not take effect “unless approved by Act of Congress”

(28 U.S.C. § 2074(b)).
§ III.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

32

3. Operations and Procedures

a. Frequency, location, and attendance of meetings

By statute, the Judicial Conference must meet at least once a

year. Since 1961 it has met in the spring and fall, almost always at

the Supreme Court building, typically for one or two days. In addition, the Chief Justice may call special sessions of the Conference

(28 U.S.C. § 331), such as a mail ballot in July 1996 to approve

funding for an experimental approach to deal with the scientific

issues involved in the silicone breast implant multidistrict litigation.

Furthermore, the Executive Committee, the senior executive arm of

the Judicial Conference, may implement Conference policies between regular sessions and act on behalf of the Conference with respect to any matter requiring emergency action (JCUS Report, Sept.

1987, at 57). Conference meetings are open only to members, selected committee chairpersons, key staff, and invited guests.

b. Bringing matters before the Conference

Procedures for bringing matters before the Judicial Conference

are described in The Judicial Conference of the United States and Its

Committees, which the Conference approved in 1998 (JCUS Report,

Sept. 1998, at 40). A copy of this publication is available on the JNet. Courts and judges who have matters they want the Conference

to consider may transmit their requests, in writing, to the director of

the Administrative Office (Attention: Office of the Judicial Conference Executive Secretariat).

The Judicial Conference does most of its work through committees. The director of the Administrative Office has been delegated

the authority to assign matters to the appropriate committee and

notifies the requesting court or judge of the committee assignment.

When the Administrative Office recommends that a committee

reject a request submitted by a judge or court, it must notify the

judge or court in time to permit the submission of responsive material to the committee before a decision is reached. Similarly, when a

committee votes to reject a request, the chairperson must promptly

notify the requester, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so.
Federal Judicial Administration at the National Level § III.B

33

c. Reports of Conference actions

Shortly after each Conference session, the director releases a

summary memorandum, and later, a more detailed account of the

session’s actions (Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of

the United States). Both are available on the J-Net, and Conference

reports are also available through the judiciary’s private files on

WESTLAW.

4. Committees

The Executive Committee is the senior executive arm of the

Conference, “capable of implementing its policies between sessions”

(JCUS Report, Sept. 1987, at 57). The Executive Committee is responsible for reviewing committee reports and recommendations

and structuring a Conference agenda, publishing operating procedures for assembling Conference and committee agendas, reviewing

the jurisdiction of each Conference committee and resolving intercommittee jurisdictional disputes, and dealing with matters requiring emergency action.

The Chief Justice has been delegated sole authority to make

Judicial Conference committee appointments; the Administrative

Assistant to the Chief Justice and the director of the Administrative

Office provide assistance. All active and senior Article III judges are

eligible for membership on any Conference committee except the

Executive Committee, which is restricted to Judicial Conference

members. (The Executive Committee consists of a chairperson and

six other judges, and the director of the Administrative Office.)

Most committees also have magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges

as members. State judges, private and government lawyers, and law

professors serve on some committees, as well. Most of the major

committees are structured to include a representative from each circuit. The committees receive staff support from the Administrative

Office, and research and other assistance from the Federal Judicial

Center.

Appointment to a Conference committee is usually for a threeyear term, with an opportunity for one additional three-year term at

the Chief Justice’s discretion. Terms are staggered so that approximately one-third of each committee’s membership turns over each
§ III.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

34

year. The director of the Administrative Office, in the capacity of

Secretary to the Judicial Conference, surveys all judges biennially to

identify those who are interested in committee service and to determine their committee preferences. In 2003, about 250 circuit,

district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges served on Conference

committees.

The committees’ reports are developed through subcommittee

and committee meetings. Committees typically meet in the winter,

prior to the Conference’s spring meeting, and again in the summer,

prior to the fall meeting. A committee and its supporting Administrative Office staff can usually prepare an item for submission to the

Conference during the six-month period between meetings, but

some items require more extensive research, preparation, and coordination.

C. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

1. History and Authority

Prior to 1939, the Department of Justice was responsible for administering the federal judiciary’s budget and personnel system, and

for reviewing and auditing federal court administration. In 1939,

Congress created the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and

over time has shifted administrative functions to it. The Administrative Office provides administrative support to the federal courts

under the direction of the Judicial Conference (see 28 U.S.C.

§§ 601–612).

2. Organization and Functions

Section 601 of Title 28 provides that the director and deputy

director of the Administrative Office are appointed by the Chief

Justice after consultation with the Judicial Conference. The Administrative Office provides a broad range of legislative, legal, management, financial, information technology, program support, and

other administrative services to the federal courts. A primary responsibility is providing staff support and counsel to the Judicial

Conference of the United States and its committees and carrying
Federal Judicial Administration at the National Level § III.C

35

out Conference policies. The Administrative Office also does the

following:

• furnishes program leadership, expertise, and guidance;

• provides centralized core administrative functions (e.g., payroll and accounting services);

• administers the personnel system and monitors EEO activity;

• develops and executes the judiciary’s budget;

• collects and analyzes detailed statistics on court operations;

• conducts audits of court financial operations;

• develops and supports information technology and related

systems;

• conducts training programs relevant to administrative and

operational responsibilities that the director has delegated

to court personnel;

• acts as liaison between the judicial branch and the executive and legislative branches;

• conducts some studies and assessments; and

• fosters communication both within the judiciary and between the judiciary and outside entities.

Activities of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,

which can be found on the J-Net, presents a complete listing of the

agency’s offices and their duties. The Administrative Office telephone directory on the J-Net arranges Administrative Office personnel by specific offices and can help identify staff members to contact for particular requests or problems.

3. Publications and Reports

The Administrative Office produces publications on different

facets of federal court operations. The best known are the Guide to

Judiciary Policies and Procedures, Reports of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and Judicial Business of the U.S.

Courts, which provides extensive statistics on the federal courts’

work. The Administrative Office also publishes The Third Branch, a

monthly newsletter for the federal courts. Other Administrative Of-
§ III.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

36

fice publications on specific matters are referred to at appropriate

places in this deskbook. Administrative Office publications are

available on the J-Net.

4. Investigative Services

The Judicial Conference has authorized the Administrative Office to assist a circuit judicial council or court in investigating alleged waste, fraud, or abuse by judicial branch employees (JCUS

Report, Sept. 1988, at 57). The council or chief district judge of the

court that wants the services must request the Administrative Office’s aid. The Administrative Office director or associate director

for management and operations supervises the assistance.

D. Federal Judicial Center

1. History and Authority

Congress created the Federal Judicial Center in 1967, at the

request of the Judicial Conference, to place programs of research

and continuing education in a single, independent agency (see 28

U.S.C. §§ 620–629). The Center and the Administrative Office

maintain a close working relationship.

2. Organization and Functions

The Federal Judicial Center’s board is responsible for Center

policies. The Chief Justice is the board’s ex officio chair, and the

director of the Administrative Office is an ex officio member. Two

appellate judges, three district judges, one bankruptcy judge, and

one magistrate judge, all elected by the Judicial Conference, serve

on the board for four-year terms. The board appoints the Center’s

director and deputy director. The Center’s divisions and offices are

responsible for

• planning and producing education and training programs

and publications for judges and court personnel;

• examining and evaluating current and alternative federal

court practices and policies, primarily in support of the Judicial Conference and its committees;
Federal Judicial Administration at the National Level § III.D

37

• developing innovative ways to help courts and scholars

study and preserve federal judicial history; and

• providing information to judicial and legal officials from

foreign countries.

A complete description of the Center’s divisions and offices and

contact information for key personnel are available on the Center’s

site on the courts’ intranet at http://jnet.fjc.dcn.

3. Publications, Reports, and Programs

The Center produces reference guides and manuals such as this

one, monographs, research reports, and catalogs of its products and

services, and sends many of these publications to judges and other

court personnel. It also produces audiocassette and videocassette

programs for judges and supporting personnel. Judges who want particular Center publications, or who want tapes of Center media programs, may request them from the Center’s Information Services

Office. Most Center publications are also available on the Center’s

site on the courts’ intranet at http://jnet.fjc.dcn.

E. U.S. Sentencing Commission

1. History and Authority

Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 1984 and

directed it to establish federal sentencing policies and practices,

primarily by promulgating guidelines and policy statements for federal judges to apply in sentencing offenders (28 U.S.C. §§ 991, 994).

2. Organization

The Commission’s seven voting members are appointed by the

President with the consent of the Senate. They must include at least

three federal judges selected after consideration of a list submitted

by the Judicial Conference.

3. Publications and Reports

The Commission publishes the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual and an Annual Report of Commission activities. Its annual Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics provides
§ III.E Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

38

descriptive figures, tables, and charts, as well as selected district, circuit, and national sentencing data. The Commission prepares reports to Congress and other research reports. Its publications are

available on its site on the Internet at http://www.ussc.gov.
39

IV. Federal Judicial Administration at the

Regional Level

Circuit judicial councils play a key role in federal judicial administration. This chapter describes the councils and other regional administrative entities.

A. Circuit Judicial Councils

1. History and Authority

The circuit judicial councils were created in 1939 by the same

statute that created the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The statutory design for federal judicial administration provides for

Judicial Conference policy making and advice in areas needing national uniformity, and direct council oversight of the administration

of justice in the circuit. The circuit judicial councils’ original purpose was to supervise the district courts.

Subsequent legislation broadened the focus of the circuit judicial councils to include oversight of the business of all the courts

within the circuit. Each council is directed 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)). The statute also provides that, “[u]nless an impediment to the administration of justice is involved, regular business of the courts need not be

referred to the council” (28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(3)). However, the

councils, by statute or Judicial Conference policy or recommendation, are charged with reviewing numerous plans and policies developed by district courts.

2. Membership

Each circuit council consists of the chief circuit judge as chairperson and an equal number of circuit and district judges. Active

and senior judges may serve as members of the council (28 U.S.C.

§ 332(a)). No more than one judge from each district (it need not

be the chief judge) may serve as members, unless all districts in the

circuit are represented. Council members serve for terms fixed by
§ IV.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

40

majority vote of all judges in the circuit. Some circuits include

bankruptcy and magistrate judges as non-voting participants.

The statute is not clear on how to determine the number of

judges and method of selection. As the Office of General Counsel of

the Administrative Office and the Judicial Conference’s Executive

Committee interpret the statute, the precise number is to be determined by a majority vote of all regular active judges of the circuit,

and the method of selection is to be determined by each circuit

(JCUS Report, Mar. 1991, at 9).

3. Functions

The circuit judicial councils’ current duties fall into two categories: (1) review, clearance, and oversight of a wide variety of court

business, including local rules, and (2) review of judicial disability or

misconduct complaints. A Federal Judicial Center “template” of

chief circuit judge and circuit council functions is available on the

Center’s site on the courts’ intranet at http//jnet.fjc.dcn.

a. Review, clearance, and oversight of court business

Congress and the Judicial Conference have directed the councils to periodically review numerous aspects of court business, including the following:

• local district court procedural rules (for consistency with the

national rules of procedure and evidence26);

• district court plans on jury selection (28 U.S.C. § 1863),

speedy trial (18 U.S.C. § 3165(c)), and representation under the Criminal Justice Act (18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a));

• various actions concerning magistrate judges (28 U.S.C.

§§ 631, 633(b), 636(h));

• various actions concerning bankruptcy judges (28 U.S.C.

§ 152);

• controversies over where district judges must maintain their

residences (28 U.S.C. § 134(c));

• allocation of cases by district courts when the judges cannot

agree (28 U.S.C. § 137);

 

26. 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(4).
Federal Judicial Administration at the Regional Level § IV.A

41

• approval of court quarters and accommodations (28 U.S.C.

§ 462);

• district court decisions to pretermit a regular court session

(28 U.S.C. § 140(a)); and

• authorization of temporary law clerks and other personnel

for judges of the courts within the circuit.

Nonstatutory functions of the councils include certifying to the

Administrative Office that senior judges are performing “substantial

service” and thus may continue to receive office space and staff support; determining the number of supporting positions necessary for

senior judges (Guide, vol. III, sec. B, ch. VI, pt. 7); and reviewing

district courts’ court reporter management plans (JCUS Report,

Mar. 1982, at 8).

Pursuant to a 1984 statute, the courts of appeals appoint bankruptcy judges with the assistance of the circuit judicial councils; the

councils evaluate potential nominees and recommend, for each vacancy, “persons who are qualified to be bankruptcy judges under

regulations prescribed by the Judicial Conference” (Bankruptcy

Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-

353, 98 Stat. 333, 345 (1984) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C.

§ 152 (1994))). The councils may appoint merit selection panels as

part of this process (see infra section V.A.2).

In some circumstances, circuit judicial councils may be called

upon to resolve differences between judges of a district court, such as

where judges maintain their residences. Because this situation arises

infrequently and in diverse circumstances, little general advice can

be given on how to structure the appeal to the council. However,

almost any such appeal will be better handled if presented by the

chief district judge, who is usually in the best position to summarize

the issue and the differences of opinion.

As a general rule, the chief district judge is the link between the

circuit judicial council and the court, and should bring to the council those matters that Congress or the Judicial Conference places

within the council’s purview. Moreover, the Judicial Conference has

taken the position that the chief district judge “should be informed

when matters concerning his district are under consideration, and
§ IV.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

42

shall pass the information promptly to the judges of the district”

(JCUS Report, Mar. 1974, at 8).

b. Review of judicial disability or misconduct complaints

Sections 351–363 of Title 28 provide a mechanism for filing

complaints and allegations of judicial disability and misconduct, as

well as specific procedures for referring complaints to the council.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 351(a), “[a]ny person” is authorized to file with

the clerk of the circuit court a “written complaint” alleging “that a

judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that

such a judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason

of mental or physical disability.” The complaint is to contain “a

brief statement of the facts constituting such conduct.” The clerk is

to transmit the written complaint to the chief judge of the circuit

(or, if the complaint is directed at the chief judge, to the next senior

judge) and transmit a copy to the judge who is the subject of the

complaint.

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 352 and 353, the chief circuit judge is to

review the complaint and either (1) dismiss it, (2) conclude its consideration if corrective action has been taken (transmitting copies of

his or her written order to the complainant and the subject of the

complaint), or (3) appoint an investigating committee that is to

report in writing to the circuit judicial council, and advise the subject of the complaint of this action. The chief circuit judge may also,

“by written order stating reasons therefor, identify a complaint for

purposes of this subsection and thereby dispense with filing of a

written complaint” (28 U.S.C. § 351(b)).

The circuit judicial council may take a range of actions in response to a misconduct or disability complaint about a judge: temporarily suspend case assignments to the judge; suggest retirement,

certify disability, or censure the judge under 28 U.S.C. § 354(a)(2);

or refer the matter to the Judicial Conference (28 U.S.C. § 354(b)),

which can then refer it to the House of Representatives to consider

possible impeachment (28 U.S.C. § 355(b)).27 The statute also

 

27. This statute governs actions regarding senior judges as well (JCUS Report,

Mar. 1996, at 23).
Federal Judicial Administration at the Regional Level § IV.A

43

authorizes the circuit judicial councils and the Conference to promulgate rules for conducting these proceedings (28 U.S.C. § 358).

The circuit judicial council may direct the chief district judge to

take any action concerning a magistrate judge that it considers appropriate except removal (28 U.S.C. § 354(a)(2)(c)). A majority of

the district judges may remove a magistrate judge for “incompetency, misconduct, neglect of duty, or physical or mental disability,”

provided a full specification of the charges is furnished to the magistrate judge and the judge is accorded an opportunity to be heard on

the charges (28 U.S.C. § 631(i)). A majority of the judges on the

circuit judicial council may remove a bankruptcy judge for the same

reasons and with the same notice and opportunity to be heard (28

U.S.C. § 152(e)).

4. Circuit Judicial Conferences

Under 28 U.S.C. § 333, the chief judge of each circuit may, but

is not obligated to, convene a circuit judicial conference annually or

biennially for “advising means of improving the administration of

justice within such circuit.” Judicial attendance is optional. Circuits

sometimes invite members of the bar, U.S. attorneys, federal defenders, and other court personnel to attend the conference.

B. Chief Circuit Judges

The chief circuit judge chairs the circuit judicial council and in

that capacity, as chief judge of the court of appeals, and as a statutory member of the Judicial Conference, plays a leading role in the

administration of the circuit. Because the circuit judicial council

meets only periodically and the chief circuit judge may need to take

action without an opportunity to consult other members, most chief

circuit judges assume responsibility for acting on various problems

without the council’s direct assistance.

Chief circuit judges also have specific statutory responsibilities,

beyond those assigned to the circuit judicial council, that directly

affect district court operations. They receive, and may recognize on

their own, complaints about judicial disability or misconduct, and

they must approve all intercircuit and intracircuit transfers (28

U.S.C. § 292). Their approval (like that of the trial court) is re-
§ IV.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

44

quired for compensation claims under the Criminal Justice Act in

excess of specified maximums (18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(3)). In addition, 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); Guide, vol. III, sec. C, ch. I, pt.

B).

These statutory responsibilities do not exhaust chief circuit

judges’ responsibilities. Many chief circuit judges meet periodically

with the chief district judges in the circuit. These meetings, which

sometimes coincide with the circuit judicial conference, provide

chief circuit judges with an opportunity to hear chief district judges’

concerns and to promote the implementation of circuit-wide innovations. They also foster sharing of information and techniques

among chief district judges.

C. Circuit Executives

In 1971, Congress authorized each circuit judicial council to

appoint a circuit executive (28 U.S.C. § 332(e)). The statute lists

duties that the council may direct the circuit executive to exercise

under the chief circuit judge’s supervision (28 U.S.C. § 332(e)).

They include the full range of court administrative tasks—some to

be performed only in the court of appeals, and others, circuit-wide.

The specific duties performed by the circuit executives vary from

circuit to circuit.

The circuit executives’ tasks in the courts of appeals may include such non-judicial matters as financial management or management of the personnel system or the information technology systems. Examples of their circuit-wide tasks include providing staff

support to council committees, arranging the circuit judicial conference and meeting of the circuit judicial council, providing technical

assistance to courthouse construction projects within the circuit,

and providing circuit-wide area network (information technology)

support to courts within the circuit. Circuit executives also may assume other tasks “delegated to [them] by the circuit council” (28

U.S.C. § 332(e)).
Federal Judicial Administration at the Regional Level § IV.D

45

D. State–Federal Judicial Councils

In some states, councils of state and federal judges meet periodically to promote cooperation and coordination between the two

judiciaries. Active councils have dealt with a range of matters, such

as reducing scheduling problems when attorneys are due in federal

and state courts simultaneously and developing cooperative juror

paneling arrangements. The Manual for Cooperation Between State

and Federal Courts (Federal Judicial Center 1997) further 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.

47

V. District Court Units and Personnel; Other

Related Agencies

Effective administration of a district court requires your familiarity

with the functions and interactions of the bankruptcy court and of

several offices and groups of personnel.

A. U.S. Bankruptcy Judges

1. Authority

The relationship of the bankruptcy court and the district court

has been a matter of debate and occasional friction. The active

bankruptcy judges in each district “constitute a unit of the district

court to be known as the bankruptcy court for that district” (28

U.S.C. § 151). This language in the Bankruptcy Amendments and

Federal Judgeship Act of 198428 was a response to the Supreme

Court decision in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon

Pipe Line Co.29 Marathon held that the previous statutory scheme,

which vested broad jurisdiction in virtually independent bankruptcy

courts (then referred to as “adjuncts” to district courts), violated

Article III of the Constitution. The 1984 Act tied bankruptcy

courts more closely to district courts in order to remedy the jurisdictional problem after Marathon, but it only incidentally addressed the

administrative independence of bankruptcy courts.

The courts of appeals appoint bankruptcy judges (28 U.S.C.

§ 152(a)(1)), and the district court designates a chief judge of the

bankruptcy court (28 U.S.C. §154(b)). 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)).

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. Section 156(b) provides that

the bankruptcy judges in a district may appoint a bankruptcy court

 

28. Pub. L. No. 98-353, 98 Stat. 344.

29. 458 U.S. 50 (1982).
§ V.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

48

clerk, “[u]pon certification to the judicial council of the circuit involved and to the Director of the Administrative Office of the

United States Courts” that the number of cases warrants it. Section

156(d) provides that “[n]o office of the bankruptcy clerk of court

may be consolidated with the district clerk of court office without

the prior approval of the Judicial Conference and the Congress.”

This allocation of statutory authority makes the informal relationship between the district court and the bankruptcy court all the

more important. You should do your best to establish a cooperative

and productive relationship with the chief bankruptcy judge and the

bankruptcy court.

2. Appointment

The number of bankruptcy judgeships in each district is specified in 28 U.S.C. § 152(a)(2). Congress has directed the circuit judicial councils to assist the courts of appeals in filling vacancies “by

evaluating potential nominees and by recommending to such court

for consideration for appointment . . . persons who are qualified to

be bankruptcy judges under regulations prescribed by the Judicial

Conference” (Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act

of 1984, § 120(b), 98 Stat. 345 (1984)).

Judicial Conference regulations governing the selection of bankruptcy judges specify the type of public notice required when a vacancy is to be filled and authorize the circuit judicial council to appoint a merit selection panel to assist in developing a list of nominees to submit to the court of appeals (JCUS Report, Mar. 1985, at

22–23). Councils that do not appoint a merit selection panel are to

perform the panel’s duties themselves or appoint a subcommittee of

council members to do so. The Administrative Office’s pamphlet

The Selection, Appointment, and Reappointment of United States Bankruptcy Judges (1998) includes the Judicial Conference regulations

and provides guidance to merit selection panels and circuit judicial

councils engaged in the process of selecting bankruptcy judges. The

pamphlet is available from the Bankruptcy Judges Division and on

the J-Net.
District Court Units and Personnel § V.A

49

By statute, the council cannot submit a list of nominees for consideration by the court of appeals until the council determines that

there was adequate notice of the vacancy and an effort to identify

qualified candidates, and that the nominees possess solid professional and personal qualifications as detailed in the statute (Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, § 120(c),

98 Stat. 344).

3. Tenure, Discipline, Assignment, and Recall

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.

With the approval of the Judicial Conference and the circuit

judicial councils, bankruptcy judges may serve in districts “adjacent

to or near” the district to which they were appointed (28 U.S.C.

§ 152(d)) and, with the approval of the circuit judicial councils,

may transfer temporarily to another district (28 U.S.C. § 155(a)).

The Conference has established guidelines for intercircuit transfers

(JCUS Report, Sept. 1988, at 59–60; see Guide, vol. III, sec. B, ch.

II, exhibit B-1). The guidelines provide that the chief judges of the

lending and borrowing bankruptcy courts shall be notified of a proposed assignment when the request is made (JCUS Report, Mar.

1995, at 11).

With the judge’s consent, any circuit judicial council may recall

a retired bankruptcy judge to serve in any district overseen by the

council (28 U.S.C. § 155(b); JCUS Report, Mar. 1985, at 22; JCUS

Report, Mar. 1987, at 28). Judicial Conference regulations permit ad

hoc recall for a fixed (renewable) period of one year and a day
§ V.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

50

(Guide, vol. III, sec. B, ch. VII, exhibit A). Extended service recall

may be for a fixed (renewable) period of more than one year but not

more than three years (Guide, vol. III, sec. B, ch. VII, exhibit B).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 375, bankruptcy judges may be recalled to render

“substantial service” for a period of five years, but this provision had

not been implemented as of December 2002. The Judicial Conference recommends that each circuit judicial council develop written

guidelines for setting staffing levels for recalled bankruptcy judges

(JCUS Report, Sept. 1995, at 90).

4. Appointment of a Bankruptcy Court Clerk

The judges of the bankruptcy court may appoint a clerk of the

court upon certification to the circuit judicial council and the Administrative Office that the court’s business justifies it (28 U.S.C.

§ 156(b)). With the approval of the bankruptcy judges, the clerk

may, in turn, appoint deputies (in numbers approved by the Administrative Office) and remove them. Classification of bankruptcy

court clerk positions must follow criteria established by the Judicial

Conference (JCUS Report, Mar. 1987, at 7).

The bankruptcy clerk is accountable for bankruptcy fees and

costs collected pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1930,30 and is the official

custodian of the records and dockets of the bankruptcy court (28

U.S.C. § 156(e), (f)). The Comptroller General of the United

States has held that the bankruptcy clerk, not the district court

clerk, is the sole officer accountable for bankruptcy fees and costs

collected pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1930; the district clerk need exercise no role in the collection of fees and costs under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1930.

 

30. Comptroller General Decision Nos. B-217236 and B-217236.2, May 22,

1985.
District Court Units and Personnel § V.B

51

B. U.S. Magistrate Judges

1. Authority

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.31 Magistrate judges’ duties, set forth

in 28 U.S.C. § 636, fall into four broad categories:

1. initial proceedings in criminal cases;

2. trial of petty offenses, and of 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 them 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 Long

Range Plan recommends that “[i]ndividual districts should retain

flexibility, consistent with the national goal of effective utilization

 

31. The Inventory of United States Magistrate Judge Duties (1999), published by

the Administrative Office, and Chapter 3 of the Legal Manual for United States

Magistrate Judges (1991), maintained by the Magistrate Judges Division of the Administrative Office, detail the jurisdiction of U.S. magistrate judges.
§ V.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

52

of all magistrate judge resources, to have magistrate judges perform

judicial services most needed in light of local conditions and

changing caseloads” (Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts, Judicial Conference of the United States, Recommendation 65, at 101

(Dec. 1995)).

2. Appointment

The judges of the district court appoint its magistrate judges. By

statute (28 U.S.C. § 631(b)(5)), the district court must provide

public notice of a vacancy and appoint a merit selection panel. Judicial Conference regulations also prescribe the composition and duties of the panel, and the court’s options with respect to the list of

candidates presented by the panel. The selection is normally made

by a majority vote of the active district judges of the district. The

chief district judge may make the appointment when a majority

cannot agree (28 U.S.C. § 631(a)). The Administrative Office’s

pamphlet The Selection, Appointment, and Reappointment of United

States Magistrate Judges (2002) includes the Judicial Conference

regulations and provides guidance on appointment procedures (see

Guide, vol. III, sec. B, ch. V, exhibit A-1). The pamphlet is available from the Magistrate Judges Division and on the J-Net.

The Judicial Conference authorizes magistrate judge positions in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 633, but the positions cannot be filled

unless Congress agrees to fund them. In determining the number,

location, and salaries of magistrate judge positions, the Conference

considers the recommendations of the appointing district court, the

circuit judicial council, and the director of the Administrative Office, as well as the opinions of law enforcement agencies and other

interested parties.

The Conference, with the assistance of its Committee on the

Administration of the Magistrate Judges System, focuses on three

factors in evaluating requests for new full-time magistrate judge positions:

• the caseload of the district court as a whole and the judges’

need for assistance;
District Court Units and Personnel § V.B

53

• the effectiveness of the existing magistrate judge system in

the district and the court’s commitment to using magistrate

judges effectively; and

• the volume and kind of judicial business that the judges intend to assign to a new magistrate judge.

The Conference also considers local conditions, such as the areas

and population to be served; convenience to the public and bar;

whether criminal cases are receiving prompt attention; the number

and extent of federally administered lands in the district; and transportation and communications facilities.

To initiate requests for additional magistrate judge positions or

changes in existing positions, the chief district judge should contact

the Administrative Office’s Magistrate Judges Division. 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.

3. Tenure, Discipline, Assignment, Reappointment, and Recall

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).

The Judicial Conference may designate magistrate judges to

serve in one or more districts adjoining the district of appointment

with the concurrence of the majority of district judges in each court

involved (28 U.S.C. § 631(a)). Magistrate judges may also be temporarily assigned to another district in emergencies, provided the

chief district judges of the districts concur (28 U.S.C. § 636(f);

Guide, vol. III, sec. B, ch. II, pt. C & exhibit C-1).

The Judicial Conference has authorized district courts, with approval of the circuit judicial council, to reassign a magistrate judge

from one authorized location to another within the district at the

same salary level. The court must first advise the magistrate judge

concerned and the director of the Administrative Office, and give
§ V.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

54

both an opportunity to submit comments to the council (JCUS Report, Sept. 1984, at 72).

Reappointment is, of course, a concern to most magistrate

judges. The court should have some process for providing its magistrate judges with periodic feedback on their performance, so that

they have an opportunity to correct any deficiencies and so that a

decision not to reappoint does not come as a complete surprise.

In any event, not less than one year before the expiration of an

incumbent magistrate judge’s term of office, the district court should

determine whether it wants to consider the incumbent’s reappointment. “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. III,

sec. B, ch. V, exhibit A-1) states that courts should give due consideration to the professional and career status of the position of U.S.

magistrate judge. If the court wants to consider the incumbent’s

reappointment, then it should issue public notice of consideration of

reappointment, solicit comments from the bar and public, and select

a merit selection panel to review the incumbent’s performance. If

the court decides not to reappoint the incumbent, it should notify

the incumbent and follow the selection process for an initial appointment.

Non-reappointment can have a significant effect on the magistrate judge’s retirement pay and other benefits (including eligibility

for health insurance), particularly if the magistrate judge has not

reached the age of sixty-five. Eligibility for pay and benefits should

not, of course, control the decision whether to reappoint, but the

court should be aware of these considerations in making its decision.

A retired magistrate judge may be recalled into service by the

circuit judicial council, with the consent of the chief judge of the

district involved (28 U.S.C. § 636(h)). Judicial Conference regulations permit ad hoc recall for a fixed (renewable) period not to exceed one year and one day. A retired magistrate judge may be recalled on a full-time or when-actually-employed basis (Guide, vol.

III, sec. B, ch. VIII, exhibit A). Extended service recall may be for a

fixed (renewable) period of more than one year but not more than

three years (Guide, vol. III, sec. B, ch. VIII, exhibit B). Under 28
District Court Units and Personnel § V.B

55

U.S.C. § 375, magistrate judges may be recalled to render “substantial service” for a period of five years, but this section had not been

implemented as of December 2002. Conference regulations provide

each court and circuit council with flexibility in determining

whether and at what level to provide staff, facilities, law books, and

supplies to recalled magistrate judges. The level of support is to be

tied directly to the volume and nature of the work the magistrate

judge is expected to perform (JCUS Report, Sept. 1993, at 52).

4. Chief District Judges and the Work of Magistrate Judges

You should ensure—by yourself or through a court committee—that the court regularly monitors what the magistrate judges

are doing and at whose request. Periodic statistical reports 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.

C. Employees

1. Appointments; Code of Conduct

The following personnel are appointed by the district court or

the chief district judge, on the basis of the authority indicated (see

also Guide, vol. III, sec. A, ch. V, pt. B):

• clerk of court (28 U.S.C. § 751(a));

• pro se and death penalty law clerks (28 U.S.C. § 752);

• chief and other probation officers (18 U.S.C. § 3602);
§ V.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

56

• chief pretrial services officer (18 U.S.C. § 3152);

• court reporters (28 U.S.C. § 753(a)); and

• court interpreters (28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1)).

The chief district judge appoints court reporters and the clerk of

court when a majority of the district judges cannot agree on the appointments (28 U.S.C. § 756). 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)). The chief probation officer appoints probation clerical staff pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3672. The chief pretrial services officer appoints other pretrial

services personnel “[w]ith the approval of the district court” (18

U.S.C. § 3153(a)(1)).

The clerk of court is authorized to appoint supporting personnel

in the clerk’s office “with the approval of the court” (28 U.S.C.

§ 751(b)). The Administrative Office’s authority does not limit

“[t]he authority of the courts to appoint their own administrative or

clerical personnel” (28 U.S.C. § 609). However, the director of the

Administrative Office, as the disburser of salaries to judicial personnel, may require evidence sufficient to establish the legality of an

appointment.

The Judicial Conference has adopted a code of conduct for all

court employees (see Guide, vol. II, ch. II). Court employees who

have questions concerning the code should consult first with their

supervisor or appointing authority for guidance. If a question remains, the employee or the employee’s chief judge, supervisor, or

appointing authority may request an advisory opinion from the

Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct.
District Court Units and Personnel § V.C

57

2. Clerk of Court3 2 

a. Appointment

The district court appoints and removes the clerk of court (28

U.S.C. § 751(a)). The Judicial Conference has established criteria

for classifying clerk of court positions (JCUS Report, Mar. 1987, at

7). The District Court Administration Division of the Administrative Office can provide written guidance on the recruitment and

selection of clerks of court.

b. Staffing

The clerk of court may appoint deputies and supporting personnel, with the approval of the court, in numbers approved by the director of the Administrative Office (28 U.S.C. § 751(b)). The director determines the numbers based on work measurement studies

and available funding.

c. Duties

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.)

Chief district judges generally delegate most administrative duties

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

court, and your working relationship with the clerk is thus vital to

the effective management of the court.

Notwithstanding the delegation or assignment to the clerk of

administrative responsibilities related to court management, however, you have ultimate responsibility for the court’s management.

As discussed in Chapter II, the chief judge oversees court management by setting priorities and standards, establishing procedures for

planning and decision making, fostering communication, and

keeping informed of key actions and issues.

 

32. For a general history of the clerk’s office, see I. Scott Messinger, Order in

the Courts: A History of the Federal Court Clerk’s Office (Federal Judicial Center

2002). This publication is available on the Center’s Web site on the courts’ intranet at http://jnet.fjc.dcn.
§ V.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

58

Traditionally, the clerk of court has prime responsibility for receiving the pleadings, papers, and exhibits that constitute case filings; docketing them; routing them to judges; and maintaining them

as court records. Many clerks’ offices provide support staff for case

management. Clerks of court are often responsible for the administration of Criminal Justice Act plans. The clerk is the district

court’s financial agent, charged by statute with receiving all fees and

other moneys required by acts of Congress to be prepaid, as well as

funds deposited by parties and agencies (28 U.S.C. § 751(e)). The

clerk of court is also the disbursing officer for the district court,

bankruptcy court, and any collocated appeals court. Additional duties have devolved on the office of clerk of court as management

tasks have become more complex and more in need of focused attention.33

d. Courtroom deputies

Courtroom deputies are employees of the clerk’s office and the

court. Although they work closely with the judge to whom they are

assigned, they are not part of the judge’s chambers staff.

e. Pro se and death penalty law clerks

i. Pro se law clerks

Pro se law clerks review civil cases filed by prisoners pro se, including petitions for writ of habeas corpus and complaints for violations of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The chief district judge

appoints and supervises pro se law clerks under 28 U.S.C. § 752, but

has discretion to delegate this responsibility to another district

judge, a magistrate judge, or the clerk of court (JCUS Report, Sept.

1994, at 48). The Judicial Conference has established allocation

formulas for pro se law clerk positions (JCUS Report, Sept. 1995, at

90). Courts interested in establishing a pro se law clerk position

should contact the District Court Administration Division of the

Administrative Office.

 

33. Clerks’ duties are described in more detail in the Guide, vol. III, sec. A, ch.

V, pt. B.
District Court Units and Personnel § V.C

59

ii. Death penalty law clerks

Death penalty law clerks assist the court in the management of

death penalty cases. In 1999, the Conference agreed to provide

funding on a national basis for death penalty law clerks in the district courts at the rate of one law clerk for each fifteen capital habeas corpus cases, if requested by the circuit judicial council (JCUS

Report, Mar. 1999, at 24). The chief district judge appoints and supervises the death penalty law clerks under 28 U.S.C. § 752. Courts

interested in establishing a death penalty law clerk position should

contact the District Court Administration Division of the Administrative Office.

3. Probation Officers and Pretrial Services Officers

a. Appointment

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3602, the district court is authorized to appoint probation officers and designate a chief probation officer. A

panel of the chief circuit judge, chief district judge, and a magistrate

judge, or their designees, selects the chief pretrial services officer (18

U.S.C. § 3152(c)). The chief pretrial services officer appoints officers and other personnel with the court’s approval (18 U.S.C.

§ 3153(a)(1)). The Judicial Conference has established criteria for

classifying chief probation officer and chief pretrial services officer

positions (JCUS Report, Sept. 2000, at 56–57).

b. Probation officers and clerical staff

The chief probation officer appoints probation office clerical

staff. The size of the probation office is a function of its workload.

Generally, there is one supervising probation officer for every six to

eleven line officers. Larger offices generally also have a deputy chief

probation officer. Many probation offices—for example, those that

supervise many offenders with drug-related problems or organizedcrime convictions—establish specialized supervisory units.

Probation officers perform important duties for the district court

both before and after sentencing, and in many districts probation

officers also have pretrial services responsibilities. Under Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, they conduct presentence investigations and prepare presentence reports. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3603,
§ V.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

60

they supervise probationers and persons on supervised release, which

includes reporting on the conduct and condition of these persons as

required by the court and assisting them in improving their lifestyles. Probation officers are required to inform the court when an

offender fails to adhere to the conditions of release, so that the court

can decide whether the conditions should be amended or the offender’s release should be revoked. They supervise persons transferred under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, develop community resources, monitor offenders’ participation in substance

abuse and mental health treatment programs, oversee payment of

fines and restitution, arrange for electronic monitoring, assist offenders in obtaining employment, and provide advice to offenders’

families. Probation officers also serve as parole officers for the few

pre-November 1987 offenders still eligible for parole or military parole.

c. Pretrial services officers

The Pretrial Services Act of 1982 directed that all federal districts provide pretrial services, including evaluating persons proposed for pretrial release, monitoring and assisting those released,

and reporting to the court on these activities (18 U.S.C. § 3154).

Many of the duties pretrial services officers perform are similar to

those performed by probation officers, including gathering and presenting relevant information to be considered by the court, supervising defendants on supervised release, arranging for substance

abuse and mental health treatment, and reporting apparent violations to the court. The statute leaves it to the district court to determine whether to provide such services through the probation office or a separate pretrial services office (18 U.S.C. § 3152). The

district court and circuit judicial council must approve the creation

of a separate pretrial services office (18 U.S.C. § 3152(b)). The

Conference has affirmed the principle that decisions regarding the

form of organization should continue to be made by individual district courts and circuit councils (JCUS Report, Sept. 1997, at 66).34

 

34. The Judicial Conference approved distribution of the Judicial Conference

Committee on Criminal Law’s Directory of Cooperative and Sharing Arrangements in

Districts with Separate Pretrial Services and Probation Offices (1998) to these districts
District Court Units and Personnel § V.C

61

d. Chief district judge’s responsibility for the probation office

and pretrial services office

You can help the probation office and the pretrial services office

carry out their management and stewardship responsibilities by

staying abreast of officers’ diverse tasks. It is not enough to evaluate

the probation office solely on the basis of the presentence reports.

That would not reveal, for example, difficulties line officers are

having in supervising offenders. You may want to meet regularly

with the chief probation and pretrial services officers and to receive

reports on recurring issues and specific programs and initiatives.

These meetings and reports can provide information on the work

performed by the offices and help the offices’ senior staffs think in

terms of their total administrative responsibility to the court. They

also help foster a sense that probation and pretrial services offices

are an integral part of the district court. The need for reports is especially strong in districts in which officers work in locations other

than the chief judge’s official duty station.

4. Court Reporters

a. District court responsibility

Managing the court reporting service is a district court responsibility, subject to statutory provisions (28 U.S.C. § 753), Judicial

Conference policy, and circuit judicial council oversight. The Court

Reporters’ Manual (1998) (Guide, vol. VI) is a valuable reference for

chief judges in overseeing management of court reporting services.

Questions concerning court reporting matters should be directed to

the District Court Administration Division of the Administrative

Office.

b. Court reporting management plan

The Judicial Conference has recommended that circuit judicial

councils require each district court “to develop a court reporting

management plan that will provide for the day-to-day management

and supervision of an efficient court reporting service within the

court,” and specifically assign supervision responsibilities to the

 

(JCUS Report, Sept. 1998, at 66); this publication is available on the J-Net.
§ V.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

62

clerk, judge, or “other person designated by the court” (JCUS Report, Mar. 1982, at 8). District courts may appoint a court reporting

supervisor. The court reporting supervisor is responsible for implementing and administering the court reporting management plan.

Sample plans are available through the District Court Administration Division of the Administrative Office (see Guide, vol. VI, ch.

II).

The Conference has consistently held that court reporters work

collectively for the court, not for individual judges. The implementation of this concept varies according to the number of judges and

divisions in the district and the wishes of the judges (see Guide, vol.

VI, ch. III).

Any court placing some of its reporters on a regular tour of duty

must place all reporters in the same location on a regular tour of

duty, although courts may, with the approval of the circuit judicial

council, exempt from this requirement reporters on staff prior to

September 1987 (JCUS Report, Sept. 1987, at 63; see Guide, vol.

VI, ch. IV).

c. Types of reporting services

Under 28 U.S.C. § 753(b), district court proceedings are to be

recorded by stenographic methods, electronic sound recording, “or

any other method,” subject to Judicial Conference regulations and

the court’s approval. The method is also subject to the discretion of

the individual judge. To the extent that funding is available, the

Conference has endorsed the use of real-time reporting technologies, which allow the record to be transcribed electronically and displayed on a video monitor in the courtroom, by official court reporters in district courts (JCUS Report, Sept. 1994, at 49). In 1999, the

Conference recommended that courts use various courtroom technologies for taking the record, including electronic methods (JCUS

Report, Mar. 1999, at 8) and digital audio recording (JCUS Report,

Sept. 1999, at 57; Guide, vol. VI, ch. XVI, pt. 16.4).

d. Appointment and compensation

Each district court is authorized to appoint permanent court

reporters to serve the court, in numbers approved by the Judicial

Conference; the standard ratio is one reporter per active judge
District Court Units and Personnel § V.C

63

(JCUS Report, Mar. 1990, at 90). For senior judges, the Judicial

Conference approved allocation of one position for 650 senior judge

hours (JCUS Report, Mar. 1996, at 25).

Court reporters are federal court employees, subject to the supervision of the court, but they may also charge the parties for transcripts prepared for parties at rates determined by the court and the

Judicial Conference. Because they earn private income in connection with their judicial employment, the reporters must provide

their own supplies and may not use government postage for their

correspondence.

The Judicial Conference establishes maximum rates for transcripts (see JCUS Report, Sept. 1987, at 64). Court reporters must

maintain and certify (under penalty of perjury) proper records, detailing their working hours and earnings, on standardized forms provided by the Administrative Office; district courts are to review

these forms for completeness and accuracy (JCUS Report, Sept.

1987, at 63).

5. Court Interpreters

Section 1827 of Title 28 directs the Administrative Office to

establish a program to provide interpreters, in proceedings instituted

by the United States, for parties and witnesses who speak only or

primarily a language other than English or who are hearing impaired

so as to inhibit comprehension. The Administrative Office has certified interpreters in Spanish, Navajo, and Haitian Creole, and these

interpreters should be used, if available. If a certified interpreter is

not available, an “otherwise qualified” interpreter should be used.

The Administrative Office maintains a database of certified and

otherwise qualified interpreters on the J-Net.

Most court interpreting is performed by contract interpreters. In

district courts in which there is a daily need for certified Spanish

interpreters, the Judicial Conference has approved the hiring of staff

interpreters. The staff interpreters are supervised and assigned by the

clerk of court.
§ V.D Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

64

D. Federal Public Defenders, Community Defenders, and

Other Methods of Providing Representation

1. Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Requirements

The Criminal Justice Act (CJA), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, requires

appointment of counsel for financially eligible defendants in certain

circumstances and authorizes appointment in others. The CJA requires each district court to have a plan to achieve the CJA’s objectives. The plan must be approved by the circuit judicial council,

which is required to supplement the plan with provisions for representation on appeal and may require other modifications to the

plan. A copy of the plan and any modifications are to be sent to the

Administrative Office.

Chief district judges should ensure that the plan and its administration comport with the statute and relevant Judicial Conference

policies. A valuable resource in meeting this responsibility is Volume VII of the Guide (“Appointment of Counsel in Criminal

Cases”), especially section A (“Guidelines for the Administration of

the Criminal Justice Act and Related Statutes”). This volume includes a model CJA plan, as well as forms approved by the Conference, and covers such topics as defendants’ eligibility for CJA services, appointment and compensation of attorneys, and the authorization of investigative, expert, and other service providers.

2. Methods of Providing Representation

Section 3006A(g)(1) of Title 18 authorizes federal public defender organizations or community defender organizations in districts or parts of districts in which at least 200 people annually require appointed counsel. Two adjacent districts or parts of districts

may aggregate the number of persons who require appointed counsel

to become eligible for a defender organization to serve both districts.

If the adjacent areas are located in different circuits, the judicial

council of each circuit must approve the plan for furnishing representation.

The court of appeals appoints the federal public defender, who

in turn appoints other full-time attorneys in numbers approved by
District Court Units and Personnel § V.D

65

the court of appeals (18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)(2)(A)). The Judicial

Conference has approved procedures to guide the courts of appeals

in evaluating candidates and has set suggested minimum qualifications for federal public defenders (see Guide, vol. VII, sec. A, ch. 4).

Although federal public defender attorneys and support staff are

federal judicial branch employees, they are not part of the court’s or

chief judge’s staff. The decision to house federal public defender organizations within the judicial branch was motivated by administrative convenience.

Community defender organizations are nonprofit defense counsel services established and administered by any group authorized by

the court’s CJA plan to provide representation (see Guide, vol. VII,

sec. A, ch. 4; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)(2)(B)). Their personnel are not

federal judicial branch employees.

The CJA anticipates that even districts with defender organizations will assign “a substantial proportion” of cases to private attorneys (18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(3)) selected from a panel designated or

approved by the court. The Judicial Conference’s Model Criminal

Justice Act Plan provides that, where practical and cost-effective,

“approximately 25% of the appointments under the CJA annually

throughout the district” shall go to private panel attorneys (see

Guide, vol. VII, sec. A, app. G). The federal public defender organization or community defender organization may play a role in administering the panel of private attorneys. The Judicial Conference

has encouraged chief district judges to establish CJA committees

made up of representatives from government agencies and private

attorneys involved in the federal criminal justice system (JCUS Report, Mar. 1994, at 17–18).

3. Compensation and Administration

Federal public defenders and assistant federal public defenders

are full-time salaried attorneys. The courts of appeals fix compensation for federal public defenders, and the federal public defenders fix

compensation for the assistants. For the federal public defender, the

rate may not exceed the compensation paid to the U.S. attorney; for

assistant defenders, it may not exceed the compensation for assistant
§ V.D Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

66

U.S. attorneys of similar qualifications and experience (18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A(g)(2)(A)).

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006(g)(2)(B), community defender organizations receive sustaining grants approved by the Judicial Conference in lieu of payments under § 3006A(d) and (e) (see Guide, vol.

VII, sec. A, ch. IV & app. D).

The CJA establishes maximum hourly rates for compensation of

CJA-appointed attorneys, but also authorizes the Judicial Conference to establish higher rates (18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)). The CJA

guidelines provide for automatic annual increases in the maximum

hourly rates (JCUS Report, Sept. 1990, at 79; JCUS Report, Mar.

2002, at 13–14). Under Judicial Conference policy, each chief district judge is provided annually with a list of attorneys in that district who claimed compensation under the CJA for more than 1,000

hours of services in the preceding year.

The Judicial Conference has also adopted recommendations

regarding the costs and quality of representation in federal death

penalty cases (JCUS Report, Sept. 1998, at 67–74). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 sets a maximum

of $7,500 for the payment of fees and expenses for services other

than counsel in a capital case, unless a greater amount is certified as

necessary by the court and approved by the chief judge or designee

of the circuit (JCUS Report, Mar. 1997, at 23; see Guide, vol. VII,

sec. A, ch. 6).

Questions relating to CJA matters should be directed to the

Administrative Office’s Defender Services Division.

E. External Agencies

1. 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 responsible for courthouse

construction, renovation, and maintenance (see infra section VI.C).

Generally, the field office manager (or, for a building operated

through Commercial Facility Management, the commercial facility
District Court Units and Personnel § V.E

67

manager) is the primary GSA official responsible for maintaining

GSA-operated buildings.

2. U.S. Marshals Service

Each district has a U.S. marshal, appointed by the President

with the consent of the Senate, who serves a four-year term (28

U.S.C. § 561). (Section 562 provides for interim and acting appointments.) The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) is part of the Department of Justice and is responsible for the movement of prisoners,

supervision of the department’s Witness Security Program, apprehension of federal fugitives, and, of most direct interest to district

judges, security of the court and its personnel (see infra section

VI.C.2). The latter responsibility entails

• developing a comprehensive nationwide court security program for the federal judiciary;

• assuming primary responsibility and authority for the protection of court proceedings, court officials, and court areas

occupied by the federal judiciary;

• conducting comprehensive court security surveys of all federal judicial facilities;

• establishing a court security committee in each district;

• reviewing proposed plans provided by the Administrative

Office or GSA for design and installation of security systems

in new buildings, and alterations to existing buildings;

• reporting crimes committed on GSA-controlled property to

the Federal Protective Service; and

• contracting for court security officers and for the installation

and maintenance of security systems in space occupied by

the federal judiciary.

Marshals survey each court’s security needs and develop a written security plan, which contains the marshal’s requests for security

services, for each judicial facility in the district; the plan is subject

to review and approval by the court security committee. Each marshal also transmits the security plan to the USMS for evaluation in

light of available funds and overall security needs. Whenever the

USMS denies a security committee’s request for services, it must
§ V.E Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

68

notify the local marshal (and the Court Security Office of the Administrative Office) and provide the reason for the denial. The marshal, in turn, is to notify the committee.

Services provided by the USMS—including technical assistance

in evaluating security needs and the provision of deputy marshals for

courtroom security and personal security of judges, trial participants,

and other judicial officials—are funded in part from the USMS’s

appropriation. To provide broadened security through contract

guards and security equipment, the Administrative Office now

transfers to the USMS the judicial branch annual appropriation for

court security.

An April 1987 memorandum of agreement between GSA, the

Administrative Office, and the USMS provides for administrative

oversight of the marshals’ court security service. In preparing the

court security appropriation request, the Administrative Office seeks

information from each marshal, but requests that both the chief district judge and the marshal sign the summary appropriation form.

The Administrative Office’s Court Security Office serves as a liaison

to the USMS (see generally Guide, vol. I, ch. IX).

3. U.S. Attorney

Each district has a U.S. attorney, appointed by the President

with the consent of the Senate, who serves a four-year term (28

U.S.C. § 541). In the event of a vacancy in the office of a U.S. attorney, the 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 contributes

to the efficient operation of the district court. Liaisons can coordinate a range of matters, including case-scheduling problems, case

arraignments, prisoner handling, and courthouse operation.

4. General Accounting Office (GAO)

The General Accounting Office (GAO), a legislative branch

agency, studies the performance and expenditures of the federal
District Court Units and Personnel § V.E

69

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, such as reports on

the use of recalled magistrate and bankruptcy judges (1999),

weighted filings assigned to senior district and magistrate judges

(1999), and population and case filings per judgeship for U.S. district courts (1998). 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 that 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’s Office of Management, Planning and Assessment.

5. State and Local Courts

Good working relationships with state and local courts in its

jurisdiction can help a district court resolve scheduling conflicts;

explore sharing some services, such as jury rolls; and promote cooperation in addressing common problems. As noted in section IV.D,

supra, state–federal judicial councils can be helpful in establishing

such relationships. 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. This publication is available on the Center’s Web site on the

courts’ intranet at http://jnet.fjc.dcn.

71

VI. The Chief District Judge’s Management and

Administrative Functions

Chapter II provides an overview of chief judges’ responsibilities and

summarizes some basic leadership and management techniques used

by chief judges and by leaders in non-judicial public and private organizations. This chapter describes in more detail the chief district

judge’s primary management duties. The Administrative Office’s

Compendium of Chief Judge Authorities (Judges Information Series no.

8, October 2002) lists chief district judges’ responsibilities pursuant

to statute, rules of procedure, Judicial Conference policy, and delegations from the director of the Administrative Office. It is available

from the Article III Judges Division.

As chief judge, you are ultimately responsible for the district

court’s administrative and management tasks, even though statutes

or Judicial Conference policies assign some important tasks to clerks

of court and even though you may have delegated other tasks to the

clerk. You need to stay current on various aspects of court management, some of which have already been discussed. 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. People

1. Other Judges in the District

a. New judges

Chief judges assist new judges in the transition to their new duties. They also swear in new judges. 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

Guide, vol. III, sec. B, ch. IX, has further information and guidance

on judicial investitures.
§ VI.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

72

i. Court-based orientation programs

Some courts have court-based orientation or mentor programs

that can help new judges learn about local rules and procedures and

familiarize them with their new colleagues, court staff, and the

courthouse. Such programs frequently give new judges an opportunity to watch experienced colleagues in action, ask questions, and

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 observe each of the

court’s judges 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 setting up chambers with other

judges and the clerk of court;

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

• opportunities to observe critical proceedings, such as jury

impanelment; civil and criminal motion calendars; Rule 16,

final pretrial, and settlement conferences; suppression

hearings; plea taking; and sentencing proceedings; and

• 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.

A tour of court facilities is also useful.

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 shortly before or soon after
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.A

73

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 during

their first year, new district judges are also invited to the Center’s

week-long, Washington, D.C., orientation seminar, which builds

upon 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 (4th

ed. 1996), Manual on Recurring Problems in Criminal Trials (5th ed.

2001), Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (2d ed. 2000), and

Manual for Complex Litigation, Third (1995).

iii. Administrative Office orientation programs

The Administrative Office invites judge nominees to attend an

individual orientation program in Washington, D.C., at the time of

their confirmation hearings and pays the travel costs. This severalhour 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 (1997, 1998 update), 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. This publication is available on the

J-Net.

b. 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)). The extent of the circuit judicial

council’s supervision of senior judges’ work assignments differs

among the circuits; for guidance, consult circuit internal operating

procedures or the circuit executive. The Judicial Conference has

stated that senior judges “should suffer no diminution in status because of their retirement from active service” and “should be treated
§ VI.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

74

for all purposes exactly like active judges except to the extent otherwise required by statute or policy of a circuit judicial council”

(JCUS Report, Sept. 1995, at 86).35

Two separate 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); Guide, vol. III, sec. C, ch. I, pt.

B). 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 (JCUS Report,

Sept. 1997, at 73). The Conference’s Rules for Certification of Senior

Judges (1990) articulates standards for meeting the statutory work

requirements (JCUS Report, Mar. 1990, at 10–11, 20; JCUS Report,

Sept. 1990, at 84; Guide, vol. III, sec. C, ch. I, exhibit B-3).

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 (JCUS Report, Mar. 1958, at 245–46; JCUS

Report, Sept. 1982, at 81; Guide, vol. III, sec. B, ch. VI, pt. 7). The

information the circuit judicial councils use in making those judgments is provided annually by the Administrative Office’s Office of

Human Resources and Statistics, and is based on the caseload data

routinely provided by the district courts.

Determining the need for support is largely a judgment call and

is open to challenge by a chief district judge who disagrees with the

circuit judicial council. The Conference found “that it was not possible to devise a meaningful formula whereby the service to the judiciary of a retired judge could be measured with any mathematical

nicety,” especially because some senior judges sit regularly “while

others serve the courts as masters by appointment of the Supreme

 

35. See Commentary to Recommendation 64, Long Range Plan, supra note 18,

at 100–01.
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.A

75

Court, by service on Judicial Conference committees, and the like”

(JCUS Report, Sept. 1975, at 45–46).

Other problems may occasionally develop, 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.

The Judicial Conference has directed all courts to make a continuing study of their anticipated space needs for new senior judges

(JCUS Report, Sept. 1977, at 48). To facilitate obtaining sufficient

space to accommodate both the 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 (JCUS Report, Sept. 1980, at 67–68).

c. 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 (JCUS

Report, Sept. 1996, at 61). 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.

d. Judicial disability procedures

Section IV.A.3.b, supra, describes 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. Many

problems may not reach the circuit level, and some that do still involve the chief district judge.

e. 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 one of the district’s designated places for holding

court. The circuit judicial council is authorized to make such a de-
§ VI.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

76

termination as well as to determine which judge shall reside near

the court if the district judges cannot agree.

f. 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) whenever they determine such travel to

be necessary (see Guide, vol. III, sec. C, ch. V, exhibit A). 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 to Federal Judicial Center programs and meetings is reimbursed by the Center and 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 Guide, vol. III-A, ch. V, exhibit A, sec. G).

2. Court Staff Personnel Policies and Management

a. The chief judge’s role and responsibility

Judicial Conference and Administrative Office policies assign to

court officers some tasks related to operation of their offices and supervision of their staffs, including hiring, promoting, and demoting

court personnel (see Guide, vol. I, ch. X). Other tasks involve the

chief district judge directly, including the following:

• making the appointments discussed in Chapter V, supra;

• supervising the clerk of court and chief probation and pretrial services officers (including conducting annual perform-
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.A

77

ance evaluations, authorizing and approving official travel,

and approving leave);

• approving requests for emergency law clerks and secretaries;

• reviewing official adverse personnel actions taken by managers against court employees; and

• resolving informal disputes that the officers cannot resolve.

For court unit support staff (not including chambers law clerks

and secretaries, court reporters, interpreters, and certain other employees), you can request from the director of the Administrative

Office a delegation of 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. You

can re-delegate this authority to the relevant court unit officers.

To promote employee effectiveness and morale, consider greeting new employees at periodic orientation sessions, attending ceremonies that recognize an employee’s service, and providing awards

for superior performance or useful suggestions (see Guide, vol. I, ch.

X, subch. 1451.2, on employee recognition programs). Informal visits with court employees that are arranged with the officers can also

boost morale. (Section II.B, supra, discusses other ways to contribute

to employee morale and effectiveness.)

b. Interviewing and hiring practices

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

for Federal Judges (1999) helps judges interview 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

guide is available from the Center’s Information Services Office and

on the Center’s Web site on the courts’ intranet at http://jnet.

fjc.dcn.

Some district courts review law clerk applications centrally,

screening not only for general qualifications, but also for criteria of

special interest to particular judges. If a court uses a coordinated selection process, candidates can avoid having to come to the court
§ VI.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

78

more than once for interviews with different judges. The Administrative Office has established a Web site for federal law clerk information on the J-Net, which allows judges to disseminate information about available law clerk positions. It provides comprehensive

and timely information for applicants and saves time for judges’

staff.

c. Judiciary equal employment opportunity and employment

dispute resolution plans

The Judiciary Fair Employment Practices Program calls for each

court to adopt an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) plan

(JCUS Report, Mar. 1980, at 5; revised, JCUS Report, Sept. 1986,

at 57–58). The Judicial Conference’s Model EEO Plan is a guide for

courts in developing and implementing their own EEO plans. The

Conference’s Model Employment Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan

(JCUS Report, Mar. 1997, at 28) supersedes sections of the Model

EEO Plan dealing with complaint procedures. In response to the

Conference’s recommendation, each court adopted and implemented a plan based on the Conference’s Model EDR Plan.

The Model Plan assumes that each local plan will task the chief

district judge with (1) submitting proposed modifications of the

court’s EDR plan, EEO plan, or combined plan; (2) reviewing,

hearing, and deciding complaints or designating another judge to do

so; and (3) submitting annual reports on EDR implementation and

EEO achievements in the court. It also assumes that courts will provide EEO information to the public.

A court’s EDR plan, however, not the Model EDR Plan, governs

coverage, rights and responsibilities, and procedures for handling fair

employment practices complaints in that court. Each court annually

submits a report on the implementation of its plan to the Administrative Office, and a copy remains in the court.

The Federal Judicial Center’s Court Education Division can

provide technical assistance and limited funding for educational

programs for court employees on diversity issues. The Employee

Relations Office of 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
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.A

79

its Employment Dispute Resolution Bench Book for Judges (2001),

which are available along with the Model EEO and EDR

Planson the J-Net.

d. 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 volume 1, chapter 11, part D, section 5 of the

Guide. The Administrative Office’s General Counsel’s memorandum on Judicial Liability, Indemnification and Representation (February 26, 1988) discusses the doctrines of absolute judicial immunity

and qualified official immunity, situations in which judges are entitled to representation at the government’s expense, and the procedures for requesting such representation. The memorandum emphasizes that a judge or judicial employee served with legal process

should inform the Office of General Counsel immediately. Further

information on this topic can be found in The Risk of Personal Liability for Federal Judges (1998), an Administrative Office publication

available from the Article III Judges Division and on the J-Net.

e. Temporary personnel for judges during emergencies

A judge sometimes needs additional, temporary law clerks or

secretaries 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

“where there is a serious problem” that cannot be solved by temporary reallocation and reassignment of cases (JCUS Report, Mar.

1985, at 13).

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 (JCUS Report, Mar. 1989, at 11–12).

The Conference has also approved the option of contracting with a

temporary help service (JCUS Report, Sept. 1989, at 72).
§ VI.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

80

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 and continuing education programs for court

employees. Information on its programs and services for court personnel is available in its annual catalog called The Purple Book. The

Center also operates the Federal Judicial Television Network

(FJTN), which provides educational and informational broadcasts

from the Center, the Administrative Office, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission to satellite downlinks in over 300 court locations.

FJTN broadcast schedules, Center publications, Web- and computer-based training programs, and other educational materials can

be found on the Center’s site on the courts’ intranet at http://

jnet.fjc.dcn.

Using a variety of delivery systems, such as the FJTN, Web- and

computer-based training, CD-ROMs, and instructor-led training,

the Administrative Office provides training in administrative and

operational duties delegated by the director of the Administrative

Office to court personnel. Course topics include automation and

other information technology training; employee benefits, retirement planning, and other human resources matters; financial management; statistical reporting; contracting and procurement; and

facilities management. Information on Administrative Office

training programs can be found on the J-Net.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission provides education and

training to judges, judicial branch personnel, and practitioners in

understanding and applying the Sentencing Guidelines. Some of its

education and training activities are done in conjunction with Center training programs, such as sessions on the Sentencing Guidelines

at the Center’s orientation seminars for new district judges. Information about the Commission’s training programs and educational ma-
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.A

81

terials on the guidelines are available on its Web site at http://www.

ussc.gov.

Local training programs in the court, arranged primarily by

court personnel, can complement national and regional programs.

The Federal Judicial Center can provide advice and modest financial support for in-court programs when necessary. The Administrative Office also allots training funds to courts to conduct training

programs at the local level to ensure proper performance by court

personnel of the responsibilities delegated by the director of the

Administrative Office. Training funds are also allotted for recurring

operating expenses in compliance with guidelines for the Court Allocation Fund (see Guide vol. I, ch. III, pt. F).

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 Federal Judicial 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 some courts, training specialists perform other duties as well as their training duties.

b. Law clerk orientation

Each year in September, shortly after new law clerks begin their

service, the Federal Judicial Center broadcasts an orientation series

on the FJTN to help introduce new law clerks to their roles and responsibilities, and complement local law clerk orientations. The

series consists of presentations on ethics, legal writing and editing,

and a general introduction to the courts and to the federal judicial

system. Programs on subject matter jurisdiction and on the organization and jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts are also broadcast in

conjunction with the orientation series. In addition, the Center

published Maintaining the Public Trust: Ethics for Federal Judicial Law

Clerks (2002) in coordination with the Judicial Conference’s Codes

of Conduct Committee and the Administrative Office. This publication is available on the Center’s Web site on the courts’ intranet

at http://jnet.fjc.dcn.
§ VI.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

82

4. Outside Groups

a. 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 the public and with special

groups that visit the courthouse.

Two Federal Judicial Center publications—a booklet, Federal

Courts and What They Do (1997), and a brochure, Welcome to the

Federal Courts (1996), help federal courts explain their function and

introduce visitors to the courthouse. These publications are available on the Center’s Web site on the court’s intranet at http://

jnet.fjc.dcn. Courts can order these publications from the Administrative Office to have available for court visitors. The Center also

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 on the Internet at http://www.fjc.gov.

The Administrative Office also publishes and distributes a

booklet called Understanding the Federal Courts (1999). Electronic

copies are available on the J-Net. In addition, the Office of Public

Affairs of 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).

b. The Bar

i. Admission

The court has considerable discretion as to the mechanics of

admitting attorneys to its bar. Mail-in procedures and definite times

for any swearing-in ceremonies can simplify the process.

ii. Conduct and disciplinary action

Rules governing attorney conduct vary from district to district.

Federal rules often vary from state rules, and at times conflict with

them. Interpretations of even the same written text may differ. Federal courts realize that, traditionally, attorney licensing and discipline have been within the sphere of state authority (this can create
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.A

83

special problems in the case of federal prosecutors). Some districts

simply incorporate the state rules of professional responsibility.

Some districts adopt the American Bar Association (ABA) Model

Rules or the ABA Model Code, and one district has adopted the

ABA Canons of Ethics. Some districts have adopted their own

stand-alone systems, which differ not only from the state rules but

also from any other system anywhere. 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 (JCUS Report, Sept. 1984, at

52; JCUS Report, Mar. 1979, at 7; JCUS Report, Sept. 1978, at

42–43). 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” (JCUS Report, Mar. 1984, at 9–10).

iii. Services

The chief judge is typically the initial contact between the court

and members of the bar with regard to court services provided to

lawyers. The court may retain attorney admission fees that it collects in excess of the Judicial Conference minimum and use them

“only for purposes which inure to the benefit of the members of the

bench and the bar in the administration of justice” (Guide, vol. I,

ch. VII, pt. M). 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 proce-
§ VI.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

84

dures relating to attorney admission fees, see Guide, vol. I, ch. VII,

pt. M.)

c. The Media

Courts can do several things to assist the media. Clerks typically

handle routine contacts with the press. Some courts either have

public information officers or have designated someone knowledgeable in court processes and policies—the clerk 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. The Center’s Webbased program Inside the Federal Courts can help journalists learn

about the role and organization of the federal courts. It is available

on the Internet at http://www.fjc.gov.

Some courts also prepare press announcements on non-case

subjects, such as appointment of new personnel, elevation of the

chief district judge, or institution of a new case-processing procedure. The Office of Public Affairs in the Administrative Office can

provide advice and assistance on dealing with the media.

B. Budget and Fiscal Matters

1. Budget Formulation

Section 605 of Title 28 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 in January. 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. Then the Judicial

Conference Budget Committee considers the requests of the various

program committees and forwards a recommended budget to the

Conference. The Conference considers and approves the budget

request at its September meeting, twelve months in advance of the

fiscal year. The request is combined with requests of the Supreme
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.B

85

Court, other special courts, and judicial branch agencies and submitted in February, nine 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.

2. Budget Execution

Budget execution for the federal courts centers on the development and use of a “national financial plan.” The plan, which includes separate appropriations for salaries and expenses of the federal trial and appellate courts, court security, defender services, and

fees of jurors, guides and controls the expenditure of judiciary funds.

To help the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference

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. It also estimates the

needs of both centrally managed programs and allotments provided

to the individual courts on the basis of anticipated workload and

staffing for the coming year, as well as support costs and project requirements. The Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference

finalizes and approves the financial plan after Congress enacts the

appropriations. In the event Congress does not enact the judicial

branch appropriations by the October 1 start of the fiscal year

(which typically requires the courts to operate with the same funding as in the just-ended fiscal year), the Executive Committee approves an “interim financial plan” to serve as a spending guide until

appropriations are enacted.

Under the judiciary’s budget decentralization system, the Administrative Office allots funds to each court with which to conduct

operations. The courts generally have substantial authority to allocate resources as required, under the oversight of the chief judge.

The courts provide quarterly spending reports to the Administrative

Office.

Local budget decisions can be made differently in each district.

Such decisions include review and approval of annual spending

plans, projections and priorities (and changes during the fiscal year),

specific funding requests from individual court units, and repro-
§ VI.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

86

gramming of funds within and among court units. As chief judge,

you have ultimate responsibility to oversee the process, but you can

delegate specific decision-making authority to court budget committees, other individual judges, or court unit executives.

The Judicial Conference has conditioned decentralization of

budgetary authority on the understanding that participating court

units have adopted procedures governing their budget approval and

reprogramming processes. Accordingly, each unit of a district court

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, and it specifies the roles and responsibilities of court officials in handling budget matters. Model plans are

available on the J-Net.

Understanding the Judiciary’s Budget Process, the Administrative

Office’s fifteen-minute video and companion guide for chief judges,

provides further information on the requirements and procedures for

budget formulation and execution. Copies are available from the

Budget Division of the Administrative Office.

3. Audit of Moneys in Custody of Court Personnel

The clerk of court, as the court’s financial officer, is accountable

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 751(e), 2041–2044 for a wide range of financial

activities:

• disbursing appropriated and other funds in the treasury for

the district, bankruptcy, and appellate courts, and the federal public defender office, if applicable, for travel and normal operation and maintenance;

• collecting and accounting for funds received for court services, for court-imposed fines, penalties, and forfeitures, and

for refunds to appropriations; and

• accounting for other deposited funds that pass through the

court to individuals, corporations, and government agencies

(see Guide, vol. I-C, ch. IX; vol. III, sec. A, ch. V, pt. B).

As noted in section V.A.4, supra, a bankruptcy clerk has special accountability for bankruptcy fees and costs.
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.B

87

The Administrative Office conducts financial audits of the

courts by contracting with a national public accounting firm and

through its own Office of Audit. The audit cycle is approximately

every four years. The court audits include an attestation to the fairness of the accounting reports, evaluations of internal controls and

compliance with financial management requirements, and tests of

financial transactions. Chief district judges are entitled to receive all

audit reports, should oversee necessary follow-up actions, and can

request that the Office of Audit conduct special audits when there

are personnel turnovers or if they have reason to suspect problems.

The Office of Audit is also responsible for performing audits whenever a court changes its clerk of court.

The Administrative Office’s Management Oversight and Stewardship Handbook (2001), pages 55–57, provides additional guidance on

court fund management and audits. This publication is available on

the J-Net.

4. Certifying Officer Program

Historically the clerks of the district courts have had exclusive

responsibility for disbursing appropriated funds to pay for goods and

services acquired by court units within their districts and by appellate court units and public defender offices for which their districts

disburse funds. Clerks of district courts have also been responsible

for certifying the correctness and legality of those payments. In performing the certifying function, they are accountable for, and thus

face pecuniary liability for, any illegal, improper, or incorrect payments. As a result, most clerks require substantial amounts of supporting documentation from court units to substantiate payment

requests.

The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000 authorizes additional certifying officer positions within the judiciary, to separate

the certifying and disbursing function. In September 2001, the Judicial Conference approved a policy under which the director of the

Administrative Office will designate certifying officers in appellate,

district, and bankruptcy courts with the concurrence of the respective chief judges of those courts, and bankruptcy administrators and

bankruptcy appellate panel clerks will be designated with the con-
§ VI.B Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

88

currence of the chief circuit judge. Implementation of the program

began in 2002. Education of prospective certifying officers and their

support personnel in the principles of federal appropriations law and

certifying officers’ responsibility and liabilities is a key element of

the program.

C. Buildings and Equipment

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” (28

U.S.C. § 604(a)(12)), by providing for the acquisition, management, alteration, and construction of facilities. Primary responsibility for these programs rests with the Space and Facilities Division of

the Office of Facilities and Security of the Administrative Office.

Chief judges should participate actively in all of the major functional areas of the space and facilities program: (1) long-range planning, (2) space acquisition, (3) space alterations and construction,

and (4) daily building operations and parking policies.

b. Long-range planning

The Judicial Conference has directed the courts to develop

long-range plans for all space occupied by judiciary personnel

(JCUS Report, Mar. 1988, at 39). The planning strategy should include

• forecasting caseload growth in incremental time frames;

• projecting the number of judges and support staff required to

meet the forecasted caseload growth;

• determining the amount of additional space required by staff

increases; and

• comparing projected space requirements with capacities of

existing facilities.

Administrative Office staff will assist district court representatives in long-range planning sessions. The chief district judge should

appoint a team leader—typically the district court clerk—to meet

with Administrative Office staff. The team leader should then select
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.C

89

a planning team consisting of representatives from the 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 GSA building manager and members

of the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Attorney’s Office should also

be present at each session.

c. Space acquisition

When a court identifies a need for space, it should verify with

the circuit executive whether a space request requires circuit judicial

council approval. The court should forward the space request to the

Administrative Office if it does not require council approval or, if it

does, after the council has approved. The request will be reviewed

for completeness and compliance with the U.S. Courts Design

Guide.36 If the Administrative Office finds the request satisfactory, it

will prepare and submit to GSA a formal request form. GSA will

analyze the request and is empowered to provide government-owned

space or to acquire leased space.

Additional information regarding the space acquisition process

is available from the Chief, Space Management Branch of the Administrative Office’s Space and Facilities Division.

d. Space alterations and construction

Space alteration projects fall into two categories: (1) projects

that are less than an amount called the “prospectus level,” and

(2) projects that are equal to or greater than the prospectus level.

(The prospectus level was $2.13 million in FY 2002.) Under budget

decentralization, funds are allocated to each circuit judicial council

to fund projects throughout its circuit.

Courts generally have no authority to perform tenant alterations

or other construction and must rely on GSA to make alterations

through a process called a Reimbursable Work Authorization

(RWA). For projects that are less than the prospectus level, circuit

and court unit executives have authority to sign RWA requests to

GSA for tenant alterations costing up to $25,000. The circuit judi-

 

36. The Design Guide, which contains architectural specifications for all court

facilities, is available to chief district judges through the clerk of court.
§ VI.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

90

cial council must approve alterations costing more than $25,000 but

less than the prospectus level.

Prospectus-level projects must be approved by Congress through

line items in GSA’s annual budget. Requests for GSA funding are

made only after a proposed project is reviewed within the judicial

branch. RWAs for prospectus-level projects can be approved only by

the Administrative Office’s Space and Facilities Division. Some circuit judicial councils also want to review such projects. Prospectuslevel projects involving construction of new courthouses or annexes

are prioritized and ranked in the Five-Year Courthouse Project Plan

approved by the Judicial Conference and provided to GSA, which

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

Additional information on space alterations and related matters

is available from the Space and Facilities Division or on the J-Net.

e. Daily building operations and parking policies

The chief district 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 Planning and Analysis Branch of the Space and Facilities Division of the Administrative

Office.

2. Court Security and Emergency Preparedness

a. Court security program

Under 28 U.S.C. § 566(a), the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)

is responsible for the security of the federal courts (see supra section

V.E.2). The USMS investigates threats, protects judges and other

participants in the judicial process, confines and transports prisoners, and secures facilities that house primarily court and courtrelated operations (or judicial areas in multitenant buildings). The

USMS manages the judiciary-funded Judicial Facility Security Program (JFSP), which provides for the purchase and installation of

security systems and equipment for court facilities and the procurement of contract court security officers (CSOs). The scope of work
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.C

91

under the CSO contract is to provide for the safety and security of

judges, court personnel, jurors, witnesses, defendants, federal property, and the public.

The U.S. marshal is responsible for security-related services at

the district level, under the general guidance of the district’s court

security committee. Establishing a court security committee for each

district was a cornerstone recommendation of the Report of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Court Security, which was endorsed

by the Judicial Conference in 1982. The committee should include,

at a minimum, the chief district judge (or a judge you designate);

the U.S. marshal, who serves as the principal coordinator; the clerk

of court; a U.S. magistrate judge; a representative of the bankruptcy

court; a representative of the court of appeals if the appeals court

has a presence within the district; the U.S. attorney; and a GSA

representative. At the court’s option, a representative from the district’s probation and pretrial services office can also be a member.

The General Services Administration (GSA), as the federal

government’s property manager, is responsible for the security of all

federal buildings within its inventory and for the safety of the employees who work in them (40 U.S.C. § 318). GSA’s Federal Protective Service (FPS) provides a visible uniformed presence in major

federal buildings, responds to criminal incidents and other emergencies, installs and monitors security devices and systems, investigates

criminal incidents, and conducts physical security surveys. It also

coordinates a comprehensive program for occupants’ emergency

programs; presents formal crime prevention and security awareness

programs; and provides police emergency and special security services during natural disasters, such as earthquakes and hurricanes,

and man-made disasters, such as bomb explosions and riots. These

services are, for the most part, provided at multitenant federal facilities that may or may not house court space.

The Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities,

which oversees all security matters, has recommended that each

court issue an order regulating the possession of firearms and other

weapons in the courtroom (JCUS Report, Sept. 1988, at 68). A district court security plan might also include provisions for background checks, including criminal record checks, of employees of
§ VI.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

92

contract cleaning services. In preparing the court security appropriation request, the Administrative Office seeks information from each

marshal, but asks that both the chief district judge and the marshal

sign the summary appropriation form.

b. Emergency preparedness

The judiciary is largely dependent on the General Services Administration to provide and maintain its official workplaces, and on

the U.S. 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 employees are designated to undertake emergency response duties when the need arises. The district court’s security committee (discussed in the preceding section) 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 or from the Judiciary Emergency Preparedness Office of

the Administrative Office.

3. Equipment, Supplies, and Services

a. Procurement authority

The director of the Administrative Office has made general

delegations of procurement authority, including conditions and

dollar limitations for equipment, supplies, and services, to chief district judges and federal public defenders. In addition to these general

delegations, the director has made special delegations of procurement authority, exceeding the dollar limitations of the general delegations, under specific programs (e.g., law books, court reporting

services, courtroom technologies design and installation services,
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.C

93

offender treatment services and residential halfway house services,

and copy center services). Each of these special delegation programs

has specific mandatory procedures. Usually, a chief judge designates

a procurement liaison officer, who must certify that he or she will

comply with the procurement policies set out in volume I, chapter

VIII of the Guide. Like other delegated management functions,

however, the court’s procurement and contracting activities are

overseen by the chief judge.

b. Management of court property

All equipment and supplies purchased with appropriated funds

and used by court employees, including desks, chairs, computers,

and copiers, are the property of the government and are to be used

only for official purposes and ultimately disposed of in accordance

with established rules. The chief district judge separately appoints a

“custodial officer” to oversee day-to-day management of the court’s

official property and a “disposal officer” to oversee disposal of official

property no longer needed to conduct government business.

The Guide (vol. I, ch. V) provides detailed guidance on the appropriate management of judiciary property. For further information, contact the Space and Facilities Division of the Administrative Office.

c. Information technology

The Administrative Office provides a variety of computer

equipment and specific software applications to the federal judiciary.

These applications include the Case Management/Electronic Case

Files (CM/ECF) system, a jury management system, a financial accounting system, a case-tracking system for probation and pretrial

services, and electronic bankruptcy noticing. 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 sites 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 is revised annually after review by the Judicial

Conference Committee on Information Technology. The commit-
§ VI.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

94

tee also sets priorities for implementation of information technology

projects that may be funded from the Judiciary Information Technology Fund, which the Administrative Office administers under

the committee’s direction. Chief judges receive a copy of the plan

with the Conference committee reports. 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.

Local court technology staff implement and maintain nationally

developed systems available from the Administrative Office, and

also adapt or develop applications to meet their 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 information

technology structure. Some districts have separate systems managers

and systems staff for the clerk’s office, probation, and pretrial services. 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 even consolidated their information technology

resources under one umbrella, and a single systems manager coordinates the resources of all offices in the district. Often, only the district court offices consolidate technology resources, depending in

part on whether they are located in the same building or in close

proximity.

Various technologies can also 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. To those ends, the Judicial Conference has endorsed the

use of technologies in the courtroom and, subject to the availability

of funds and priorities, urges that (1) courtroom technologies—including video evidence presentation systems, videoconferencing systems, and electronic methods of taking the record—be

considered necessary and integral parts of courtrooms undergoing

construction or major renovation; and (2) the same courtroom

technologies be retrofitted into existing courtrooms or those under-
Chief District Judge’s Management and Administrative Functions § VI.C

95

going tenant alterations as appropriate (JCUS Report, Mar. 1999, at

8).

The Administrative Office has contracts with several companies

for the design of courtroom audiovisual systems and for their installation. An updated list of these vendors and a list of Administrative

Office staff to whom questions should be directed can be found in

the appendices to the Procedures for Using the Courtroom Technologies Contracts, which is available on the J-Net.

In addition, 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 in the use of

courtroom technologies. This publication is available on the Center’s Web site on the courts’ intranet at http://jnet.fjc.dcn.

To help protect the security of the judiciary’s electronic systems

and information, the Judicial Conference has approved a national

minimum standard defining appropriate personal use of government

office equipment, including information technology, subject to the

right of each court unit to impose or maintain more restrictive policies (JCUS Report, Sept. 2002, at 47–48). Individual courts have

the responsibility to enforce appropriate use policies.

For more information about the judiciary’s information technology programs, contact the Office of Information Technology of the

Administrative Office.

d. Library service

The federal court library system makes library services available

for all appellate, district, and bankruptcy personnel within the circuit. In addition to the libraries in each court of appeals headquarters, satellite libraries are in about 100 locations. A Virtual Law Library is also available on the J-Net. Although the Judicial

Conference recognizes the clear need for law books and other legal

research materials in hard copy, it has recently promoted on-line

research as a cost-containment measure.

Advice or assistance on library, law book, and computer-assisted

legal research matters is available from the circuit librarian and from

the Appellate Court and Circuit Administration Division of the

Administrative Office. In addition, the Federal Judicial Center’s
§ VI.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

96

Information Services Office maintains libraries of books and audiovisual programs for use by federal judicial employees.

D. Statistical Reporting

Each district court is responsible for sending a variety of statistical data on case filing, case operations, and other matters to the

Administrative Office, primarily to the Office of Human Resources

and Statistics (see Guide, vol. XI). Some data are also collected by

the Employee Relations Office and by the Magistrate Judges Division. The data, which form the basis for extensive Administrative

Office reports on caseloads and court operations (see supra sections

III.C.2 and III.C.3), are prepared by the clerks of court (district and

bankruptcy), probation offices, pretrial services offices, federal public defenders, and others, such as the EEO coordinators.

Although you are not required to approve or verify each report,

you should strive to ensure that data sent to the Administrative Office are accurate and complete. The need for integrity and accuracy

in data that describe the work of the federal judiciary nationally and

in each district is obvious. The Administrative Office will notify a

court if its reports are late or incomplete or are otherwise problematic—a notification that may eventually reach the chief district

judge.
97

VII. 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 casemanagement 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). In carrying out these case-management responsibilities, you may deal with both individual and systemic problems. 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. 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 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 appropri-
§ VII.A Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

98

ate 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

You 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. In 1996, the Judicial Conference

adopted a numbering system for local rules that corresponds with

the relevant Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (JCUS Report,

Mar. 1996, at 34–35).

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 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
Case Management: Responsibilities and Options § VII.A

99

free of charge (JCUS Report, Mar. 2001, at 14). Local rules for

many courts can be found on their Web sites, which can be accessed

through the Internet at http://www.uscourts.gov. The Judicial Conference has encouraged courts to (1) post their local rules on Internet Web sites, (2) establish a Web site if they do not have one, if

only to post the local rules, (3) make the local rules more accessible

on their Web sites by creating a local rule icon or posting the rules

in a prominent location, and (4) state the effective date of the rules

(JCUS Report, Sept. 2000, at 46).

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 (JCUS Report,

Apr. 1972, at 33). The Conference will not consider proposals to

change the geographical and organizational configurations 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.
§ VII.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

100

C. Jury Matters

1. Random Selection

Section 1863 of Title 28 requires each district court to “devise

and place into operation a written plan for random selection of

grand and petit jurors that shall be designed to achieve the objectives of sections 1861 and 1862 of this title.” Sections 1861 and

1862 state the federal policies favoring randomness and opposing

discrimination in jury selection. A circuit-level panel consisting of

the circuit judicial council and the chief district judge or a designee

must approve the jury selection plan before it can be put into operation. A copy of the jury selection plan should be filed with the Administrative Office and the Attorney General.

The statute sets out the basic procedures and criteria that the

court must use to select jurors randomly. Among other things, it

authorizes either the clerk or a jury commission to manage the selection process and directs the clerk or commission to “act under the

supervision and control of the chief judge of the district court or

such other judge of the district court as the plan may provide” (28

U.S.C. § 1863(b)(1)). The statute directs the chief district judge (or

another judge if the court’s plan so provides) or the clerk, under the

court’s supervision if the court’s plan so authorizes, to determine

whether prospective jurors are qualified, disqualified, exempt, or to

be excused from jury service (28 U.S.C. § 1865).

2. Reports and Analyses

Section 1863(a) of Title 28 calls on each court to submit to the

Administrative Office “in such form and at such times as the Judicial Conference of the United States may specify” a report analyzing

the district’s jury selection practices in light of its demographic

composition. Pursuant to this authority, the Judicial Conference has

relieved the courts of their obligation to submit these reports to the

Administrative Office and has indicated that the clerk of court or a

designee should perform the statistical analysis to evaluate the randomness of the district’s selection procedures (JCUS Report, Sept.

1982, at 114). This analysis involves taking a statistical sampling of
Case Management: Responsibilities and Options § VII.C

101

the jury wheel and comparing the sample with data on the relevant

voting-age citizen population. The analysis must be completed each

time the master jury wheel is refilled and any time the court changes

its jury selection plan for juror qualification, exemption, or excuse.

The reports should be kept on file in the clerk’s office (Guide, vol.

IV, ch. XXIII, sec. 23.11.b).

3. Juror Utilization

Judges are familiar with techniques for effective juror utilization—techniques to ensure that an adequate number of jurors are

available and ready to serve when a trial begins while minimizing

the number of jurors not selected to serve on a jury. But consistent

use of these techniques often requires the chief district judge’s exhortation. Inefficient juror utilization reflects on the court as a

whole and is not likely to be attributed only to those judges who are

responsible for it. The Judicial Conference has established a national goal of limiting to 30% those jurors not selected, serving, or

challenged on voir dire or orientation day (JCUS Report, Sept.

1984, at 88).

The appropriate length of a term of jury service is an important

policy matter for each court to decide. However, the length of the

term must be consistent with the Jury Selection and Service Act’s

provision that, unless an exception applies, a person shall not have

to attend court or serve as a juror for more than thirty days in a twoyear period (28 U.S.C. § 1866(e)).

Technical assistance in improving a court’s juror utilization record is available from the District Court Administration Division of

the Administrative Office. In addition, the Federal Judicial Center

conducts jury utilization workshops, and its Handbook on Jury Use in

the Federal District Courts (1989) discusses basic concepts related to

administering federal juries and reviews various juror utilization procedures used in the district courts. Although it is intended primarily

for staff, district judges may find the handbook useful. The Administrative Office’s annual Report on Juror Utilization, which is available

on the J-Net, may also prove helpful.
§ VII.C Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

102

4. Juror Orientation

Citizens called to the court for jury service should receive an

orientation to their roles and obligations. Chief district judges rarely

greet new jury panels, but there may be some benefits to the court if

you or another judge meets briefly with the jurors. Although the

clerk of court or jury administrator can provide orientation, if jurors

have exposure to a judge, their perceptions of the importance of

their task are likely to be enhanced.

Additional resources the court can use with juror orientation are

two media programs: The Federal Grand Jury: The People’s Panel

(1985) and Called To Serve (Federal Judicial Center 1995), a program on petit juries. Both of these programs are recommended by

the Judicial Conference. Each district court received one copy of

Called To Serve, and additional copies can be obtained from the

Center’s Information Services Office. Courts may also contact the

Information Services Office for information on how to obtain The

Federal Grand Jury.

The Administrative Office’s Handbook for Trial Jurors Serving in

the United States District Courts (1986) and Handbook for Federal

Grand Jurors (1986) (Forms HB 100 and 101) can be downloaded

from the J-Net. Most districts have developed information sheets or

booklets containing local information, such as reporting instructions

and travel directions. In addition to the more traditional paper

methods of communication, nearly all federal district courts have

juror information available on their Web sites, which can be accessed through the Internet at http://www.uscourts.gov.

5. Grand Juries

District courts should ensure that U.S. attorneys make effective

use of grand juries. Consider asking the clerk of court to investigate

how many grand juries are currently impaneled, how frequently they

meet, how much time they spend in active session, and whether the

court has impaneled more juries than necessary (perhaps because of

lack of coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s Office).
Case Management: Responsibilities and Options § VII.C

103

a. Special grand juries

All districts with more than 4 million people must summon a

special grand jury at least once every eighteen months, unless another special grand jury is then serving (18 U.S.C. § 3331 (a)). In

smaller districts, the Attorney General may request that a chief district judge impanel a special grand jury.

b. Instructions

In some districts, instructing the grand jury is a function traditionally assumed by the chief district judge. The Federal Judicial

Center’s Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges (4th ed. Mar. 2000

rev.), section 7.04, includes grand jury instructions approved by the

Judicial Conference (JCUS Report, Mar. 1986, at 33). The Benchbook is available on the Center’s Web site on the courts’ intranet at

http://jnet.fjc.dcn.

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 prepare a plan describing the

court’s goals and performance under the Act. As part of the Act’s

implementation, each district appointed a planning group to prepare

and update the district’s speedy trial plan. The statute directs planning groups to consist, “at minimum,” of the chief district judge, a

magistrate judge (if the chief district judge designates one), the U.S.

attorney, the clerk of court, the chief probation officer, the federal

public defender (if any), two private attorneys (one experienced in

criminal defense litigation and one, in civil litigation), and a person

skilled in criminal justice research to act as reporter (18 U.S.C.

§ 3168(a)). The statute requires each district’s plan to be approved

by a review panel consisting of the circuit judicial council and the

chief district judge or a designee. Upon approval, the plan is filed

with the Administrative Office.

Give special attention to judicial emergencies and suspensions

of the Act’s time limits. Although used sparingly, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3174(a) authorizes you, “after seeking the recommendations of the

planning group,” to apply to the circuit judicial council for a suspen-
§ VII.D Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

104

sion 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), you 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.

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 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. Courts that already

have established ADR programs are required to evaluate and, if necessary, revise their programs to ensure that they comply with the

Act. Judicial Conference policy requires courts to adopt a local rule

or policy regarding compensation of neutrals (JCUS Report, Sept.

1999, at 53–54; Guide, vol. I, ch. III, pt. I).

As chief judge, you have no specific obligations under the Act,

but you should ensure that its 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 helpful guidelines on

designing court ADR programs.37 The Federal Judicial Center’s

 

37. Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial

Conference of the U.S., Guidelines for Ensuring Fair and Effective Court-Annexed

ADR: Attributes of a Well-Functioning ADR Program and Ethical Principles for

ADR Neutrals (Dec. 1997), reprinted in Robert J. Niemic et al., Guide to Judicial

Management of Cases in ADR app. D at 152 (Federal Judicial Center 2001).
Case Management: Responsibilities and Options § VII.D

105

Guide to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR (2001) provides information on the costs and benefits of various ADR procedures.

This publication is available on the Center’s Web site on the courts’

intranet at http://jnet.fjc.dcn.

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. It required all ninety-four district

courts to implement “civil justice expense and delay reduction

plans”; established pilot and demonstration programs to test the efficacy of the case-management principles, guidelines, and techniques

set out in the Act; and directed the Judicial Conference to study

these pilot and demonstration programs and make recommendations

based on the results obtained. The Civil Litigation Management Manual (2001) was produced in response to the CJRA. The manual is

available on the Center’s Web site on the courts’ intranet at http://

jnet.fjc.dcn.

Although most CJRA provisions expired in 1997, the Conference’s May 1997 final report to Congress38 recommended an alternative expense and delay reduction program that remains in place.

The report included these recommendations to district courts:

• 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;

• extend education regarding efficient case management to

the entire legal community; and

 

38. This report is available on the J-Net.
§ VII.D Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

106

• encourage the use of electronic technologies in the district

courts where appropriate.

(The report also endorsed the national statistical reporting requirements in the Civil Justice Reform Act.)

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. You are “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 place of holding court for cases

filed in that location.

1. Chief District Judge’s Caseload

You need 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, you need to 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.

You can reduce your caseload in several ways. You can take only

criminal cases or only civil cases, or take a reduced percentage of

case assignments—civil, criminal, or both. You can take responsibility for only particular types of cases or matters, such as preindictment 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)).
Case Management: Responsibilities and Options § VII.E

107

2. Random Assignment

Most district courts use a random case-assignment system. There

are various devices for randomly assigning cases, ranging from sealed

envelopes to marbles in a bin. An automated system, available from

the Administrative Office’s Office of Information Technology, 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.

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 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 on the court of 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.
§ VII.E Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

108

Transfer of a case to a district judge by the 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, you may wish to discuss with the district judge the anticipated impact of the transfer.

The two of you might explore, 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,

you may see a need to involve other members of the district court 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. In 1999, the Judicial Conference, while rejecting

screening and assignment of difficult cases to judges on a nonrandom basis, recommended (1) that districts with multicategory caseassignment 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 (JCUS Report, Mar. 1999, at 12–13).

4. Cases Under Civil Priority Statutes

Some of the so-called civil priority statutes impose special caseassignment duties on you. 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 is to 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;
Case Management: Responsibilities and Options § VII.E

109

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 your

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, as noted in section

III.B.2.a, supra, 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 manage the

intracircuit assignment process. Intercircuit assignments require the

consent of the Chief Justice, who is authorized by statute to assign
§ VII.F Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

110

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).

b. Standards for temporary assignments

i. Intracircuit assignments

Chief circuit judges vary in their willingness to authorize intracircuit assignments. In general, the extent to which a district

court uses intracircuit assignments depends on its specific needs and

the availability of judges outside the district but within the circuit.

ii. 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. The most recent version of these

guidelines can be found on the J-Net.

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. A judge

assigned to work on the 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 chief circuit judge must consent to the

assignment of an active judge from that circuit, but senior judges

can consent to their own assignment.

The Judicial Conference has also approved guidelines for intracircuit and intercircuit assignments of magistrate judges under 28

U.S.C. § 636(f) (JCUS Report, Mar. 1998, at 24), and intercircuit

assignments of bankruptcy judges under 28 U.S.C. § 155(a) (JCUS

Report, Sept. 1988, at 59; JCUS Report, Mar. 1995, at 11; JCUS
Case Management: Responsibilities and Options § VII.F

111

Report, Sept. 1998, at 45). These guidelines, which are similar to

those applicable to intercircuit assignments of Article III judges, can

be found on the J-Net.

c. Host court’s responsibilities to visiting judges

When a visiting judge is assigned, the district court and the

chief district judge have several major responsibilities. These responsibilities often fall immediately to the clerk of court. However,

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 various

amenities, such as 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.

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. In

one court, for example, all trials assigned to a visiting judge are

scheduled for the first Monday of a two-week visit. Further 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 2001), which is available on the

Center’s Web site on the courts’ intranet at http://jnet.fjc.dcn.
§ VII.F Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

112

2. Chief District Judges and Case Delay3 9 

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 so40 and no agreed-upon definition of

“case delay.” Working with the clerk of court, you—or a judge you

designate—should routinely examine the court’s caseload statistics

and the reports described in section F.3 of this chapter.

Reducing case delay can be one of your more difficult responsibilities, particularly when the delay appears to be due to a judge’s

inability to manage his or her caseload. Some courts have established “calendar committees” to relieve the chief judge of the dayto-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 casemanagement 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, you (or your

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 you. A letter or telephone call from the

chief circuit judge requesting an inquiry about a judge’s delinquent

cases can provide you with 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; for

example, discovery in complex cases is often unavoidably time-

 

39. Parts of the analysis in this section are drawn from a presentation by then

Chief Judge Sam Pointer (N.D. Ala.) to the Federal Judicial Center’s May 1992

Conference of Chief District Judges.

40. The Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 3161–3174) seeks to prevent delay in

criminal cases.
Case Management: Responsibilities and Options § VII.F

113

consuming. Sometimes delay results from the impact of criminal

filings on the civil docket, extended judicial vacancies, or related

proceedings (e.g., civil proceedings that had to be stayed because

the parties were also involved in related criminal cases or bankruptcy proceedings). When case delay results from factors largely

beyond the court’s control, 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 greater 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
§ VII.F Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

114

calendars41 and pairing of judges to assume trial assignments;

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 (2001), which was required by the Civil Justice

Reform Act and approved by the Judicial Conference in March

2001 (JCUS Report, Mar. 2001, at 15). The manual is available on

the Federal Judicial Center’s Web site on the courts’ intranet at

http://jnet.fjc.dcn, and a limited number of hard copies are available

from the Information Services Office of the Center or the Court

Administration Policy Staff of the Administrative Office.

In addition to all 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. You can bolster

this expectation greatly by setting a good example of effective 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 statisti-

 

41. See, e.g., Donna Stienstra, The Joint Trial Calendars in the Western District of Missouri (Federal Judicial Center 1985).
Case Management: Responsibilities and Options § VII.F

115

cal 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 for more than six months, 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 (JCUS Report, Sept. 1991, at 45–46; JCUS Report,

Mar. 1998, at 11; JCUS Report, Sept. 1998, at 63; JCUS Report,

Sept. 1999, at 57–58). Any questions regarding reporting requirements should be addressed to the Administrative Office’s Statistics

Division in the Office of Human Resources and Statistics.

Bankruptcy judges also submit quarterly information on their

cases and motions (including adversary proceedings) under advisement for more than sixty days. This information is submitted to the

circuit executive, who prepares a consolidated report for submission

to the council, the chief district judges, and the Administrative Office.

117

Selected Bibliography

Many of the public documents listed here are available on the judicial branch intranet sites of the Administrative Office of the U.S.

Courts (http://jnet.ao.dcn) and the Federal Judicial Center (http://

jnet.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, ch. 9, Institutional Issues in Litigation Management (2001).

Jennifer Evans Marsh, The Use of Visiting Judges in the Federal District

Courts: A Guide for Judges and Court Personnel (Federal Judicial

Center 2001).

Court Governance

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Compendium of Chief Judge

Authorities (Judges Information Series no. 8, October 2002).

Russell R. Wheeler, Origins of the Elements of Federal Court Governance

(Federal Judicial Center 1992).

Russell R. Wheeler & Gordon Bermant, Federal Court Governance: Why

Congress Should—and Why Congress Should Not—Create a FullTime Executive Judge, Abolish the Judicial Conference, and Remove

Circuit Judges from District Court Governance (Federal Judicial Center 1994).

Information Technology

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Long Range Plan for Information

Technology in the Federal Judiciary (2002, 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 Policies and

Procedures.

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, Long Range Plan for the Federal

Courts (1995).
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

118

Judicial Conference of the United States, Procedures for the Conduct of

Business by the Judicial Conference Committees on Rules of Practice

and Procedure (1997).

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.

Management

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Management Oversight and

Stewardship Handbook (2001).

Max H. Bazerman, Judgement in Managerial Decision-Making (1997).

Warren Bennis, On Becoming a Leader (1990).

Allen R. Cohen & David L. Bradford, Influence Without Authority

(1990).

James C. Collins & Jerry I. Porras, Built to Last: Habits of Visionary Companies (1997).

David Herbert Donald, Lincoln (1995).

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 Keep

Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations (rev. ed. 1995).

Douglas K. Smith, Taking Charge of Change: 10 Principles for Managing

People and Performance (1997).

Personnel

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Employment Dispute Resolution

Bench Book for Judges (2001).

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Judiciary Fair Employment Practices Annual Report (annual).

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Selection, Appointment,

and Reappointment of United States Bankruptcy Judges (1998).

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Selection, Appointment,

and Reappointment of United States Magistrate Judges (2002).

David K. Hendrickson, Conducting Job Interviews: A Guide for Federal

Judges (Federal Judicial Center 1999).
Selected Bibliography

119

Public and Media Materials

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Public Affairs, HighProfile Cases in District Court: How to Work with the Media.

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Understanding the Federal

Courts (1999).

Federal Judicial Center, Federal Courts and What They Do (1997).

Federal Judicial Center, Inside the Federal Courts (available on the Center’s public Web site at http://www.fjc.gov, as well as on the Center’s

site on the judicial branch intranet).

Federal Judicial Center, Welcome to the Federal Courts (1996) (pamphlet).

Other

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Risk of Personal Liability for

Federal Judges (Judges Information Series no. 7, 2d ed. 2002), esp.

pages 9–24, Immunity from Liability for Administrative Acts.

James G. Apple et al., Manual for Cooperation between State and Federal

Courts (Federal Judicial Center 1997).

121

Index

A

Administrative assistant

to chief district judge, 11

to Chief Justice, 25

Administrative Office of the U.S.

Courts

Appellate Court and Circuit Administration Division, 95

Article III Judges Division, 5, 71,

79

Audit Office, 87

authority, 34

Bankruptcy Judges Division, 48

budget and fiscal matters, 84–88

community and educational outreach program, 82

Court Security Office, 68

creation of, 34

Defender Services Division, 66

deputy director, 34

director, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 57, 84,

88, 92

District Court Administration Division, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 101

Employee Relations Office, 78, 96

financial audits, conducting, 87

functions, 34–35

generally, 34–36

history, 34

information technology, provision

and implementation, 93–95

investigation of alleged waste,

fraud, or abuse, 36

Judicial Conference, relationship

with, 27, 34–35

Administrative Office of the U.S.

Courts (continued)

Judiciary Emergency Preparedness

Office, 92

Magistrate Judges Division, 52, 53,

96

Office of Audit, 87

Office of Facilities and Security,

88

Office of General Counsel, 40, 79

Office of Human Resources and

Statistics, 74, 96, 115

Office of Information Technology,

95, 107

Office of the Judicial Conference

Executive Secretariat, 26, 32

Office of Legislative Affairs, 31

Office of Management, Planning

and Assessment, 69

Office of Public Affairs, 82, 84

organization, 34–35

orientation and training programs

for court employees, 80

orientation programs for judges,

11, 73

publications and reports, 5, 7, 12,

35–36, 48, 52, 71, 73, 78–79,

82, 86, 87, 95, 101, 102, 115

responsibilities, generally, 8,

34–35

services, 34–36

Space and Facilities Division, 88,

89, 90, 93

statistical reporting, 96, 114–15

Statistics Division, 115

Alternative dispute resolution, 104–05,

113
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

122

Alternative Dispute Resolution Act,

104–05

American Bar Association

Canons of Ethics, 83

Model Code, 83

Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, 83

National Lawyer Regulatory Data

Bank, 83

Anti-terrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act, 66

Attorney General, U.S., 68, 91, 100,

103, 106, 108–09, 115

Attorneys, private

admission fees, 83–84

admission to bar, 82, 83–84

alternative dispute resolution programs, participation in designing, 104

chief district judge as contact

with, 8, 83

conduct, 82–83

court services, 83–84

Criminal Justice Act appointments, 65

disciplinary actions against, 82–83

district court advisory groups, participation in, 105

education regarding district court

case management, 105

local court rules distribution to,

98–99

rules governing, 82–83

Speedy Trial Act planning group,

membership in, 103

Audiovisual systems, courtroom, 95

Audits of court accounts, 86–87

B

Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal

Judgeship Act, 41, 47, 48, 49

Bankruptcy courts

bankruptcy administrators, 87

bankruptcy appellate panel clerks,

87

bankruptcy noticing, electronic,

93

certifying officers in, 87

circuit judicial council oversight

of, 48, 49, 50, 115

clerk, 47–48, 50, 86

court security committee, representation on, 91

district court, relationship with,

9–10, 47–48

judges

See Bankruptcy judges

local rules, 47

space and facilities planning

group, representation on, 89

Bankruptcy judges

appointment, 41, 47, 48–49

authority, 47–48

chief bankruptcy judges

designation, 47

responsibilities, 47

disability or misconduct complaints, 42–43

generally, 47–50, 115

intercircuit assignments, 49,

110–11

Judicial Conference committees,

membership on, 33

location, 49–51

need for, determining, 29
Index

123

Bankruptcy judges (continued)

nominees, evaluation by circuit

judicial council, 41, 48–49

orientation, 73

recall procedure, 49–50

removal procedure, 43, 49

reports, 115

review of actions by circuit judicial council, 40

rules for division of business, 47

selection, 48–49

term of office, 49

Bar associations

See also American Bar Association; Attorneys, private

circuit judicial conference attendance, 43

district court relations with, 8,

82–84

local rules adoption, district court

consultation regarding, 97

Budget and fiscal matters

audit of moneys in court custody,

86–87

budget execution, 85–86

budget formulation, 84–85

budget organization plan, district

court, 86

budget requests to Congress,

84–85

decentralization of, 85, 86, 89

financial plan

interim, 85

national, 85

generally, 84–88

local budget decisions, 85–86

operating without a budget, 85

Buildings and equipment, 88–95

See also Space and facilities

C

Calendar systems, 113–14

Case assignment

See Case management

Case management

backlogs and delays, 21, 109–15

case assignment, 106–09

Case Management/Electronic

Case Files (CM/ECF) system,

93

caseload reductions for chief district judges, 106

circuit judicial council responsibility for, 40, 114–15

civil priority statutes, cases under,

108–09

civil RICO cases, 109

complex cases, 108

delays, 21, 109–15

education of legal community regarding, 105

frivolous or repetitive litigation,

107

generally, 97–115

intracircuit and intercircuit assignments of judges 28–29,

110–11

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, case assignments

by, 107, 108

jury matters, 100–03

local rules

See Local court rules

new judges, cases assigned to, 113

oversight, chief district judge’s

responsibility for, 7, 97–115

places for holding court, 99

protracted, difficult, or unusual

cases, 107–08
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

124

Case management (continued)

random assignment, 107

senior judges, use of, 110

statutory and other requirements,

103–06

times of holding court, 99

Caseload statistics, 114–15

Certifying officer program, 87–88

Chief bankruptcy judges

See Bankruptcy judges

Chief circuit judges

administrative responsibilities, 42,

43–44, 56, 59, 87–88, 97,

114–15

chairperson of circuit judicial

council, role as, 39, 43

chief district judges, interactions

with, 7, 14, 21, 44

circuit executives, supervision of,

44

civil priority statute cases, responsibilities under, 108–09

Criminal Justice Act claims, approval of, 43–44

disability and misconduct complaints, review of, 42, 43, 75

functions, 40

generally, 43–44

intercircuit and intracircuit assignments, approval of, 28,

43, 109, 110

Judicial Conference membership,

26, 43

senior judges

assignment of duties to, 73

certification of workload of,

41, 44, 74

statistical data and reports on district court dockets, submission to council, 114–15

visiting judges, requests for, 109

Chief district judges

administrative assistant to, 11

administrative oversight, generally, 6–7, 71–96

age limits, 2

authority, 5–6

bankruptcy court, relationship

with, 9–10, 47–48

bar association relations, 8, 82–84

budget and fiscal matters, responsibility for, 86–87

case-assignment responsibilities,

106–09

case backlogs and delays, dealing

with, 21, 109–15

caseload, 12, 106

case-management oversight, 7,

97–115

chief circuit judge, interactions

with, 7, 14, 21, 44

circuit judicial council, requests

and appeals to, 41

Civil Justice Reform Act, responsibilities under, 105–06

colleagues, relations with, 8

constituencies, 8–9

court employees, interactions

with, 12–23

court-management oversight, 6–7

court policy, development of, 6

court reporting services, responsibility for, 61

court security, responsibility for,

67–68, 90–92

Criminal Justice Act, administration, of, 64–66

declining the office, 2–3

delegation of tasks by, 6, 57, 58,

71, 77, 86, 104, 106

employment dispute resolution

plan responsibilities, 78–79
Index

125

Chief district judges (continued)

equal employment opportunity

(EEO) complaints reviewed

by, 78

executive committee, 9

frivolous or repetitive litigation, ,

monitoring of, 107

history of the office, 1

incapacity, 2–3

information technology, implementation of, 93–95

intracircuit and intercircuit requests for temporary assignments of judges, 109–11

judicial disability and misconduct

complaints, handling of, 7–8,

30, 42–43, 75

judicial emergencies, handling of,

79, 103

judicial immunity, 79

jurors, responsibilities for

generally, 100–03

grand juries, instruction of,

103

jury management system, 93

jury selection plans, approval

of, 100

orientation, 102

qualification, 100

selection, 100–01

utilization, 101

leadership programs, 11

leadership responsibilities, 5–23

leadership, strategic, 6

liaison with outside groups, 8

local court rules, responsibility for,

97–99

magistrate judges, responsibility

for, 43, 55

Chief district judges (continued)

management oversight, generally,

6–7, 71–96

media relations, 8, 84

new judges, assisting, 71, 113

orientation programs, 10–11

personnel actions, review of adverse, 77

personnel policies and management, responsibility for,

76–79

places of holding court, requests

for increasing, 99

plans, filing of, 7

policy development, 6

Pretrial Services Office, responsibility for, 61, 76–77

Probation Office, responsibility

for, 61, 76–77

procurement authority, 92–93

public relations, 8, 82–84

qualifications, 2

reports, filing of, 7

resignation, 2–3

responsibilities generally, 5–8

senior judges, relationship with,

73–75, 113

seniority, 2

space and facilities program, responsibilities for, 88–90

Speedy Trial Act plan, preparation of, 103–04

staff assistance to, 11

statistical reporting, responsibility

for, 96, 114

term of office, 2

veterans’ suits over life insurance,

responsibility for, 106
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

126

Chief Justice

administrative assistant to, 25

Administrative Office director

and deputy director appointments, 34

administrative responsibilities, 2,

25–26, 28, 31, 34

ex officio chair of Federal Judicial

Center’s Board, 25, 36

generally, 25–26

intercircuit judge assignments,

authority for, 28, 109–10

Judicial Conference

authority to make committee

appointments, 33

presiding over, 25, 26

reports on proceedings to

Congress, 31

special sessions, calling of, 32

Chief pretrial services officers

See Pretrial services officers

Chief probation officers

See Probation officers

Circuit executives

duties, 44

generally, 44

intercircuit judge assignments,

management of, 109

Circuit judges

chief circuit judges, 39, 43–44

intercircuit assignments, 28

Circuit judicial conferences, 43, 44

Circuit judicial councils

authority, 8, 25, 39

bankruptcy judges

evaluation and recommendation of nominees, 41,

48–49

recall of, 49–50

review of actions, 40

Circuit judicial councils (continued)

chief circuit judge’s role as chairperson, 39, 43

conferences, 43, 44

court quarters and accommodations, approval of, 41

Criminal Justice Act plan, responsibilities, for, 40, 64

district courts

“appeals” from, 7, 41

case-flow management, oversight of, 40, 114–15

district judges’ residences, review of controversies

over, 40

jury selection plans, review

of, 40, 100

reports and plans filed with, 7

rules and guidelines for, 8

rules, review of, 40, 98

Speedy Trial Act plans, review and approval of,

40, 103

functions, 40–43

generally, 8, 39–43

history of, 39

judicial disability complaints, review of, 42–43

judicial emergencies, handling of,

79, 103

judicial misconduct complaints,

review of, 42–43

magistrate judges, review of actions concerning, 40

membership, 1, 39–40

oversight of court business, 40–42,

75–76

Pretrial Services Office, approval

of, 60

senior judges, responsibilities regarding, 41, 73–75
Index

127

Circuit judicial councils (continued)

space requests, funding and approval of, 89–90

Speedy Trial Act plans, review

and approval of, 40, 103

statistical reports on district court

dockets, 114–15

temporary law clerks and other

personnel, authorization of,

41

Civic groups, court liaison with, 8, 82

Civil justice expense and delay reduction plans, 105

Civil Justice Reform Act, 105–06, 114

Civil priority statutes, cases under,

109–10

Civil RICO cases, 109

Clerk, bankruptcy

See Bankruptcy courts

Clerk of court, district

appointment, 55–56, 57

bankruptcy court clerk, relationship with, 9–10

certifying officer program, 87–88

chief district judge’s relationship

with, 19, 21, 76–77

code of conduct, 56

court security committee, membership on, 91

courtroom deputies, 58

death penalty law clerks, 55,

58–59

deputy clerks, 57

disbursal of funds, responsibility,

for, 87–88

duties, generally, 57–58, 71,

84–86

financial officer, role as, 86

generally, 57–59

information technology staffing

and funding, 94

Clerk of court, district (continued)

interpreters, assignment and supervision of staff, 63

jurors, responsibilities for, 100,

101, 102

media, liaison with, 84

pro se law clerks, 58

Speedy Trial Act planning group,

participation in, 103

staffing, 57

statistical reporting, 96, 100–01,

106, 112, 114

supervision of, 76–77

supporting personnel, 11, 56, 57

visiting judges, responsibilities for,

111

Codes of conduct, 29, 56

Community defender organizations,

64–66

Complex case management, 105,

112–13

Computer technology

See Information technology

Conference of Senior Circuit Judges,

26

Congress, U.S., 1, 5, 8, 25, 26–27, 29,

30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 48,

52, 67, 68, 69, 84–85, 90, 98,

99, 105, 106, 109, 115

Continuing education programs

See Orientation and continuing

education programs

Court employees

See also Personnel policies and

management, district court;

individual headings

appointments, 55–56

code of conduct, 56

employment dispute resolution

(EDR) plans, 78–79
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

128

Court employees (continued)

Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEO) Program, 78–79

generally, 55–64

personnel policies and management, 76–79

training programs, 35, 36, 80–81

unit executives

See Court unit executives

Court interpreters, 56, 63

Court of International Trade, 26,

109–10

Court officers

See also Court unit executives

chief judge’s relationship with, 20

duties, 76–77

introduction of new judges to, 72

Court operating procedures, 98

Court, places and times of holding, 99

Court policy, development of, 6

Court property, management of, 93

Court reporters

See also Court reporting services

appointment and compensation,

56, 62–63

court reporting supervisor, 62

district court responsibility for,

61–63

generally, 61–63

management plans, 41, 61–62

transcripts, rates for, 63

Court reporting services

digital audio recording, 62

electronic sound recording, 62

real-time reporting techniques, 62

responsibility for, 61

stenographic reporting, 62

transcripts, rates for, 63

Court security

appropriation request, 92

budget appropriation for, 68, 85,

92

committees, 67, 91, 92

emergency programs and preparedness, 91, 92

Federal Protective Service, 67, 91

General Services Administration

responsibilities, 91, 92

generally, 90–92

Judicial Conference Committee

on Security and Facilities, 91

Judicial Facility Security Program,

90–91

officers (CSOs), 67, 90–91

plans, 91

program for the judiciary, 67,

90–92

systems and equipment, 90

U.S. Marshals Service responsibilities, 67–68, 90, 91, 92

Court training specialists, 81

Court unit executives

budget execution, delegation of

authority for, 86

chief judge interactions with, 6, 9,

10–11, 13–14, 19

leadership training programs for,

11

selection, 77–78

tenant alterations, authority to

sign requests for, 89

Courthouse construction, renovation,

and maintenance, 66, 89–90,

94

See also Buildings and equipment;

Space and facilities

Courtroom deputies, 58
Index

129

Courtroom technology

See Information technology

Criminal Justice Act

administration, 40, 43–44, 58,

64–66

circuit judicial council review of

plans under, 40, 64

community defenders working under, 64–66

compensation under, 43–44,

65–66

district court plans under, 64

federal public defenders working

under, 64–66

Judicial Conference Model

Criminal Justice Act Plan,

64, 65

private attorneys working under,

65

providing representation under,

64–65

requirements, 64

Custodial officer, 93

D

Data Communications Network

(DCN), 93

Death penalty cases

Judicial Conference recommendations regarding, 66

management of, 58–59

Death penalty law clerks, 55, 58–59

Defender organizations

See Community defender organizations; Federal public defenders

Department of Justice, 109

See also Attorney General; U.S.

Attorney’s Office; U.S. Marshals Service

Design Guide, U.S. Courts, 89

Digital audio recording, 62

Disability or misconduct, judicial, 7–8,

30, 42–43, 75

Disposal officer, 93

District court clerk

See Clerk of court, district

District court executives

See Court unit executives

District courts

administrative oversight, 9

administrative practices, 10

advisory groups, 105

audits, 86–87

bankruptcy court, relationship

with, 9–10, 47–48

budget and fiscal matters

See Budget and fiscal matters

case assignments, 106–09

case management

See Case management

circuit judicial council, appeals to,

7, 41

clerk’s office

See Clerk of court, district

committees as tools to govern by,

9

court reporting services, responsibility for, 61

executive committee, 9

federal agencies, liaison with, 8

financial audits, 86–87

governance structures and practices, 9–10

government agencies, liaison with,

8–9

judges

See District judges

jury matters, 40, 100–03

liaison judges, 9
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

130

District courts (continued)

local rules

See Local court rules

management structures, 9

meetings as tools to govern by, 10

personnel policies and management, 76–79

places and times of holding court,

99

public relations, 8, 82–84

reports

EDR plan reports, 96

internal reports, 10

judicial travel reports, 76

jury selection practices, reports on, 105

magistrate judges’ reports, 55

quarterly spending reports to

Administrative Office,

85

statistical reports, 96,

100–01, 106

Speedy Trial Act plans, 103–04

U.S. Attorney’s Office, interactions with, 68, 89, 102

vacancies, judicial, 2, 75, 113

District judges

case assignments, 40, 106–09

chief judges

See Chief district judges

disagreements among, 40

impeachment, 30

intercircuit and intracircuit assignments, 28–29, 109–11

misconduct or disability, 7–8, 30,

42–43, 75

orientation and continuing education programs, 72–73

residence restrictions, 75–76

senior

See Senior judges

District judges (continued)

swearing-in ceremonies, 71

temporary assignments, 28,

110–11

travel, 76

vacancies, 2, 75, 113

Districts, federal judicial, 1, 99

E

Education programs

See also Orientation and continuing education programs;

Training programs for court

personnel

public, 82

Electronic technologies, use in courtroom, 28, 62, 106

Emergencies, judicial, 79, 103

Emergency programs and preparedness,

91, 92

Employees, court

See Court employees; Personnel

policies and management,

district court; individual

headings

Employment dispute resolution (EDR)

plans

implementation, 78–79

Model EDR Plan, 78

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)

Program

coordinators, 78–79, 96

implementation, 78–79

Model EEO Plan, 78

Equipment, supplies, and services

See also Buildings and equipment;

Space and facilities

contracting for, 93

court property, management of, 93

information technology, 93–95
Index

131

Equipment, supplies, and services

(continued)

library service, 95–96

procurement, 92–93

use of equipment, personal, 95

Ethics Reform Act, 29

F

Facilities

See Space and facilities

Fair Employment Practices Program,

Judiciary, 78

Federal agencies, district court liaison

with, 8

Federal Courts Improvement Act, 87

Federal defenders

See Federal public defenders

Federal Judgeship Act, 47

Federal judicial administration

national level, 25–38

regional level, 39–45

Federal Judicial Center

authority, 36

Board, 25, 36

Court Education Division, 78, 80,

81

creation of, 36

deputy director, 36

director, 36

federal judicial history, study and

preservation of, 37

foreign judicial and legal officials,

assisting, 37

functions, 36–37

generally, 25, 36–37

history of, 36

Information Services Office, 11,

37, 77, 95–96, 102, 114

Judicial Conference assistance, 33

Federal Judicial Center (continued)

orientation and continuing education programs, 11, 37, 72–73,

76, 80, 81, 102

programs for court supporting personnel, 36–37, 80, 81

publications and reports, 36, 37,

45, 69, 77, 81, 82, 84, 95,

101, 102, 103, 104–05, 111

research reports, 36–37

responsibilities, 36–37

Federal judicial history, study and preservation of, 37

Federal Judicial Television Network

(FJTN), 80, 81

Federal Protective Service, 67, 91

Federal public defenders

circuit conference attendance, 43

funding, 63–64

generally, 63–66

organizations, 64–66

Speedy Trial Act planning group,

participation in, 103

statistical reporting, 96

Federal rules of practice and procedure,

27, 30–31, 73, 113

Federal Trade Commission, 109

Financial accounting system, 93

Financial disclosure, 29–30

Fiscal matters

See Budget and fiscal matters

Foreign judicial and legal officials, 37

Funding

See Budget and fiscal matters

G

General Accounting Office, 68–69

General Services Administration

court security, responsibility for,

91, 92
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

132

General Services Administration

(continued)

district court, relations with, 8

duties, 66–67

emergency planning, regulations

for, 92

funding, requests for, 90

space and facilities program, responsibilities for, 89, 90

Government agencies, district court

relations with, 8–9

Grand juries, 102–03

H

History, federal judicial, study and

preservation of, 37

I

Indemnification of judges and employees for improper employment

practices, 79

Information technology, 93–95

Intercircuit and intracircuit assignments of judges

approval of, by chief circuit

judges, 28, 43, 109, 110

bankruptcy judges, 49, 110–11

Chief Justice

assignment by, 28

consent by, 109–10

clerk’s responsibilities for visiting

judges, 111

generally, 28–29, 109–11

Judicial Conference assignments,

28

Judicial Conference encouragement of, 105

magistrate judges, 53, 110–11

procedures, 28–29, 110–11

staff for visiting judges, 111

Intercircuit and intracircuit assignments of judges (continued)

standards, 110–11

trial-ready dockets for visiting

judges, 111

Internal operating procedures, district

court, 98

J

Judges

See Bankruptcy judges; Chief circuit judges; Chief district

judges; Circuit judges, District judges; Magistrate

judges; Retired judges; Senior

judges; Visiting judges

Judicial Conference of the United

States

See also Chief Justice

administrative policies of judiciary, determining and implementing, 27

agendas, 33

appointments to committees, 33

assignment of matters to committees, 32

authority, 25, 26

Budget Committee, 84

budget, management and oversight of, 27, 84

Chief Justice as presiding officer,

25, 26

code of conduct for court employees, adoption of, 56

Code of Conduct for United

States Judges, adoption and

revision of, 29

Committee on the Administration

of the Magistrate Judges System, 52–53

Committee on the Budget, 84
Index

133

Judicial Conference of the United

States (continued)

Committee on Codes of Conduct,

29, 56, 81

Committee on Court Administration and Case Management,

99, 104

Committee on Financial Disclosure, 29–30

Committee on Information Technology, 93–94

Committee on Intercircuit Assignments, 110

Committee on Rules of Practice

and Procedure, 30

Committee on Security and Facilities, 91

committee structure, 33, 34

Committee to Review Circuit

Council Conduct and Disability Orders, 30

creation of by Congress, 26

Criminal Justice Act Plan, Model,

64, 65

death penalty cases, recommendations regarding, 66

director of Administrative Office

as secretary to, 26, 32, 33, 34

duties and responsibilities, 25,

26–31

Executive Committee, 32, 33, 40,

85

federal court management, 27–30

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, study of, 30

financial reporting, authority over,

29

functions, 27

generally, 26–34

history, 26

intercircuit and intracircuit assignments of judges, 28

Judicial Conference of the United

States (continued)

judgeship positions, determining

need for, 29

judicial conduct and financial reporting, 29–30

judicial discipline, 30

legislative advice and liaison, 31

logistical support, management

and oversight of, 27

management of federal courts, 8,

27–30

meetings, frequency, location, and

attendance of, 32

membership, 26–33

operations and procedures, 32–33

personnel policies, management

and oversight of, 27

policy positions, 27

reports of committees, 34

reports of Conference actions, 33

reports on proceedings to Congress, 31

special sessions, 32

statistical reporting, management

and oversight of, 27

temporary judge assignments,

making, 28

Judicial councils of the circuits

See Circuit judicial councils

Judicial disability

circuit judicial council review of

complaints, 42–43

procedures, 7–8, 30, 42–43, 75

Judicial discipline, 30

Judicial emergencies, 79, 103

Judicial Facility Security Program, 90

Judicial immunity, 79

Judicial Improvements and Access to

Justice Act, 31
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

134

Judicial liability for employment practices, 79

Judicial misconduct

circuit judicial council review of

complaints, 42–43

generally, 7–8, 30, 42–43, 75

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 107–08

Judicial travel, 76

Judiciary Fair Employment Practices

Program, 78

Judiciary Information Technology

Fund, 94

Jurors

generally, 100–03

grand juries, 102–03

jury management system, 93

jury selection plans, approval of,

100

length of term of service, 101

orientation, 102

qualification, 100

selection, 40, 100–01

utilization, 101

Jury Selection and Service Act, 101

Justice Department, 109

See also Attorney General, U.S.;

U.S. Attorney’s Office; U.S.

Marshals Service

L

Law clerks

of chief district judge, 11

death penalty, 1, 55, 58–59

ethics, 81

orientation programs, 81

pro se, 1, 55, 58, 107

selection, 77–78

temporary, 41, 75, 77, 79

Leadership

programs, 11

skills and techniques, 12–23

Library system, federal court, 95

Litigation, frivolous or repetitive, 107

Local court rules

authority for, 98

bar, district court consulting with,

97

chief district judge oversight of,

97–99

circuit judicial council review of,

40, 98

distribution of, 98–99

general orders, 51, 98

internal operating procedures, 98

Internet Web site posting of, 99

neutrals for alternative dispute

resolution, rules on, 104

public notice of, 97, 98–99

purpose of, 97–98

Rules Enabling Act, 10, 30, 31,

97–98

Long Range Plan for the Federal

Courts, 2, 51–52

Long Range Plan for Information

Technology in the Federal Judiciary, 93

Long range plans for space and facilities, 88–89

M

Magistrate judges

appointment, 52–53

assignment, 53

authority, 51–52

chief district judge’s monitoring

of, 55

chief magistrate judge, 55
Index

135

Magistrate judges (continued)

disability or misconduct complaints, 42–43

duties, 51, 55

emergency assignment of, 53, 109

funding of positions, 29, 52

generally, 51–55

intercircuit assignment of, 53,

110–11

Judicial Conference Committee

on the Administration of the

Magistrate Judges System,

52–53

Judicial Conference committees,

membership on, 33

need for, determining, 29, 52–53

orientation, 73

reappointment of, 54

reassignment of, 53–54

recall procedure, 54–55

removal procedure, 43, 53

reports on, 55

requests for additional positions,

52–53

review of actions by circuit judicial council, 40

selection, 52, 53

Speedy Trial Act planning group,

participation in, 103

term of office, 52, 53

utilization of, 51–52, 55, 105

Management skills and techniques,

12–23

Marshals Service

See U.S. Marshals Service

MDL transfers, 108

Media, district court relations with, 8,

84

Misconduct or disability, judicial, 7–8,

30, 42–43, 75

Model Criminal Justice Act Plan, 64,

65

Model Employment Dispute Resolution

(EDR) Plan, 78

Model Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEO) Plan, 78

N

Neutrals for alternative dispute resolution, 104–05

Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v.

Marathon Pipeline Co., 47

O

Occupant emergency plans, 92

Office of Management and Budget, 84

Orientation and continuing education

programs

Administrative Office programs,

11, 35, 73, 80, 102

for bankruptcy judges, 73

for chief district judges, 10–11

for court employees, 35, 36, 80–81

for district judges, 36, 71–73,

80–81

Federal Judicial Center programs,

11, 36, 37, 72–73, 80, 81, 102

for jurors, 102

for law clerks, 81

local programs, 10–11, 71–72, 81

for magistrate judges, 73

U.S. Sentencing Commission programs, 80–81

P

Personnel policies and management,

district court, 27, 76–79

Places and times of holding court, 99

President, U.S., 37, 66, 68, 75, 84, 90
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

136

Press, district court relations with, 8, 84

Pretrial Services Act, 60

Pretrial services case-tracking system,

93

Pretrial services office

chief judge responsibility for, 61,

76–77

generally, 59–61

information technology staffing

and funding, 94

officers

See Pretrial services officers

reports to chief judge, 61

staffing, 56, 59–60

statistical reporting, 96

Pretrial services officers

appointment of, 59

chief pretrial services officer

appointment of, 55–56, 59

chief judge, relationship

with, 19

officers and other personnel,

appointment of, 59

selection, 77

code of conduct, 56

duties, 60

Pro se law clerks

appointment, 1, 55, 58

duties, 58, 107

Pro se litigation, 107

Probation case-tracking system, 93

Probation office

chief district judge responsibility

for, 61, 76–77

generally, 59–61

information technology staffing

and funding, 94

officers

See Probation officers

reports to chief judge, 61

Probation office (continued)

staffing, 55–56, 59–60, 77

statistical reporting, 96

Probation officers

appointment of, 55, 59, 77

chief probation officer

appointment of, 55–56, 59

chief judge, relationship

with, 19

clerical staff, appointment of,

56, 59

selection, 77

Speedy Trial Act planning

group, participation in,

103

code of conduct, 56

deputy chief probation officer, 59

duties, 59–60

Procurement authority, 92–93

Property, court, management of, 93

Public defenders

See Community defender organizations; Federal public defenders

Public information officers, 84

Public relations, district court, 8, 82–84

R

Random case-assignment system, 107

Real-time reporting technologies, 62

Reimbursable Work Authorizations

(RWAs), 89–90

Reports, review and filing of, 7

See also individual report headings

Retired judges, 49–50, 54–55, 73–74,

75

Rules Enabling Act, 10, 30, 31, 97–98

Rules, local court

See Local court rules
Index

137

Rules of practice and procedure

See Federal rules and practice and

procedure

S

Secretary to chief district judge, 11

Security, court

See Court security

Senior judges

assignments, 73, 109

chambers and staff, 41, 74, 75

duties, 73

generally, 73–75

interdistrict and intercircuit assignments, 28, 109, 110, 113

work certification requirement,

41, 44, 74

Senior status, 75

Seniority of judges, 2

Sentencing Commission, U.S.

See U.S. Sentencing Commission

Sentencing Guidelines, 37, 80–81

Sentencing policies and practices, 37

Software

See Information technology

Space and facilities

See also Buildings and equipment

acquisition, 88–89

Administrative Office director’s

responsibility for, 88

alterations, 89–90

building operations, 90

chief district judge’s participation

in program, 88–90

construction, 66, 89–90

design guide, 89

emergency preparedness, 92

funding, 89

Space and facilities (continued)

General Services Administration

(GSA) responsibilities for,

89, 90

long-range planning, 88–89

maintenance, 66

obtaining, 88–89

parking policies, 90

program, 88–90

prospectus-level projects, 89–90

renovation, 66

security, 67–68, 90–92

senior judges, chambers for, 74, 75

Speedy Trial Act

circuit judicial council review of

plan under, 40, 103

district planning group, 103

plan, preparation of, 103–04

time limits, 97, 103–04

State agencies, district court liaison

with, 8

State courts, district court relations

with, 8–9, 45, 69

State–federal judicial councils, 45, 69

Statistical reports, 27, 96, 100–01, 106,

112, 114–15

Supreme Court, U.S., 25, 30, 47, 84–85

Systems, information

See Information technology

T

Technology, information

See Information technology

Television coverage of court proceedings, 28

Television Network, Federal Judicial

(FJTN), 80, 81

Temporary judicial assignments, 28,

109, 110–11
Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts

138

Temporary personnel

authorization of, 41

during judicial emergencies, 79

law clerks, 41, 75, 77, 79

secretaries, 75, 77, 79

Training programs for court personnel,

35, 36, 37, 80–81

Training specialists, court, 81

Travel, judicial, 76

U

Unit executives

See Court unit executives

U.S. Attorney’s Office

circuit judicial conferences, attendance of, 43

district court, interactions with,

68, 89, 102

grand juries, use of, 102

Speedy Trial Act planning group,

participation in, 103

U.S. attorney, 10, 43, 68, 91, 102,

103

vacancies, 68

U.S. Courts Design Guide, 89

U.S. Marshals Service

court security responsibilities,

67–68, 90, 91, 92

district court interactions with,

67, 89, 91

duties, 67–68, 90, 91, 92

U.S. marshal, 10, 67–68, 90–92

U.S. Sentencing Commission, 37–38,

80–81

Use of government equipment, personal, 95

V

Vacancies, judicial, 2, 75, 113

Victim and Witness Protection Act, 60

Videoconferencing, 94

Video evidence presentation programs,

94

Virtual Law Library, 95

Visiting judges, 28–29, 109, 111, 113

W

Witness Security Program, 67
The Federal Judicial Center

Board

The Chief Justice of the United States, Chair

Senior Judge Pierre N. Leval, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Judge Pauline Newman, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Chief Judge Jean C. Hamilton, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

Senior Judge Robert J. Bryan, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Judge William H. Yohn, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Chief Judge Robert F. Hershner, Jr., U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of

Georgia

Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Director

Judge Fern M. Smith

Deputy Director

Russell R. Wheeler

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 Director’s Office is responsible for the Center’s overall management and its relations with other organizations. Its Systems Innovation & Development Office provides

technical support for Center education and research. Communications Policy & Design

edits, produces, and distributes all Center print and electronic publications, operates the

Federal Judicial Television Network, and through the Information Services Office maintains a specialized library collection of materials on judicial administration.

The Judicial Education Division develops and administers education programs and

services for judges, career court attorneys, and federal defender office personnel. These

include orientation seminars, continuing education programs, and special-focus workshops.

The Interjudicial Affairs Office provides information about judicial improvement to judges

and others of foreign countries, and identifies international legal developments of importance to personnel of the federal courts.

The Court Education Division develops and administers education and training programs and services for nonjudicial court personnel, such as those in clerks’ offices and probation and pretrial services offices, and management training programs for court teams of

judges and managers.

The Research Division undertakes empirical and exploratory research on federal judicial processes, court management, and sentencing and its consequences, often at the request of the Judicial Conference and its committees, the courts themselves, or other groups

in the federal system. The Federal Judicial History Office develops programs relating to the

history of the judicial branch and assists courts with their own judicial history programs.