CRISIS OR OPPORTUNITY?

ONE COURT’S TRANSFORMATION STORY

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, WASHINGTON STATE

Presented by: 

Hon. Jim Rogers, Superior Court Judge

(Presiding Judge, 2019 – 2021)

Linda Ridge, Chief Administrative Officer
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

 Largest general jurisdiction trial court in Washington state, serving a population of 

2,301,620 residents 

 Court locations:

 King County Courthouse (Seattle)

 Norm Maleng Regional Justice Center (Kent)

 Patricia H. Clark Children and Family Justice Center (Seattle)

 ITA/Civil Commitment Court, Harborview Medical Center (Seattle)

 Jurisdiction: Civil, Domestic, Felony Criminal, Juvenile Offender, Juvenile Dependency, 

Involuntary Commitment, and Appeals from Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

 54 judges

 10 court commissioners

 300 Staff (Superior Court) + 200 Staff (Clerk’s Office)

2
GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO ADDRESS OPERATIONS DURING COVID-19

1. Dedication to mission for access to justice = we must 

remain open

2. A robust public health plan = we must safeguard health 

of customers, stakeholders and employees

3. Remote technology is essential to achieving principles 

1 and 2

4. Nimble internal decision-making structure to 

implement new practices quickly

3
HOW DID WE REOPEN IN JULY 2020?

A ROBUST PUBLIC HEALTH PLAN

 Sought advice from University of Washington Professors in School of Public 

Health not KC Public Health

 They assessed facilities and made recommendations

 Ensured use of recommended HVAC filters for courthouse 

ventilation systems

 Significantly reduced in-person events by implementing video 

and telephonic hearings

 Established “Pop-Up” Court at convention center for civil trials 

to reduce number of people in each location

 Mask mandate except witnesses; six foot public distancing strictly enforced

 November 2020-all virtual civil jury trials

4
HOW DID WE RESPOND TO CHANGING CONDITIONS?

CHANGED ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE

 Formerly Executive Committee was central to implementing policy/practice changes

 Established new Weekly Chiefs’ Meetings to serve as “tactical” decision-making body; included staff 

Directors team to ensure representation of operational and staffing issues

 Created Public Health Committee

 Established new Voir Dire Committee to work with Jury Committee on development of virtual practices

 Technology Committee became more central

 Courts and Community and Education Committees spearhead trainings related to race and equity issues

 30 discrete workgroups formed to assist on specific aspects of pandemic-influenced operational changes

 Worked closely with local Bar, including a task force on remote jury trials, asking their participation in 

teaching

5
COVID-19 FUNDING

 First, we “McGyvered" technology with no new money

 Later, KCSC received over $20M in COVID funds via 

County/State to:

 Acquire technology to support virtual proceedings and 

remote work

 Provide temporary staff support for changes in practice

 Augment training and establish standardized procedures 

for new practices

 Address criminal backlog 6
COURT’S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

July 2020 to December 2021:

 Over 1000 remote bench trials conducted

 Over 300 jury trials conducted 

190 criminal

100 civil (40 in-person, 70 all remote)

 Voir dire conducted virtually for all jury trials

7
2020 AWARD RECEIPIENT 

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE 

PANDEMIC RESPONSE AND RECOVERY GRANT

“How a Court’s Leadership Evaluates and Institutionalizes 

the Best Practices Initiated During a Crisis”

Dr. Brenda J. Wagenknecht-Ivey

Denver, CO

303.888.7939 I Bwagen@praxisconsulting.org

www.praxisconsulting.org 8
SJI GRANT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

▪ Grant awarded in October 2020

▪ Allowed the court to bring in court management consultant to facilitate and conduct 

surveys/focus groups, gather and analyze data, draft report 

▪ Purpose: 

✓ Document all the new innovative/ promising practices implemented during the Pandemic 

and “lessons learned” from the experience; 

✓ Develop and use a values-based evaluation framework to identify a few promising 

practices for further study and refinement – ensuring decisions were objective and 

aligned with the Court’s core values; and

✓ Evaluate promising practices and use results to inform recommendations, decisions, and 

actions about future practices and/or to shape court policy.

9
PROJECT METHODOLOGY 

1. Focus groups with judicial officers and court/clerk’s office staff documented new 

practices implemented and “lessons learned” or areas needing refinement.

2. Chief Judges and Directors reviewed summary list of new practices and selected a 

few promising practices to explore further using structured decision-making 

guidelines rooted in core values.

3. Surveys were conducted with stakeholders to evaluate the selected new practice 

areas along multiple dimensions.

4. Data analysis was provided to Court for consideration and use in planning future 

action and implementation.

10
STRUCTURED DECISION-MAKING GUIDELINES

Guiding Principle: The court and clerk’s office aspire to continue to be innovative and nimble 

organizations that harness and institutionalize the positive effects of the pandemic. This includes 

transforming how judicial and court services are delivered, recalibrating and refining daily operations, 

and continuing to invest in and use existing and emerging technologies.

Proposed Selection Criteria: The practice/process selected should meet the following criteria.

1. Have broad impact (e.g., courtwide implications; touch multiple departments/areas of the court; 

effect various groups such as judges, staff, stakeholders/partners)

2. Uphold/embrace many of the core values (e.g., ESJ, accessibility, fairness, service to the public, 

innovation)

3. Have potential long-term benefits for the court/clerk’s office (e.g., cost effective, enhance 

efficiency, increase morale and engagement, improve court performance – access, timeliness, etc.)

4. Provide an opportunity to use data to evaluate hunches and/or differing/conflicting perceptions

11
PROMISING PRACTICES SELECTED & EVALUATED

 Three New Innovations / Promising Practices 

Selected:

1. Virtual Court Proceedings

2. Virtual Jury Selection

3. Remote Work Arrangements

 Data Collection and Evaluation

✓ Different methodologies were used for each 

topic area

12
Virtual Court Proceedings & Virtual Interpretation

Total Number 

Surveyed

(N=___)

Number of 

Respondents

(N=___)

Response Rate

(in %s)

Attorneys

Surveyed in Dec. ‘21 Unknown1 410 Unknown1

Court/Clerk’s Office Employees

Surveyed in Nov. ‘21 279 182 65%

Judicial Officers

Data gathered in Sept. ‘21 582 47 --

Interpreters

Surveyed in Nov. ‘21 144 74 51%

1 The number of attorneys surveyed is unknown because the Bar Associations sent out the link to members who practice and appear in the KCSC. The response rate cannot be 

computed either for the same reason. However, that 410 attorneys responded to the survey provided an excellent sample size for analysis purposes.

2 The total number of SC judicial officers (judges & commissioners) at the time of the data gathering online activity was 63. During the activity, 47 participated in the breakout groups 

and 44 and 41 respectively responded to the two polling questions.

OVERVIEW OF RESPONDENTS & RESPONSE RATES:

VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS & INTERPRETATION

13
VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS SURVEY CATEGORIES

Virtual court proceedings survey questions were grouped into the following 

categories:

1. Court Participant Experience

2. Ease of Use

3. Trust in Video Court Proceedings

4. Overall Experience / Future Recommendations

5. Impact on Work / Employees

14
VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS:

ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES SURVEY CATEGORIES (IN MEAN SCORES1)

15

5.1 5.1

4.1

4.8

5.2 5.1

5.3 5.2

4.6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Court Participant

Experience

Ease of Use Trust (2) Overall Experience /

Recommendations

Impact on Work/Staff

Attorneys (n=410) Employees (n=182)

1 Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale. 

3.5
VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS: 

OVERALL EXPERIENCE/FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

1 Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale. 

2 Red star = statistically significant difference between mean scores of respondents. The difference is not due to chance. 

Employees rated 

this question 

significantly higher 

than attorneys.

(See red star.) 4.8

5.2

1 2 3 4 5 6

Given my overall experience to date,

I recommend that the Court

continue using video court

proceedings for many legal

matters/cases with the

understanding that the Court will

continue to evaluate and modify

practices as needed.

Attorneys (n=410) Employees (n=182)

3.5

Comparison of Attorneys and Employees (in mean scores1)

16
VIRTUAL INTERPRETING SURVEY CATEGORIES

Video interpreting survey questions were grouped into the following categories:

1. Court Participant Experience

2. Ease of Use / Effective Use of Time

3. Court Assistance

4. Environment

5. Impact on Interpreters

6. Trust / Effectiveness

7. Overall Experience / Recommendations 17
VIRTUAL INTERPRETING: 

OVERALL EXPERIENCE – FUTURE RECOMMENDATION

1 Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale. 

5

4.7

1 2 3 4 5 6

Given my overall exp, I recommend that the

Court continue providing virtual inter. as a way

to provide interpreter servcies to litigants

involved in ct. proc. / Given my overall exp, I

recommend the Court continue providing

virtual interpreting services.

Interpreters (n=74) Attorneys (n=283)

3.5

Interpreters and Attorneys (in mean scores1)

18
Total Number 

Surveyed

(N=___)

Number of 

Respondents

(N=___)

Response Rate

(in %s)

Prospective Jurors

Surveyed in Aug. – Sept. ‘21 797 251 32%

Civil Case Attorneys Only

Surveyed in Aug. – Sept. ‘21 245 94 38%

Court Employees1

Surveyed in Nov. ‘21 279 75 65%2

[1] The number of employee respondents is lower because only those that participated in virtual voir dire were asked to complete this set of

questions. Those who did not participate in virtual jury selection were instructed to skip this set of questions. 75 court employees completed this

section; the othersskipped these questions and proceeded to the nextsection of the Virtual Court Proceedings survey.

[2] This is the overall response rate to the Virtual Court Proceedings survey, which included a subset of questions on virtual voir dire. 75 court

employees(out of the 182 that completed the Virtual Court Proceeding Survey or 41%) completed the virtual jury selection questions.

OVERVIEW OF RESPONDENTS & RESPONSE RATES:

VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION

19
VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION SURVEY CATEGORIES

Virtual jury selection survey questions were grouped into the following categories:

1. Access, Convenience, and Safety / Experience of Jurors

2. Ease of Use

3. Court / Staff Assistance

4. Environment

5. Timeliness / Effectiveness

6. Trust and Confidence / Future Recommendations

7. Overall Experience

8. Impact on Work / Staff

20
VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION: 

OVERALL EXPERIENCE/FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

5.4

4.3

5.0

1 2 3 4 5 6

Given my overall experience, I

recommend that the Court continue

providing the option to participate in

the jury selection process using

Zoom.

Jurors (n=251) Attorneys (n=94) Employees (n=75)

Jurors rated this 

question 

significantly 

higher2than 

employees and 

civil attorneys, 

and employees 

rated it 

significantly 

higher than 

attorneys.

(See red star.)

1 Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 6=Strongly Agree & 1=Strongly Disagree. 3.5 is the midpoint of the ratingscale. 

2 Red star = statistically significant difference between the mean scores of respondents. The difference is not due to chance. 

Prospective Jurors, Civil Attorneys, and Employees in mean scores1

21
CONCLUSIONS/NEXT STEPS

▪ We have institutionalized virtual voir dire, but we need our Supreme Court to 

approve the practice for civil and criminal cases -- too expensive to staff both in 

person and virtual methods.

▪ We have institutionalized virtual trials and hearings; family law attorneys are telling 

us they prefer them.

▪ We need more work to improve virtual interpretation.

▪ Our administrative structure has become more inclusive, meaning more complete 

communication - much more efficient and enhancing flexibility for change.

▪ Training/standardization among all courts is key to making this work long-term. 22
CRISIS OR OPPORTUNITY?

ONE COURT’S TRANSFORMATION STORY

Q & A

Presented by:

Hon. Jim Rogers, Superior Court Judge Linda Ridge, Superior Court CAO

jim.rogers@kingcounty.gov linda.ridge@kingcounty.gov

King County Courthouse

516 3rdAve, MS: KCC-SC-0203

Seattle, WA 98104