Senate Confirms New Member to 

SJI Board of Directors 

Volume 21, No. 11 August 2011 

E-SJI NEWS SJI NEWS

In this Issue 

New Board Member 

Confirmation 

1 

Sonoma County, CA 

Strategic Planning 

1 

Council for Court 

Excellence – D.C. 

Dialogue Project 

2

Arizona – Probate Court 

Process Improvement 

 

 

3 

Page 1 

On August 2, 2011, the Senate confirmed Chief 

Judge David Brewer as a new member of the SJI 

Board of Directors. 

He is currently the Chief Judge of the Oregon Court 

of Appeals. Judge Brewer was elected to the court in 

1999, and has served as chief judge since 2004. 

Prior to joining the Court of Appeals, he served as a 

state court trial judge and presided over criminal and 

civil matters. Previously, Judge Brewer was a Partner at the law firm Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz & 

Brewer. 

He is the immediate past President of the Council of 

Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeals 

(CCJSCA), where he serves on the Council's Executive Committee. In 2008, Judge Brewer received the 

National Center for State Court's Distinguished Service Award for his contributions to the development 

of performance measures for the nation's state appellate courts. 

He holds a B.A. in economics from California State 

University at Sonoma and a J.D. from the University 

of Oregon, School of Law. 

Join Us on 

Facebook 

To receive the latest important 

information on recently completed projects, grant application 

deadlines, and updates, connect 

with our Facebook page by 

clicking on the link below. 

In December 2009, the Superior Court of Sonoma 

County, California submitted an application to SJI 

requesting assistance to support an update to their 

strategic plan that included the provision of services 

to a sizeable population of litigants who are not U.S. 

residents, but work in, or reside part-time within the 

County (SJI-10-T-088). The challenge to the Court 

was to provide culturally competent services that 

ensured litigant access to justice through process 

improvements that enhance the Court’s capacity to 

meet the changing population’s needs. 

The Court worked closely with Dr. John Martin from 

the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP), first 

to identify issues and clarify what types of assistance 

or improvements were needed, and then to convene 

as a leadership team to review recommendations and 

begin implementation. The result of CEPP’s technical assistance to the court was a three-part product 

including: 1) 2011-2013 strategic plan update; 2) 

litigant assistance plan; and 3) materials on leadership, change, team building and conflict transformation. 

The second part of the plan stresses essential elements for any court in assessing the effectiveness of 

current operations and policies for providing litigant 

access services. Sonoma County has a litigant assistance network of providers with extensive experience in working with culturally diverse populations. 

Recommendations to improve this infrastructure 

included the following three action items: establishing a uniform assistance triage process, enhancing 

the network’s governance, and increasing access to 

culturally appropriate services through enhanced 

understanding of the litigant’s values and alternative 

approaches. A full copy of the report can be accessed through NCSC’s Digital Archive. 

Superior Court of Sonoma County, CA 

Updates Strategic Plan 
In FY 2009, Council for Court Excellence (CCE) 

received an SJI grant to address current D.C. (and 

national) issues through the D.C. Bench-BarMedia Dialogue project (SJI-09-E-163). 

This project was initiated after CCE completed an 

SJI grant in 2007, titled The Journalist’s Handbook, which was designed to familiarize the media 

with how the D.C. courts operate (SJI-07-N-059). 

During the drafting of the Handbook, CCE discovered that a major source of tension between the 

courts and media was confusion about each 

other’s roles. 

Organized as a quarterly installment of panel presentations and meetings, the educational series 

recently concluded its first year of programming. 

Designed to foster discussion and enhanced understanding between the bench, bar, and media, the 

Dialogue project convened local and national 

leaders in their respective fields to address high 

profile issues impacting how the court interacts 

with journalists. A paramount focus for all parties 

involved was how transparency can benefit both 

the judicial branch and media. 

CCE approached the topic of courts and the media 

at a time when there was growing interest nationally in coverage of individual cases and judges by 

the press. All parties were interested in establishing better cooperative relationships to interact 

more effectively. A significant focus was on improving public trust and confidence in the courts. 

Pictures from each of 

the three public events 

include, clockwise from 

left to right: 1) Press 

on Trial: The Libby Case

panelists at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal 

Courthouse on December 9, 2010; 2) Confidentiality vs. Open 

Access in DC Juvenile 

Cases presenters at the 

DC Court of Appeals, on 

May 23, 2011; and 3) 

Social Networks, Computer Technology and 

the Courts panelists 

and moderator at the 

Newseum on June 15, 

2011. 

The four-part series included the following seminars: 1) Sharing Perspectives, a closed door 

session designed to allow judges, attorneys, and journalists to candidly discuss issues of 

common complaint; 2) Press on Trial: The Libby Case; 3) Confidentiality vs. Open Access in 

D.C. Juvenile Cases; and 4) Social Networks, Computer Technology and the Courts. CCE 

worked to attract a wide range of speakers from their disciplines, and established relationships with the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Courts and the Media, and the University of Nevada, Reno, to present content for the final seminar in the series. 

A complete project report, including committee findings and appendices containing information about each of the four events is available through NCSC’s Digital Archive. Also, each 

state supreme court received a copy of the DVD produced by CCE titled, Social Networks, 

Computer Technology, and the Courts. CCE will be posting the content from the DVD on 

their website for those who are not able to access it through their state court law library. 

Council for Court Excellence Concludes D.C. BenchBar-Media Dialogue Project 

E-SJI News Volume 21, No. 11 August 2011 

Page 2 
In response to an aging population, the observable increase in probate case filings across the 

state, and growing interest in the protection of 

vulnerable adults, the Arizona Supreme Court 

established the Committee on Improving Judicial Oversight and Processing of Probate Matters. The Committee included judges, court 

administrators, fiduciaries, state agencies, 

members of the public, American Association 

of Retired Persons (AARP), and several other 

key stakeholders committed to fair, efficient, 

and cost-effective handling of probate matters. 

The Committee issued its final report in June 

2011, and presented the findings and recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council. 

The full report and appendices are currently 

available on the Arizona Judicial Branch website. Included in the report are a set of recomdures, and training regimens impacting probate court proceedings and operations. The 

Committee has already worked with the Arizona Legislature to make statutory changes, 

and has suggested new rules and procedures 

which are currently being vetted by the Supreme Court and state bar. 

Recommendation #5 in the report (pg. 21) 

recommended that the Supreme Court identify 

resources to conduct training and audits. This 

recommendation led the Supreme Court and 

the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 

Arizona Uses Stakeholder-Driven Approach to 

Improve Judicial Oversight in Probate Cases 

Page 3 

SJI Board of Directors

Chairman 

James R. Hannah 

Chief Justice 

Supreme Court of Arkansas 

Little Rock, AR 

Vice Chairman 

Daniel J. Becker 

State Court Administrator 

Utah AOC 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Secretary 

Gayle A. Nachtigal 

Judge 

Washington County Circuit Court 

Hillsboro, OR 

Treasurer 

Hernan D. Vera 

President & CEO 

Public Counsel 

Los Angeles, CA 

Robert A. Miller 

Chief Justice (Ret.) 

Supreme Court of South Dakota 

Pierre, SD 

Chase T. Rogers 

Chief Justice 

Supreme Court of Connecticut 

Hartford, CT 

David V. Brewer 

Chief Judge 

Oregon Court of Appeals 

Salem, OR 

Wilfredo Martinez 

County Judge 

9th Judicial Circuit of Florida 

Orlando, FL 

Marsha J. Rabiteau 

Policy Consultant 

Rabiteau Consulting 

Bloomfield, CT 

John B. Nalbandian 

Partner 

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 

Cincinnati, OH 

Isabel Framer 

President 

Language Access Consultants, LLC 

Copley, OH

Jonathan D. Mattiello 

Executive Director 

The State Justice Institute is a federallyfunded, non-profit corporation established by 

federal law in 1984 to improve the quality of 

justice in state courts, and foster innovative, 

efficient solutions to common issues faced by 

all courts. SJI is governed by a Board of Directors appointed by the President. 

E-SJI News Volume 21, No. 11 August 2011 

to apply for and receive an SJI grant in FY 

2011, titled, Strengthening the Operation of 

Arizona Probate Courts through Statewide 

Education (SJI-11-E-088). This grant will 

assist the AOC in its design, development, and 

delivery of three online video-based probate 

court training programs for non-licensed fiduciaries, attorneys, and superior court investigators. The AOC, in collaboration with its stakeholders, will also author a bench book for 

judicial officers, and expand the on-line selfhelp resources available on the Seniors and 

Probate Court website. As a special condition 

of this grant award, the Supreme Court and 

AOC will share the results and products of this 

project with each of the 50 state chief justices 

and state court administrators, as well as other 

national court support and elder issue organizations. 

mendations and subrecommendations for 

the Judicial Council to 

consider as it reviews 

and revises the current 

statutes, rules, proce-