Docstoc

The Task Force Mandate

Document Sample
The Task Force Mandate Powered By Docstoc
					                                  THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       To appreciate the mandate of the State Bar’s Task Force on Racial/Ethnic and Gender Issues in
the Courts and the Legal Profession, it is necessary to step back more than a decade to the 1986 report of
the Michigan Supreme Court Citizen’s Commission. Under the leadership of Justice Patricia Boyle, this
Commission reached the disturbing conclusion that over one-third of Michigan’s citizens believed that
the Michigan court system discriminated against individuals on the basis of gender, race or ethnic origin.

       In response, Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Dorothy Riley created, in 1987, two separate
task forces – the Michigan Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Courts and the
Michigan Supreme Court Task Force on Gender Issues in the Courts (1989 Task Forces). After two
years of extensive citizen, judicial and lawyer surveys, data collection and research, and 17 statewide
public hearings, the 1989 Task Forces concluded that a substantial number of citizens and lawyers
believed that bias affects justice, and that their perceptions of bias were often based on reality. These
reports and their conclusions revealed that Michigan, like many other states, needed to address the
manner in which courts treat those who often lack the power to make their voices heard.

       The Reports, which were released in December of 1989, made hundreds of specific findings and
recommendations urging individuals, agencies, organizations and courts to address the problems
identified. They provided a roadmap for change addressing not only how lawyers treat one another, but
also, more importantly, how to improve the quality of justice afforded to victims and litigants.

       Eight years later in the fall of 1996, State Bar President Victoria A. Roberts determined that it was
time to assess what, if any, progress had been made toward the goals identified in the 1989 Reports. To
that end she created the State Bar Task Force on Race/Ethnic and Gender Issues in the Courts and the
Legal Profession (State Bar Task Force). With 30 members drawn from diverse legal backgrounds and
geographic locations, this group of experienced lawyers and judges was given the following mandate:

          report on the current status of recommendations made in December, 1989, by the Michigan
           Supreme Court's Task Forces on Race/Ethnic and Gender Issues in the Courts;

          compare the progress in Michigan to that achieved in other states;




                                                    1
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


                   identify and develop a strategy for collecting information about race, ethnic and gender issues
                    not addressed in the Supreme Court Task Force reports; and

                   develop a strategy for monitoring and implementing new and unrealized recommendations.

                The initial development of this project was undertaken by Task Force Co-Chairs Dawn Van Hoek
      and Saul A. Green, State Bar Associate Executive Director for an Open Justice System Nkrumah Johnson-
      Wynn, and Special Advisor Lorraine Weber, who had served as the Project Director for both 1989 Supreme
      Court Task Forces. At the outset it was understood that this investigation would be completed during
      President Roberts’ bar year, necessitating that much of the data collection and analysis would have to be
      done by Task Force members themselves. The Task Force received key administrative and financial
      support from the State Bar and the Michigan State Bar Foundation.

                To meet this ambitious time frame, the 1989 recommendations were divided into five major
      subject areas: Domestic Violence, Domestic Relations, Bias Within the Court Environment, Bias Within
      the Profession and the Joint Recommendations of the Gender and Race/Ethnic Task Forces.

                It was decided that three basic data-gathering techniques would be used to develop the final
      report. First, there would be a heavy emphasis on two types of questionnaires directed to all components
      of the legal system that were the subject of 1989 recommendations. The first questionnaire was designed
      to determine the degree of implementation of every recommendation made by the 1989 Task Force. The
      second questionnaire was more general in nature. This questionnaire was designed to gauge the degree
      of knowledge and the perceptions about implementation of the 1989 Task Force Reports. In all, 816
      questionnaires were sent out and 399 were returned. The questionnaires were supplemented, as needed,
      by focus groups and direct interviews. These focus groups solicited information from individuals and
      organizations with specialized knowledge and experience of the topic areas. Finally, legal research was
      conducted to develop a national perspective and research relevant case law, statutory and procedural
      issues.

                Several conclusions were drawn from the results of the preliminary questionnaires and the
      comments that accompanied them. First, it was clear that the initial publication and dissemination of the
      1989 Reports had been effective. Yet, receiving the Reports without an opportunity to examine, review
      and internalize their contents had not resulted in meaningful awareness. As a result, respondents


                                                            2
                                                                                    THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


understood the overall purpose of the Reports without retaining specific information about the findings
and recommendations.

       This lack of detailed understanding of the Reports accounted for the belief, on the part of most
respondents, that the 1989 Reports had not been effective in addressing issues of gender, race and ethnic
bias. Respondents seemed to lack both knowledge and confidence in the ability of the 1989 Reports to
adequately address these concerns. Finally, a large majority of respondents did not believe that
accountability, resource allocation or follow-up on the implementation of the 1989 Reports was
effective.

       What then is the strategy for addressing the problem of race/ethnic and gender bias in the
Michigan justice system and the legal profession in the future? This report contains a detailed analysis
of the status of each recommendation set forth in the 1989 Reports, the level of implementation achieved
since that date, and additional recommendations for the future. However, like the 1989 Task Forces,
there is unanimous agreement that some goals are so critical to the future of this work that they must be
strongly emphasized. It is the conclusion of the State Bar of Michigan Task Force that the 1989 Task
Forces’ Joint Recommendations correctly predicted the necessary steps to be taken to insure that their
reports would not only raise awareness, but would also reduce or eliminate bias and increase citizen
confidence in the legal system. Three crucial areas were identified as the foundation for these changes:
(1) Ethical Standards and Disciplinary Systems; (2) Education; and (3) Implementation.

       Unfortunately, a review of these specific recommendations shows that only one area, judicial
education, has been substantially addressed. No recommendations regarding the disciplinary system or
the implementation plans were substantially accomplished. Few of the remaining recommendations
regarding attorney education, law schools or public initiatives have been adopted. Yet, it is not too late
to accomplish the task. Today, in 1997, a task force once again calls for the leadership of our profession
to strongly endorse these fundamental changes.



                         ETHICAL STANDARDS AND DISCIPLINARY SYSTEMS

       In 1989 the Task Forces adopted joint recommendations calling for the amendment of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, the Michigan Court Rules and the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct to
specifically prohibit invidious discrimination and sexual harassment by judges and lawyers. Despite


                                                       3
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


      adoption by the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly, these provisions were not enacted by
      the Michigan Supreme Court. The State Bar Task Force endorses the enactment of these amendments as
      proposed in 1990 by the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly. The State Bar Task Force
      further recommends that the disciplinary systems for attorneys and judges actively promulgate policies
      and procedures designed to increase the confidence level of the public and the professions regarding
      their response and intervention in matters related to discrimination and bias.



                                                    EDUCATION

             The 1989 Reports concluded “education is an essential tool in efforts to eliminate race/ethnic and
      gender bias from the Michigan court system … An educational approach is appropriate because it
      focuses on understanding, not on blame.” As a result, they proposed broad reforms in the areas of
      education for judges, court personnel, attorneys, law students and the public. In each instance they
      stressed the need for a broad spectrum of educational strategies. In the last eight years much has been
      done in the area of education, yet there are still wide gaps in the awareness and exposure of most of the
      profession to the issues of race, ethnic and gender bias. As a result, the State Bar Task Force reinforces
      the call to adopt the 1989 recommendations, with some modifications.

             All members of the justice system should either receive or have access to the 1989 Task Force
      Reports and the 1997 State Bar of Michigan Report. Each member of the justice system and the legal
      profession should attend at least one training session that discusses the conclusions and
      recommendations. Courses should be developed at the Michigan Judicial Institute, the Institute of
      Continuing Legal Education and all Michigan law schools that examine gender and race/ethnic issues as
      they affect the justice system. Women and minorities should be included in all phases of the educational
      process as committee members, planners, faculty and speakers. Ethics, substantive law courses and
      seminars should regularly include discussion of the nature and impact of bias and discrimination on the
      profession.



                                       THE JOINT COMMISSION PROPOSAL

             It is clear that the single most important factor identified by the Task Force regarding realization
      of the 1989 Report goals is the creation of a permanent implementation effort. It was the opinion of the

                                                          4
                                                                                    THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


membership of the 1989 Task Forces and it is the opinion of the members of the State Bar Task Force
that “If the battle against bias is to be vigorously pursued and eventually won, the Supreme Court must
lead the effort.” (1989 Task Force Reports, Gender at p. 132) Fundamental to the implementation proposal
are the following factors: (1) continued leadership on the part of the Supreme Court; (2) an administrative
structure which possesses sole responsibility and oversight for the realization of the Report’s
recommendations and the development of new initiatives; (3) a research and evaluation methodology which
identifies the extent and success of the Task Forces’ educational efforts, the extent and success of the
implementation of the specific recommendations, and the extent and success of the reduction of bias in the
courts; and (4) the allocation of sufficient resources to the effort.

         Therefore, the State Bar Task Force proposes the creation of a Joint Commission on Diversity
Issues and the Michigan Justice System by the Michigan Supreme Court and the State Bar of Michigan.
The Commission should not only work to implement the 1989 recommendations, but should place
special emphasis on the conclusions and recommendations of the State Bar Task Force and expand the
scope of its inquiry to fairness and diversity issues, in general. The Commission should identify
substantive areas of investigation which were not addressed by the 1989 Task Force, and adopt a plan for
developing findings and new recommendations.



                                  PRIORITY GOALS FOR THE FUTURE

         While each recommendation and goal set forth in this document is important, the State Bar Task
Force believes that that some recommendations should be given special attention and emphasis. In
addition to the joint recommendations discussed above, several issues were identified by the Task Force
members as necessary and fundamental to the appearance of fairness and equal treatment and the
achievement of a truly bias-free and non-discriminatory justice system. These included the following:


Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils: The Task Force believes that the continued creation of
local and statewide coordinating councils is essential to the considerable success of the domestic
violence reforms that have been adopted over the last eight years. Councils should be required in every
county to establish effective procedures relating to the processing and resolution of domestic violence
cases.




                                                         5
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


      Prosecutorial Responsibility for Personal Protection Orders: Great progress has been made in the
      availability and effectiveness of personal protection orders in domestic violence cases. However,
      personal protection order statutes and court rules should be amended to provide that prosecuting
      attorneys be encouraged and allowed to assist applicants in obtaining personal protection orders in
      addition to their statutory obligation to enforce personal protection violations, when other assistance is
      not available and unless a conflict exists. Increased responsibility also should be supported through
      adequate funding.

      Evaluation of the Impact of MCR 2.404 on Mediation Practices: By order of the Michigan Supreme
      Court dated March 5, 1997, the Michigan Court Rules were amended to adopt a new rule regulating the
      selection process for mediation panels. The rule specifically requires that the mediation process be free
      from race, ethnic and gender bias. The State Court Administrative Office will have the responsibility to
      evaluate the first annual reports filed by the chief judges pursuant to MCR 2.404 (D)(1) to determine the
      extent of compliance, and the impact of the court rule amendment on increasing the number of women
      and minority mediators.      Not only should the State Court Administrative Office function as a
      clearinghouse for this information, it should also be empowered to regulate, enforce and sanction non-
      compliance.

      Regulation and Supervision of Private Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems:
      Regulation and supervision of mediation and alternative dispute resolution procedures should be extended
      to all private contractual dispute resolution services which are used to resolve legal disputes.

      Recruitment and Retention of Women and Minority Faculty in Law Schools: Law schools should
      adopt and follow policies aimed at the recruitment, advancement toward tenure and retention of women and
      minority faculty members. Out-of-state schools with good records in recruiting and retaining tenured
      women and minority faculty should be studied and their policies adapted to Michigan law schools.
      Statistics should be collected which accurately reflect the recruitment, employment and tenure patterns of
      law schools over an extended period of time.

      Appointment and Hiring Policies and Practices in the Michigan Justice System: Progress must
      continue toward a representational bench and bar. The Governor should appoint more women and
      minorities to judicial positions at all levels and in jurisdictions throughout the state. Courts should
      appoint referees, magistrates and quasi-judicial personnel in numbers which accurately reflect the


                                                           6
                                                                                    THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


racial/ethnic and gender demographics of the populations they serve. Representation should be increased
in the offices of the Attorney General, State Public Administrators Office, Prosecutor’s offices and in the
disciplinary systems.     The number of minorities hired as law clerks, judicial assistants and
commissioners should be increased at all levels of the judiciary, but particularly at the Court of Appeals
and Supreme Court levels. Women and minorities should continue to be appointed, elected and hired
into positions of authority and leadership in the State Bar of Michigan.

Mandatory Legal Education and Court Appointed Counsel: In accordance with the State Bar
recommendation on MCLE, a system of mandatory legal education in the area of family law and family
violence should be developed for judges and attorneys. Until a statewide mandatory continuing legal
education standard is adopted, each Circuit Court - Family Division should adopt minimum continuing legal
education standards for appointment in that jurisdiction. Any attorney appointments out of the family
division should be given only to attorneys who have complied with these requirements. Referrals from bar
associations regarding family matters should be consistent with these requirements.

Court Personnel Training: Quality training programs on race, ethnic and gender bias issues should be
provided to all levels of court personnel. The Task Force recommends that funding for “on site”
programs be increased in order to enable the Michigan Judicial Institute to fully implement this
recommendation.

State Court Administrative Office Regulation and Enforcement: The Supreme Court should develop
specific standards related to court administration and race/ethnic and gender bias. A mechanism for
monitoring administrative compliance with Supreme Court standards should be developed. The State
Court Administrative Office, at the direction of the Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, should
be given the authority to review local court operations and make recommendations for improvements
when necessary. This authority should include the ability to mandate adoption of internal administrative
policies and procedures, which will enhance the fair and equitable delivery of justice to all citizens.

“One Court of Justice” Funding Issues for the Future: The Michigan legislature should recognize the
authority of the Supreme Court of Michigan under the separation of powers doctrine. It should support
the Supreme Court in the implementation of "One Court of Justice" and facilitate standardized
administrative delivery systems and uniform, equitable enforcement of gender-neutral policies and
management practices. The legislature should fully fund all mandated requirements placed on state


                                                       7
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


      courts.

                                         NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

                The State Bar Task Force wishes to recognize and acknowledge many of the organizations that have
      worked over the last eight years to comply with and implement the goals set forward in the 1989 Reports.
      In many instances, these achievements were done completely voluntarily and without additional financial
      resources or personnel. The Michigan Judicial Institute has consistently and comprehensively designed
      its educational curriculum to reflect the recommendations of the 1989 Task Force as they relate to the
      education of judges and court personnel.                 The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of
      Michigan/Prosecuting Attorneys Coordinating Council/Domestic Violence Prevention and Treatment
      Board/State Court Administrative Office have joined together to initiate significant reforms in the
      attitude about and the approach to domestic violence in Michigan. Of particular note is the progress
      achieved in the availability of personal protection orders. The State Bar of Michigan has responded to the
      challenge of the 1989 Reports by establishing a Department for an Open Justice System. During the last
      eight years, this department has dedicated its efforts to the implementation of numerous 1989 Task Force
      recommendations.

                Throughout the state, Friends of the Court offices have struggled to respond to the growing needs
      of their constituency. They have been mandated to increase enforcement and collection efforts on child
      support, enforce parenting time requirements, utilize increased conciliation and mediation techniques,
      establish non-traditional office hours and standardize judicial recommendations. Despite the serious
      funding issues for these offices, many Friends of the Court reported serious efforts to address these
      concerns and to adopt innovative programs.

                As a result of recommendations by the State Bar of Michigan Standing Committee on Standard
      Criminal Jury Instructions and the Michigan Supreme Court Standard Jury Instructions Committee, civil
      and criminal jury instructions were amended to adopt consistently gender neutral language in almost all
      provisions and commentary. The Michigan State Bar Foundation has demonstrated a long commitment
      to supporting the efforts of the 1989 Task Forces and the State Bar Task Force, providing financial support
      for the 1997 project. The State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly adopted proposed revisions
      to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Michigan Court Rule 9.205 and the Code of Professional Conduct. These



                                                           8
                                                                                       THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


proposals were generated as a result of the 1989 recommendations and were a courageous and controversial
action taken by the policy-setting body of the State Bar of Michigan.

       The Michigan Supreme Court has provided leadership and guidance on the issues of bias and
discrimination in the justice system of Michigan beginning with the Citizen’s Commission to Improve
Michigan’s Courts in 1986. The establishment of the 1989 Task Forces and the Court’s subsequent support
of its findings and recommendations have been essential to the efforts for reform. Under its direction, the
State Court Administrator’s Office and the Michigan Judicial Institute have accomplished much
toward the realization of the goals set forth in 1989. The State Court Administrative Office has provided
invaluable support to the courts of this state in addressing the concerns of the 1989 Reports and providing
administrative resources and guidance in their implementation.


                                               CONCLUSION

       The Task Force is aware that it answers its mandate and completes its work at a time of great
national sensitivity to race/ethnic and gender issues. We are confident that there is nothing in the
accomplishment of our mandate that infringes upon the rights of any individual or any group; asks for
unequal and preferential treatment for unqualified persons; or places an unfair burden upon organizations
within our profession. To the contrary, the reporting of the status of the 1989 Supreme Court Task Forces’
recommendations, and our recommendations for further implementation, go a long way toward increasing
the quality of justice and credibility of the Michigan judicial system.

       The appearance of bias, as well as the reality of bias, damages our profession and our courts in their
fundamental role as protector of freedom and dispenser of justice. In a very real sense, the implementation
of these recommendations continues the process of insuring that the Michigan justice system accurately
reflects the diversity of the constituency it serves, and that participants at all levels are afforded a level
playing field upon which to operate. As we continue to strive for a bias-free society and justice system,
lawyers, judges and their leaders must be in the forefront of this effort. This report, coupled with the 1989
Reports, will provide the members of our justice system with the knowledge and awareness needed to more
ably continue this elusive undertaking.




                                                         9
                 THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN TASK FORCE MANDATE

       To appreciate the mandate of the State Bar’s Task Force on Racial/Ethnic and Gender Issues in the
Courts and the Legal Profession, it is necessary to step back more than a decade to the 1986 report of the
Michigan Supreme Court Citizen’s Commission. Under the leadership of Justice Patricia Boyle, this
Commission was mandated to “examine the courts and to recommend revisions in rules, procedures and
administration of the courts to assure equal treatment for men and women, free from race or gender bias.”
After an intensive study of the justice system and several statewide public hearings, the Commission
reached the disturbing conclusion that over one-third of Michigan’s citizens believed that the Michigan
court system discriminated against individuals on the basis of gender, race or ethnic origin.

       It was upon the recommendation of the Citizen’s Commission that Michigan Supreme Court Chief
Justice Dorothy Riley created, in 1987, two separate task forces – the Michigan Supreme Court Task Force
on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Courts and the Michigan Supreme Court Task Force on Gender Issues in the
Courts (1989 Task Forces.) It is important to note that these task forces were at the forefront of a national
movement in which those who best know a state's justice system examine it for flaws. After two years of
extensive citizen, judicial and lawyer surveys, data collection and research, and 17 statewide public
hearings, the 1989 Task Forces concluded that a substantial number of citizens and lawyers believed that
bias affects justice, and that their perceptions of bias were often based on reality. These reports and their
conclusions revealed that Michigan, like many other states, needed to address the manner in which courts
treat those who often lack the power to make their voices heard.

       Hundreds of specific findings and recommendations urged individuals, agencies, organizations and
courts to address the problems identified. The Reports, which were released in December of 1989,
provided a roadmap for change addressing not only how lawyers treat one another, but also, more
importantly, how to improve the quality of justice afforded to victims and litigants. The 1989 Task Forces
recognized, however, that they had only taken the first steps on that road by stating the following:
“However, the ultimate effectiveness of the Reports can only be measured by the extent to which bias is
reduced or eliminated and the extent to which citizen confidence in the courts is increased.” Final Report of
the Michigan Supreme Court Task Force on Gender Issues in the Courts 135 (December, 1989).

       Determining the status of implementation is not an easy task, as no agency or organization routinely
tracks progress. Considering the issue one which seriously impacts the quality of justice in Michigan, as


                                                    11
THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN TASK FORCE MANDATE


      well as the perception of many that some goals remain unrealized, State Bar President Victoria A. Roberts
      determined in the fall of 1996 that it was time to assess progress toward the goals identified in the 1989
      Reports. To that end, in November of 1996, she appointed the State Bar Task Force on Race/Ethnic and
      Gender Issues in the Courts and the Legal Profession (State Bar Task Force). With members drawn from
      diverse legal backgrounds and geographic locations, this group of experienced lawyers and judges was
      given the following mandate:

                report on the current status of recommendations made in December, 1989, by the
                 Michigan Supreme Court's Task Forces on Race/Ethnic and Gender Issues in the Courts;

                compare the progress in Michigan to that achieved in other states;

                identify and develop a strategy for collecting information about race, ethnic and gender
                 issues not addressed in the Supreme Court Task Force reports; and

                develop a strategy for monitoring and implementing new and unrealized
                 recommendations.

             The Task Force is aware that it answers its mandate and completes its work at a time of great
      national sensitivity to race/ethnic and gender issues. We are confident that there is nothing in the
      accomplishment of our mandate that infringes upon the rights of any individual or any group; asks for
      unequal and preferential treatment for unqualified persons; or places an unfair burden upon organizations
      within our profession. To the contrary, the reporting of the status of the 1989 Supreme Court Task Forces’
      recommendations, and our recommendations for further implementation, go a long way toward increasing
      the quality of justice and credibility of the Michigan judicial system.

             The appearance of bias, as well as the reality of bias, damages our profession and our courts in their
      fundamental role as protector of freedom and dispenser of justice. In a very real sense, the implementation
      of these recommendations continues the process of insuring that the Michigan justice system accurately
      reflects the diversity of the constituency it serves, and that participants at all levels are afforded a level
      playing field upon which to operate. As we continue to strive for a bias-free society and justice system,
      lawyers, judges and their leaders must be in the forefront of this effort. This report, coupled with the 1989
      Reports, will provide the members of our justice system with the knowledge and awareness needed to more
      ably continue this elusive undertaking.



                                                           12
                THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN TASK FORCE APPROACH


                                               MEMBERSHIP

       The State Bar Task Force was given until the end of President Roberts’ bar year to complete its
report. To accomplish this formidable task in this relatively short time frame, President Roberts appointed a
task force membership that reflected a number of considerations. First, in order to bring a broad range of
personal and cultural experiences to bear on this project, the State Bar Task Force was designed to reflect
racial, ethnic and gender diversity. Second, to insure that views from all areas of our state were considered
in data compilation and analysis, President Roberts selected a task force that represented numerous
geographic locations across the state. The third consideration was to impanel a group of individuals with a
wide spectrum of professional experience. This was necessary because the recommendations from the
1989 Reports addressed issues as diverse as domestic violence, domestic relations, criminal law, civil
relations, bias within the court environment, employment policies, disciplinary systems, appointment
policies, educational programs and bias within the profession. Each member appointed to the State Bar
Task Force by President Roberts brought a wealth of experience and understanding to this undertaking.



                                                 FUNDING

       With a mandate and membership in place, the State Bar Task Force Co-Chairs prepared a budget
and presented the 1997 Task Force project to both the State Bar’s Board of Commissioners and the
Michigan State Bar Foundation. Both bodies responded enthusiastically with generous support, both
conceptual and financial. Of the approximately $38,000 budgeted for the project, the Foundation
contributed $25,000, with the Bar contributing the difference.

       In addition to office facilities and administrative support, the State Bar also contributed substantial
time and the expertise of its staff. Key to the success of the task force effort were D. Larkin Chenault, State
Bar of Michigan Executive Director; Danial Kim, Deputy Executive Director; Dean Tucker, Director of
Information Services; Stephanie Arbanas, Assistant Executive Director for Personnel and Research;
Nkrumah Johnson-Wynn, Associate Executive Director for an Open Justice System; Judy Hershkowitz,
Project Assistant; and Joyce Nordeen, Project Secretary.




                                                     13
THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN TASK FORCE APPROACH                                                           METHODOLOGY


                                                  METHODOLOGY

             The initial development of this project was undertaken by Task Force Co-Chairs Dawn Van Hoek
      and Saul A. Green, State Bar Associate Executive Director for an Open Justice System Nkrumah Johnson-
      Wynn, and Special Advisor Lorraine H. Weber, who had served as the Project Director for both 1989
      Supreme Court Task Forces. At the outset it was understood that this report card would be completed
      during President Roberts’ bar year, necessitating that much of the data collection and analysis would have
      to be done by task force members themselves. This would truly be a working task force.

             To meet this ambitious time frame, the 1989 recommendations were divided into the five major
      subject areas that had been evaluated by the 1989 Task Forces, with each assigned to a team:

                   Domestic Violence

                   Domestic Relations

                   Bias Within the Court Environment

                   Bias Within the Profession

                   Joint Recommendations of the Gender and Race/Ethnic Task Forces


             Task Force members were assigned to these five teams based on each member’s background and
      professional experience, and made responsible for the data-gathering and analysis in their designated
      subject areas. A “Team 6,” consisting of the Co-Chairs, Lorraine Weber, Nkrumah Johnson-Wynn and
      later Joan Ellerbusch Morgan, was assigned the responsibility for administering the project, coordinating
      the research effort, and editing, compiling and publishing the final report from the data received from the
      five teams.

             The team responsibilities were assigned under the following structure:

      TASK FORCE TEAMS

           Team 1         domestic violence
                          women as criminal defendants
                          women as victims of crime
                          pretrial release
                          sentencing

                                                         14
RESEARCH                                                      THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN TASK FORCE APPROACH



      Team 2             domestic relations
                         judicial education
                         court rules, statutes, jury instructions

      Team 3             mediation
                         arbitration
                         special masters
                         Task Force follow-up issues

      Team 4             treatment of women/minority judges, attorneys, litigants, witness, jurors, and the
                              public at large
                         appointment of women/minorities to fee-generating positions
                         treatment of court personnel
                         ethical standards and disciplinary systems

      Team 5             representation of women minorities on bench, in public positions
                         representation/treatment of women/minorities in professional associations
                         bias in employment issues
                         bias in law school issues

      Team 6             correlation
                         compile information received by teams 1-5
                         collate team reports into final report



                                                       RESEARCH

              At the first full task force meeting it was decided that three basic data-gathering techniques would be
       used to develop the final report. First, there would be a heavy emphasis on questionnaires directed to all
       components of the legal system that were the subject of 1989 recommendations. Second, the questionnaires
       would be supplemented, as needed, by focus groups and direct interviews. These focus groups would
       solicit information from individuals with specialized knowledge and experience of the topic areas and from
       organizations, such as special purpose bar associations, whose members were the focus of the 1989
       recommendations. Finally, the task force mandate required a comparison of Michigan’s progress in
       implementation to that achieved by other states with similar task forces. This was to be accomplished by
       contracting with an experienced attorney capable of conducting the necessary research to develop a national
       perspective. This person would also research any legal issues or questions raised by the teams in order to
       accomplish their data gathering and analysis. In January of 1997, the State Bar entered into a contract with
       Joan Ellerbusch Morgan, an attorney experienced in criminal and appellate law, who had previously served


                                                               15
THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN TASK FORCE APPROACH                                                               RESEARCH


      as the Reporter to the State Bar Task Force to Appellate Courts. She was hired to conduct the national
      survey and general legal research on behalf of each team.


                                                 Data Collection

             Two types of questionnaires were developed by the teams. The first type was designed to determine
      the degree of implementation of every recommendation made by the 1989 Task Forces. Some of the
      information sought was statistical in nature, other questions asked about procedures recommended in the
      1989 Reports, while other questions attempted to determine the race and gender composition of the many
      participants in our court system. Additionally, there were questions addressed to each respondent seeking
      his or her opinion about factors that had a bearing on the current status of particular recommendations.

             The second type of questionnaire was more general in nature. It was apparent to the members of the
      State Bar Task Force that not only was implementation of the individual 1989 recommendations important,
      but it was also important to gauge the degree of knowledge and the perceptions about implementation of the
      1989 Task Force Reports possessed by those answering the questionnaires. Each person completing a
      questionnaire was asked the same 26 questions in the form of a Preliminary Questionnaire. The
      Preliminary Questionnaire surveyed the following types of knowledge and perceptions of implementation:

             1) Were you aware of the existence of this Report prior to receiving this questionnaire?

             2) Have you ever received a copy of the Report or a summary of its findings and
                 recommendations?

             3) Have you ever attended any educational program or seminar where the Report and its findings
                 and recommendations were used as a part of the curriculum?

             4) How effectively do you believe the Report has been in generating reform in the court system to
                 prevent or reduce actual and/or perceived gender or racial /ethnic bias?

             5) Has an effective method for accountability and follow-up on the implementation of the Report
                 recommendations been created?




                                                         16
RESEARCH                                                     THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN TASK FORCE APPROACH


              Through the use of these two survey methods the State Bar Task Force was able to gauge the degree
       of implementation of the 1989 Task Force Reports, and the level of awareness of the 1989 Reports by
       significant actors in our Michigan legal system.

              The Teams developed questionnaires addressed to the following components of our Michigan legal
       system:

                 Supreme Court Chief Justice                         State Bar of Michigan General
                                                                       Practice Section
                 Court of Appeals Chief Judge
                                                                      State Bar of Michigan Juvenile Law
                 Circuit Court Chief Judges
                                                                       Section
                 Probate Court Chief Judges
                                                                      State Bar of Michigan Judicial
                 District Court Chief Judges                          Conference Section
                 Recorder’s Court Chief Judge                        Michigan Judicial Institute
                 Circuit Court Judges                                Institute of Continuing Legal
                                                                       Education
                 Recorder’s Court Judges
                                                                      Governor Engler
                 Friends of the Court
                                                                      Attorney General
                 Prosecuting Attorneys Association of
                  Michigan                                            Law School Deans
                 Prosecuting Attorneys Coordinating                  Women & Minority Law School
                  Council                                              Professors
                 Prosecutors                                         Women and Minority Law School
                                                                       Student Groups
                 Local Bar Associations and Special
                  Purpose Organizations                               Attorney Grievance Commission
                 State Bar of Michigan                               Attorney Discipline Board
                 State Bar of Michigan Sections                      Judicial Tenure Commission
                 State Bar of Michigan Criminal Law                  Sentencing Guidelines Commission
                  Section
                 State Bar of Michigan Family Law
                  Section


              In all, 816 questionnaires were sent out and 400 were returned.

              The questionnaires were further separated into size and racial and ethnic demographics. As a result,
       the overall response could be separated into five categories:



                                                             17
THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN TASK FORCE APPROACH                                                                 RESEARCH


                Region 1 – Large circuit court (5 or more circuit judges), high minority county population
                 (greater than ten percent [10%]).

                Region 2 – Small circuit court (less than 5 circuit judges), high minority county population
                 (greater than ten percent [10%]).

                Region 3 – Large circuit court (5 or more circuit judges) low minority county population (less
                 than ten percent [10%]).

                Region 4 – Small circuit court (less than 5 circuit judges) low minority county population (less
                 than ten percent [10%]).

                Statewide – Questionnaires sent to government agencies, professional organizations, law schools
                 and other statewide entities.

             As a result of this categorization, the State Bar Task force could make more meaningful findings.
      For example, failure to appoint a large number of minorities to fee-generating positions in a county with a
      high percentage minority population has more impact than the same situation in a county with a very small
      minority population. Throughout this report, distinctions may be drawn among regional responses in order
      to better alert the reader to the different demographic landscapes across our state.

             Additional information was collected by convening focus groups and directly interviewing selected
      individuals. The individuals invited to participate in these events were chosen on the basis of both their
      experience and expertise. While the information solicited in this manner is generally anecdotal, it is still
      valuable. Some interviews were conducted with representatives of agencies or groups with a particular
      focus on a substantive area. Other interviews were conducted with persons representing women or minority
      organizations.



                                             Analysis and Evaluation

             The full State Bar Task Force met on four occasions: December 13, 1996, May 9, 1997, July 7,
      1997, and October 31, 1997. Between those meetings teams met to develop the questionnaires, review and
      analyze the collected data, and prepare findings and recommendations.


                                                          18
RESEARCH                                                       THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN TASK FORCE APPROACH


              Throughout the analysis phase the State Bar Task Force continually returned to its initial mandate.
       The purpose of this investigation was not to determine whether bias in the justice system still exists in 1997
       or whether new problems have arisen. The task force mandate was clearly confined to evaluating and
       reporting on the status of the implementation of the 1989 Reports. This information was collected primarily
       through the questionnaires, which were supplemented by targeted interviews, focus group meetings, and
       legal research. Each team met on numerous occasions and utilized the gathered data and research to
       determine the status of each of the 1989 recommendations and, in appropriate instances, to formulate
       recommendations for further implementation.

              It should be noted that a nearly fifty percent (50%) return rate on the questionnaires’ results is a very
       credible data base upon which to draw conclusions. The Task Force compiled all available data that
       revealed the current status of implementation of each of the 1989 recommendations. In many instances, the
       lack of available data from courts, agencies and organizations was as relevant in determining the status of
       implementation as was the production of “hard” data.

              Anecdotal information was balanced by the written responses of organizations and courts. Where
       individual opinions were considered, they were considered within the context of the individual’s experience
       and expertise supplemented by supporting documentation from other sources. No single source of data or
       commentary was viewed as conclusive.

              All organizations and entities who were the subject of recommendations were given an opportunity
       to review and comment upon the draft report. Where supplemental commentary was received, every effort
       was made to incorporate explanations, context and additional data into the body of the report. It is
       important to note that it was not the intention of the Task Force to call into question individual persons,
       organizations or their actions, but rather to focus on the larger issues which remain unresolved since the
       1989 Reports.

              The members of the Task Force filtered and evaluated the data through their own collective expertise
       and experience in the Michigan court system and legal profession. The State Bar Task Force members
       carefully reviewed supporting data to confirm that each status determination could be supported.




                                                                19
                        A SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO
                     THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE 1989 REPORTS



                                                FINDINGS

       In the eight years since the Michigan Supreme Court Task Forces on Gender, Race and Ethnic Issues
in the Courts submitted their final Reports, several questions remain unanswered. Among those questions
are whether or not the Reports themselves have truly had an impact upon the legal community of Michigan
and have accomplished their goals. In its investigation the State Bar Task Force attempted to answer
specific concerns about specific recommendations. However, it was also determined that the perception of
the community regarding the Reports in general was important information for consideration. As a result, a
Preliminary Questionnaire was distributed to each person contacted by the State Bar Task Force. This
questionnaire was designed to elicit a broad perspective on the awareness, experience and perception of
judges and lawyers in Michigan in relation to the 1989 Reports.

       This preliminary questionnaire covered four main areas of interest:

          To what extent, if any, are judges and lawyers aware of the existence of the Supreme Court
           Task Force Reports and familiar with their conclusions and recommendations?

          To what extent, if any, have the Supreme Court Task Force Reports been effective in addressing
           issues of gender and race/ethnic bias and discrimination in the courts?

          To what extent, if any, have the Supreme Court Task Force Reports been effective in bringing
           about suggested reforms in the court system as it relates to gender and race/ethnic bias and
           discrimination?

          What factors contributed to the perceived effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in generating
           reforms in the court system as it relates to gender, race and ethnic bias and discrimination in the
           courts?

       It should be noted that this investigation was purposely directed at the individual perceptions,
experiences and beliefs of selected members of the legal community. The State Bar Task Force received
responses from 399 judges, lawyers and court personnel. While these responses cannot be statistically


                                                    21
A SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO
THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE 1989 REPORTS                                                                        FINDINGS


       generalized to the larger population, they are clearly indicative of the overall experiences and beliefs of
       persons responding. To the extent that these responses indicate a significant pattern or trend, they can be
       viewed as a reliable source of information upon which to draw general conclusions. These conclusions,
       however, cannot be characterized as statistically valid.

              To what extent, if any, are judges and lawyers aware of the existence of the Supreme
              Court Task Force Reports and familiar with their conclusions and recommendations?

              It is clear from the questionnaires that there is a high level of awareness regarding the existence of
       the Supreme Court Task Force Reports among those answering. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of the
       respondents reported knowing about the Reports and nearly seventy percent (70%) of the respondents had
       physically received a copy of the Reports. This level of awareness is particularly impressive given the eight
       years since the Reports were first published. Forty percent (40%) of the respondents had actually attended
       an educational program where the findings and recommendations of the Reports were used as a part of the
       curriculum. Yet, despite the general familiarity with the Reports as a whole, only twenty percent (20%) of
       the respondents would describe themselves as familiar or very familiar with the Race/Ethnic Report
       findings and recommendations, and twenty-four percent (24%) were familiar or very familiar with the
       Gender Report. Nearly half of the respondents, or forty-seven percent (47%), would describe themselves as
       minimally or not at all familiar with the findings and recommendations of both Reports.

              To what extent, if any, have the Supreme Court Task Force Reports been effective in
              addressing issues of gender and race/ethnic bias and discrimination in the courts?

              In answer to this question, twenty-eight percent (28%) of the respondents believed that the Reports
       had been effective or highly effective in recommending ways to prevent or reduce racial and/or ethnic bias,
       while thirty-two percent (32%) found the Reports effective in the area of gender bias. The largest
       percentages were in the neutral range responses. Those individuals who believed the Reports were effective
       typically responded in the following ways. One judge stated, “It was effective at the time, but there has not
       been much ongoing attention paid to racial/ethnic issues.” Another judge stated, “The report has served as
       a means of bringing these issues to the forefront, with concrete recommendations for change.” Most
       individuals with positive responses to this question believed that the Reports had heightened awareness and




                                                           22
FINDINGS                                                                        A SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO
                                                                            THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE 1989 REPORTS


           focused attention on the problems within the system. Other respondents stated that the Reports made
           “relevant and material suggestions for dealing with these problems.”

                  It was this same issue of awareness that generated the largest amount of commentary in the neutral
           responses. In the explanations to their answers, judges and court staff consistently stated that they had
           received little information regarding the status of the Reports. A significant number of respondents
           reported having no knowledge or awareness of anything involving the Reports or that they remembered the
           Reports at one time but have had no current experience or exposure to the recommendations.

                  Those individuals who rated the effectiveness in the lowest scales seemed to fall in two distinct
           categories. The first constitutes individuals who believe that there is no real need to address these issues, as
           they are not problems within their local court system. The second category involves those with a general
           sense that a report is by its very nature ineffective unless followed up with tangible responses and actions.
           In both of these categories, respondents believed that the report process was an unnecessary or inadequate
           mechanism to address issues of bias and discrimination. In essence, the responses could be summarized as:
           “There is no racial/ethnic or gender bias problems in my court, and even if there were, a report will not
           change it,” or “Racial/ethnic and gender bias is such a complex issue requiring significant attention and
           action, a report is not enough unless it is accompanied with monitoring, consequences and real mandates for
           action.”

                  To what extent, if any, have the Supreme Court Task Force Reports been effective in
                  bringing about suggested reforms in the court system related to gender and
                  race/ethnic bias and discrimination?

                  An even lower percentage of respondents, sixteen percent (16%) in the area of race/ethnic and
           fifteen percent (15%) in the area of gender, believe that the Reports have been in any way effective in
           actually generating reform in the court system. Those individuals cited heightened awareness, increased
           training opportunities and some actual changes in practice and policy as examples of reforms which were
           generated by the Reports. It should be noted that even within this group there were very few substantive
           examples of reform identified in the questionnaires.

                  Nearly half the respondents (forty-nine percent [49%]) were neutral in evaluating the effectiveness
           of the Report recommendations in actually changing behaviors and attitudes. Most of these individuals


                                                                    23
A SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO
THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE 1989 REPORTS                                                                      FINDINGS


       believed that they did not have sufficient information to make an informed decision one way or the other.
       Of the thirty-five percent (35%) of those respondents who believed that the Reports were either ineffective
       or highly ineffective in generating reform in the court system, a large portion had not had any direct
       experience with the Reports or their recommendations. Another group remembered having some
       involvement early in the report process, but believed that the momentum for change and reform had been
       lost in the interim period. A third group believed that because implementation efforts were suggested and
       not mandated, that the Reports were not effectively implemented.

              What factors contributed to the perceived effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in
              generating reforms in the court system related to gender, race and ethnic bias and
              discrimination in the courts?

              The preliminary questionnaire asked respondents to assess the effectiveness of accountability and
       follow-up on the implementation of the 1989 recommendations and to state whether they believed that
       sufficient resources had been allocated for the implementation effort. Only twenty percent (20%) of the
       respondents believed that an effective method for accountability and follow-up had been created. Reasons
       cited for this response rate were varied. A large portion of the respondents had no specific knowledge of
       the Reports or their findings and recommendations. Numerous respondents cited a lack of mandated
       resources. An example of this response is:

              “This was yet another of those mandates without funding. The Court does not have
              enough resources to deal with all the functions assigned by statute, much less directive or
              recommendation. The Court does the best that it can. SCAO has provided what support
              it can with its limitations and cutbacks on funding.”

              Most individuals believed that the Reports had been most effective in increasing the level of
       awareness, but had stopped short of actual systemic changes or reforms. Some respondents asserted the
       opinion that until reform was mandated with specific monitoring mechanisms and consequences for
       failures, the Reports would remain interesting but only of “historical interest.” This was typified in a
       response from a Friend of the Court stating:

              “Too few people have actually read the report and of those that have, too few understand
              it. Further, every change requires effort and effort requires manpower and funds. The

                                                          24
CONCLUSIONS                                                               A SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO
                                                                      THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE 1989 REPORTS


              suggestions are made, but no funding is allocated to effectuate them. Court personnel are
              more aware of the problem and may be more sensitive to it, if only, because they perceive
              that someone else is supervising or watching. But the basic attitudes will not change and
              the necessary empathy will not develop because there isn’t a potential hammer if reforms
              are not implemented.”

              The concern about the allocation of sufficient resources was reflected in the responses to the
       question about whether sufficient resources have been allocated for the implementation of the Report and
       Recommendations. Only one-third of the respondents believed that allocation of resources was sufficient.



                                                    CONCLUSIONS

              There are several conclusions that might be drawn from these results and the comments that
       accompanied them. First, it is clear that the initial publication and dissemination of the 1989 Reports was
       effective. Most of the respondents remembered the many programs and discussions which occurred at that
       time regarding certain aspects of the Reports. Yet, this familiarity and focus has not been maintained over
       the long run. Secondly, educational opportunities were clearly not available to a majority of respondents
       regarding the Reports. Receiving the Reports without an opportunity to examine, review and internalize
       their contents did not result in meaningful awareness. As a result, the respondents did not seem to be aware
       of the Reports in any detail. Rather, they understood the overall purpose of the Reports without retaining
       specific information about the findings and recommendations.

              This lack of detailed understanding of the Reports would account for the belief, on the part of most
       respondents, that the Reports were not effective in addressing issues of gender, race and ethnic bias.
       Respondents seemed to lack both knowledge and confidence in the ability of the Reports to adequately
       address these concerns. The extremely low number of responses that found the Reports in any way
       effective further reinforced this. An analysis of these answers reveals a general perception on the part of
       these members of the courts and legal community that the Reports have been unable to fulfill their stated
       mandate and actually bring about reform.

              Finally, a large majority of respondents within the legal system do not believe that accountability or
       follow-up on the implementation of the 1989 Reports has been effective. They are unaware of existing


                                                              25
A SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO
THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE 1989 REPORTS                                                                     CONCLUSIONS


       efforts to address the Report recommendations and they have not received information which would lead
       them to believe that the Reports have been successful in addressing the issues of race/ethnic or gender bias
       in the Michigan justice system. Two-thirds of the respondents believe that resource allocation has not been
       sufficient to fund a successful implementation plan. The perception on the part of a large number of
       respondents is that either too little has been done to implement these proposals or that little needed to be
       done in the first place and the project should have been abandoned.

                These perceptions on the part of respondents are disturbing and the conclusions, which can be drawn
       from these answers, are evident. To the extent that the recommendations of the 1989 Reports have been
       implemented, the message has not been delivered effectively. While there is a general awareness of the
       existence of the Reports, the legal community seems to be unaware and uninformed as to most other factors
       related to their specific recommendations and their implementation. While it is true that there are many
       recommendations that remain partially or completely unimplemented, the perception of the Report’s failure
       seems to be far worse than the reality, as determined by this Task Force. A detailed analysis of the
       accomplishments of the last eight years reveals a somewhat more optimistic picture than is evidenced in the
       questionnaire responses. However, there are many areas that were studied where the perception of failure is
       accurate and where the promise of the 1989 Reports has not been met. In either case, the issues of
       race/ethnic and gender bias in the Michigan Justice system remain much the same today as they were in
       1989. The perception of bias and the response of our legal and judicial leaders are inextricably connected.
       The overall results of an analysis of the preliminary questionnaire reinforces that connection and shows that
       the 1989 Reports have not been able to maintain clear visibility and present viability in the justice system of
       today.




                                                            26
          THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS

       What then is the strategy for addressing the problem of race/ethnic and gender bias in the Michigan
justice system and the legal profession in the future? Contained in the final sections of this report is a
detailed analysis of the status of each recommendation set forth in the 1989 Reports, the level of
implementation achieved since that date, and additional recommendations for the future. However, like the
1989 Task Forces, there is unanimous agreement that some goals are so critical to the future of this work
that they must be strongly emphasized in a special section. It is the conclusion of the State Bar of Michigan
Task Force that the 1989 Task Forces’ Joint Recommendations correctly predicted the necessary steps to be
taken to insure that their reports would not only raise awareness, but would also reduce or eliminate bias
and increase citizen confidence in the legal system. Three crucial areas were identified as the foundation
for these changes: (1) Ethical Standards and Disciplinary Systems; (2) Education; and (3) Implementation.



       It is noteworthy that the 1989 Task Forces believed these provisions to be so important that they met
together to draft the language. They wanted the public and profession to know without any doubt that these
issues were unanimously supported by all 38 members of both Task Forces and were considered to be
fundamental to the effective reform of the justice system. Unfortunately, a review of these specific
recommendations shows that only one area has been substantially addressed: In the area of education, the
Michigan Judicial Institute has systematically responded to meeting the goals set forward for judicial
education standards. No recommendations regarding the disciplinary system or the implementation plans
were accomplished. Few of the remaining recommendations regarding, attorney education, law schools or
public initiatives have been adopted. This failure to implement the most important and fundamental
recommendations of the 1989 Reports is disheartening and confusing. Today, in 1997, a State Bar Task
Force once again calls for the leadership of our profession to strongly endorse these fundamental changes.



                         ETHICAL STANDARDS AND DISCIPLINARY SYSTEMS

       Joint Recommendation IX-1: Judges, quasi-judicial officers, and lawyers should be
       subject to a specific Judicial Canon and/or Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct
       precluding inappropriate gender or racial/ethnic comments or actions.

       Joint Recommendation IX-2: The Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 3) should be
       amended to add an additional numbered paragraph under Section (A) providing
       that: A judge shall not engage in sexual harassment or invidious discrimination and

                                                    27
THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS                     ETHICAL STANDARDS AND DISCIPLINARY SYSTEMS


              shall prohibit staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s discretion and
              control from doing so. A judge shall prohibit sexual harassment or invidious
              discrimination against parties, counsel, or others on the part of lawyers in
              proceedings before the Judge.

              Joint Recommendation IX-3: The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC
              8.4) should be amended to state: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... (f)
              engage in sexual harassment or invidious discrimination.

              Joint Recommendation IX-4: General Court Rules 2.003 and 9.205 should be
              amended to provide for disqualification on the basis of such precluded behavior.

              Joint Recommendation IX-5: The disciplinary systems for attorneys and judges
              should actively promulgate policies and procedures designed to increase the
              confidence level of the public and the professions regarding their response and
              intervention in matters related to discrimination and bias.


                                                  Ethical Standards

              In 1989 both Task Forces made the above joint recommendations regarding Ethical Standards and
       Disciplinary Systems. These recommendations were based upon the fact that neither the Code of Judicial
       Conduct nor the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct specifically prohibited invidious discrimination or
       sexual harassment. In their reasoning, the 1989 Task Forces cited the public testimony of many attorney
       witnesses as well as representatives of both the Judicial Tenure Commission and the Attorney Grievance
       Commission. 1989 survey responses indicated a significant lack of confidence in the existing system’s
       ability to respond to such issues and an even stronger lack of knowledge about the disciplinary systems role
       in addressing issues of bias and discrimination. At that time, numerous states, as well as the American Bar
       Association, had adopted specific proposals. These proposals contained language that established a clear
       enforceable standard for prohibiting invidious discrimination and sexual harassment.

              As a result of the above Joint Recommendations, the members of the State Bar Representative
       Assembly were asked to pass a resolution recommending the creation of the proposed standards. In
       September of 1990, the following proposal was fiercely debated and passed as a recommendation to the
       Michigan Supreme Court:

            “That the Supreme Court of Michigan be requested to amend the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct,
            Michigan Court Rule 9.205 and the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct as hereinafter set forth to


                                                           28
ETHICAL STANDARDS AND DISCIPLINARY SYSTEMS          THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS


             articulate prohibition against invidious discrimination and to replace gender specific terminology with
             gender neutral terminology:

             Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2:

                    C. . . . A judge shall not hold membership in . . . any organization which the judge
                    knows invidiously discriminates on the basis of race, religion, disability, age, sexual
                    orientation, gender, or ethnic origin.

             Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3:

                    C. A judge shall not engage in invidious discrimination on the basis of race,
                    religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender, or ethnic origin, and shall
                    prohibit staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control
                    from doing so. A judge shall prohibit such invidious discrimination against parties,
                    witnesses, counsel, or others on the part of lawyers in proceedings before the judge.

             Michigan Court Rule 9.205:

                     (C) Misconduct. A judge is guilty of misconduct in office if:

                          (6) the judge engages in invidious discrimination on the basis of gender, race,
                               religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin.

             Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct

                   5.7 Discriminatory Practices.

                   (a) A lawyer shall not engage in invidious discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion,
                       disability, age, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin, and shall prohibit staff and agents subject
                       to the lawyer’s direction and control from doing so.

                   (b) A lawyer shall not hold membership in . . . any organization which the lawyer knows
                       invidiously discriminates on the basis of gender, race, religion, disability, age, sexual
                       orientation, or ethnic origin.

                   (c) A lawyer serving as an adjudicative officer shall prohibit invidious discrimination on the


                                                               29
THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS                      ETHICAL STANDARDS AND DISCIPLINARY SYSTEMS


                       basis of gender, race, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin against
                       parties, witnesses, counsel, or others on the part of lawyers in proceedings before the
                       adjudicative officer.”


              The adoption of this language was a clear signal on the part of the elected policy-setting body of the
       State Bar of Michigan. It was persuaded by the reasoning of the 1989 Task Force and its proponents. The
       appearance of impartiality and the reality of impartiality are equally important. As a profession dedicated to
       the delivery of fair and equal justice, we are obligated to hold ourselves to the highest standard of
       professional conduct and behavior. In order to inspire the trust, confidence and respect needed to enforce
       and uphold our laws, we must demonstrate our commitment to certain guiding principles and standards. It
       is not enough to merely say that we are in favor of a bias-free justice system. Our actions must ensure that
       the justice system moves beyond rhetoric to a real and unequivocal standard of behavior.

              Despite the clear language of the 1989 Task Force Joint Recommendation and long battle to get such
       a recommendation adopted by the State Bar, the Michigan Supreme Court did not amend the Code of
       Judicial Conduct, the Michigan Court Rules and the Rules of Professional Conduct. No reasons were ever
       published for this failure and an alternative statement was issued by the Justices in the form of an
       administrative order. Administrative Order 1990-3 endorses many of the recommendations of the 1989
       Task Force Reports and directs Michigan courts to commit to the elimination of bias of all types in the
       judicial system. It does not prohibit inappropriate gender, race, or ethnic comments or actions. It does not
       specifically name invidious discrimination or sexual harassment as prohibited behavior. It does not outline
       clear and meaningful consequences for the failure to act in accordance with its requirements.

              Late in October of 1993, Rule 6.5 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct were amended to
       require adjudicative officers and lawyers to treat all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and
       respect and to take particular care to avoid discourtesy based on a person’s race, ethnicity, gender or other
       protected personal characteristics and to require those who are supervised by the lawyer to do the same. It
       is the opinion of the State Bar Task Force that this provision comes closer to the intent of the 1989
       recommendation, but does not clearly establish the required standard. Discourteous behavior is only one
       aspect of bias and discrimination. Many unfair and damaging acts can occur within a climate of seeming
       courtesy and goodwill. Again, the far-reaching nature of bias and its impact have been lost in a diluted
       standard.


                                                            30
EDUCATION                                          THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS




                                                 Disciplinary Systems

              The Judicial Tenure Commission must continue to take steps to address the problem of bias.
      Well-publicized cases of gender bias and racial/ethnic bias show that this problem exists among Michigan
      judges, and that the local, state and national media is eager to publicize bad judges. A Circuit Court Judge,
      found guilty of three separate incidents of gender bias, was given a three-day suspension with pay, and a
      District Court Judge was not returned to the bench by voters after incidents of gender bias in his Courtroom
      were publicized. The Judicial Tenure Commission faces strict confidentiality requirements during the
      pendency of ongoing investigations. It also receives numerous inquiries and complaints that do not result in
      formal grievances. Their recommendations on discipline are subject to Supreme Court review and revision.
              Taking into account the requirement that Commission investigations be kept confidential, upon the
      filing of a formal complaint and final adjudication of allegations of bias or discrimination, the public should
      be informed. Publicizing the final adjudication of claims of bias and discrimination would go a long way
      toward increasing public confidence.
              The Attorney Discipline Board has taken internal steps on racial, ethnic and gender bias,
      promulgating a rule in its personnel manual which mirrors MPCR 6.5 (which requires fairness and courtesy
      to all). It has made a concerted effort to attract and recruit minority and female hearing panelists. These
      efforts have been widely disseminated throughout the profession, but no program has been specifically
      targeted toward the public.


                                                      EDUCATION

              Joint Recommendation IX-6: Judicial education related to gender and race/ethnic
              bias in the courts should be a permanent component of the new judges' seminar as
              well as of regional seminars and separate curricula for judges on the bench. It
              should be presented in at least these forms:

                  a. Task Forces' findings and recommendations should be presented for all
                     judges on the bench, then for each group of new judges.
                  b. Courses should be developed which examine gender and race/ethnic bias as
                     they affect court system interactions and case or controversy outcomes with
                     particular attention to an analysis of race and sex-based stereotypes, myths,
                     beliefs and biases that may affect judicial decision making in numerous
                     spheres which affect litigants.
                  c. New and existing courses on substantive areas of the law should be
                     continually updated from the perspective of gender and race/ethnic issues.


                                                             31
THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS                                                EDUCATION



            Joint Recommendation IX-7: The Michigan Judicial Institute and professional
            associations should ensure that all educational components are sensitive to the issues
            of race/ethnic and gender bias by adopting standards which address the following
            items:

               a. Gender and race/ethnic neutral materials.
               b. Inclusion of women and racial/ethnic minorities as committee members,
                  planners, faculty and speakers.
               c. Impact of race/ethnic and gender bias on issues related to substantive law
                  areas.

            Joint Recommendation IX-8: Regular training should be conducted for court
            employees on the issues of gender and race/ethnic bias and their relation to the
            proper function of the court.

            Joint Recommendation IX-9: Faculty utilized in educational components should be
            trained regarding relevant issues of race/ethnic and gender bias.

            Joint Recommendation IX-10: All entities which provide education for attorneys
            should be encouraged to:

               a. Include in ethics courses the nature and impact of gender and race/ethnic
                  discrimination and bias on the profession. There should be an aggressive
                  program of education regarding amendments proposed to the Michigan
                  Rules of Professional Conduct, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and any other
                  ethics amendments proposed to prohibit race/ethnic and gender bias, and
                  the consequences flowing from violation of these provisions.
               b. Include components regarding the nature and impact of race/ethnic and
                  gender discrimination and bias in a course in the mandatory continuing
                  legal education currently being developed by the Standing Committee on
                  Continuing Legal Education of the State Bar of Michigan, pursuant to State
                  Bar Rule 17.
               c. Establish an educational standard which assures that all educational
                  components are sensitive to the issues of race/ethnic and gender bias by
                  addressing the following items:
                       1) race/ethnic-gender-neutral materials.
                       2) inclusion of women and racial/ethnic minorities as planners, faculty
                          and speakers.
                       3) impact of race/ethnic and gender bias on issues related to court
                          system interaction and case or controversy outcome.
               d. Upon adoption of mandatory continuing legal education, adopt the above
                  standard as a requirement for accreditation.




                                                     32
EDUCATION                                         THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS


              Joint Recommendation IX-11: All entities which provide education including
              publication of literature for attorneys should review such literature to make sure it
              does not reflect race/ethnic or gender bias.

              Joint Recommendation IX-12: Law schools have a very important role in educating
              future lawyers regarding the nature and impact of gender and race/ethnic bias in
              the profession. Michigan law schools should receive the Task Forces’ reports and be
              requested to undertake the following actions:

                a. Include the Task Forces’ conclusions and recommendations in the following
                   areas:
                      1. Court system interaction: to be included in clinical and trial practice
                          courses;
                      2. Ethics: to be included in professional responsibility courses;
                      3. Substantive areas of the law: to be included in courses covering these
                          areas;
                      4. Extracurricular activities (where appropriate), such as moot court.
                b. Sensitize faculties to race/ethnic and gender bias issues.

              Joint Recommendation IX-13: Law schools should review case book and
              instructional materials for biased materials and introduce corrective supplemental
              materials.

              Joint Recommendation IX-14: Law schools should initiate programs to expand the
              pool of potential applicants for faculty positions to include more minorities and
              women.

              Joint Recommendation IX-15: Conclusions and recommendation of the Task
              Forces’ Reports should reach the public through the press and other media. Task
              Force members should actively seek out avenues, such as meetings of groups,
              associations, and commission, to speak on conclusions and recommendations of the
              Reports.

              The overall recommendations which flow from this analysis are based on the conclusion of the 1989
       Reports that “education is an essential tool in efforts to eliminate race/ethnic and gender bias from the
       Michigan court system … An educational approach is appropriate because it focuses on understanding, not
       on blame.” The 1989 Reports proposed broad reforms in the areas of education for judges, court personnel,
       attorneys, law students and the public. In each instance they stressed the need for a broad spectrum of
       educational strategies. As was noted earlier, the educational efforts of the Michigan Judicial Institute have
       been exemplary. Under the direction of the Supreme Court, it has systematically integrated these
       recommendations in its training for judges and court personnel. Both the State Court Administrator and the
       State Bar of Michigan have produced videos and pamphlets for the education of the profession and the



                                                             33
THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS                                                             EDUCATION


       public.

                 The Institute of Continuing Legal Education reported significant progress in the implementation of
       education initiatives for continuing legal education relating to gender, race and ethnic issues. It has
       established a formal recruitment policy for women and minority faculty and has established an internal
       policy relating to the 1989 recommendations.

                 The Michigan Judicial Institute does not report that it reviews its literature for bias. All new book
       and supplement manuscripts are reviewed by the Institute of Continuing Legal Education’s editorial staff
       for gender and racial/ethnic bias and are systematically edited to eliminate bias. With respect to courses and
       course handbooks, every speaker is provided specific guidance in advance in their Institute of Continuing
       Legal Education speaker guide as follows:

                 “The best learning environment is one that demonstrates recognition of, and sensitivity to, the
                 dignity and contributions of all the racial, ethnic and gender groups included in the State Bar of
                 Michigan. The Institute strives for diversity in course faculty and registrants. When composing
                 written materials and oral presentations, please be sensitive to the concerns of all members of
                 the audience through your choice of language, hypotheticals and any anecdotes. Examples of
                 objectionable material include hypotheticals that always assume that lawyers and judges are
                 males and secretaries and legal assistants are females, or that gratuitously portray women or
                 minority groups in an unfavorable light. Please carefully scrutinize your written material and
                 remarks for stereotypes that might offend individuals in the audience.”

                 Of the two law schools responding to the 1997 survey, one reported that it did not review its
       textbooks for bias, nor did it know of any school that did. However, this same school reported receiving
       complaints sixty-seven percent (67%) of the time regarding this matter. The second school relied on faculty
       and publisher review to monitor for bias, but at least a review was being done.

                 Law schools in Michigan have not adopted any formal recruitment policies for minority and women
       faculty appointments. Generally, they rely on an annual national conference to assist in identifying and
       establishing a diverse applicant pool. Through this system, resume banks are updated and made available to
       interested law schools.




                                                              34
IMPLEMENTATION                                     THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS


                 While education has been an important area of progress for the 1989 Reports, there are still wide
       gaps in the awareness and exposure of most of the profession to these concerns. As a result, the State Bar
       Task Force reinforces the call to adopt the 1989 recommendations as modified:

          All members of the justice system should either receive or have access to the 1989 Task Force Reports
           and the State Bar of Michigan Report. Each member of the justice system and the legal profession
           should attend at least one training session that discusses the conclusions and recommendations.

          Courses should be developed at the Michigan Judicial Institute, the Institute of Continuing Legal
           Education and all Michigan law schools that examine gender and race/ethnic issues as they affect the
           justice system. These courses should place particular emphasis on race and sex-based stereotypes,
           myths, beliefs and biases that may affect the delivery of justice and the creation of a fair and open legal
           system.

          Women and minorities should be included in all phases of the educational process as committee
           members, planners, faculty and speakers.

          Ethics courses should regularly include discussion of the nature and impact of bias and discrimination
           on the profession.

          Substantive law courses and seminars, at all levels of legal education, should be continually and
           regularly updated from the perspective of gender and race/ethnic issues.

          Race/ethnic and gender neutral standards should be used in all educational programs, publications or
           course materials for members of the Michigan justice system

          Any mandatory continuing legal education requirement should adopt the above recommendations as
           requirements for accreditation.

          The conclusions and recommendations of the 1989 Task Forces and the State Bar Task Force should
           have the broadest possible dissemination to both the legal and the lay community.



                                                   IMPLEMENTATION

                 Joint Recommendation IX-16: A Standing Committee on Racial/Ethnic and Gender

                                                              35
THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS                                            IMPLEMENTATION


            Issues in the Courts should be created by the Supreme Court. This Committee
            would:

               a. Implement the Task Forces' recommendations and monitor implementation
                  efforts on an ongoing basis.
               b. Work with the Michigan Judicial Institute, continuing legal education
                  providers for attorneys, the National Judicial Education Program and other
                  similar entities to develop judicial and legal education programs on gender
                  and race/ethnic fairness.
               c. Work with the State Court Administrative Office to establish a statistical
                  database appropriate for monitoring areas of Task Forces' concerns and
                  performing studies in furtherance of the committee's charge.
               d. Monitor the impact of the changes in the Codes regarding the profession, the
                  judiciary, and court operation. As a part of this process, monitor
                  complaints to the Attorney Grievance Commission, the Attorney Discipline
                  Board, the Judicial Tenure Commission, Civil Service entities and individual
                  courts from lawyers, litigants, court personnel, and others.
               e. Develop the information generated by these inquiries and information
                  obtained by or provided to the Task Forces through other sources into
                  annual reports which:
                   1.      evaluate progress in implementing reforms and reducing gender
                           and race/ethnic bias;
                   2.      describe the nature and disposition of the complaints received;
                   3.      assess the extent to which the findings and recommendations of
                           the Task Forces are being integrated into judicial and legal
                           education courses and programs;
                   4.      identify new problems rooted in race/ethnic and gender bias and
                           suggests appropriate remedial action.
               f. Disseminate these Reports to the Chief Justice, the state judiciary, Task
                  Force members, interested individuals and groups and the media and
                  publish it in the Michigan Bar Journal.
               g. Review appellate decisions on gender-related and race/ethnic-related issues
                  in all areas of law and call to the attention of the trial courts those decisions
                  which pertain to gender and race/ethnic bias.

            Joint Recommendation IX-17: The Standing Committee on Racial/Ethnic and
            Gender Issues in the Courts should be structured as follows:

               a. A Committee should be appointed which is multi-jurisdictional in scope,
                  including representation from the judiciary, court administrators, the
                  organized bar and academic communities in both law and social science.
               b. The Committee should be smaller in size than the original Task Forces.
               c. Selection of chair, staff, and committee members should take into account
                  recommendations of Task Force Chairs Harold Hood and Julia Darlow and
                  Project Director Lorraine Weber, in consultation with Task Forces'
                  members.


                                                     36
IMPLEMENTATION                                        THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS


                 Joint Recommendation IX-18: Adequate resources must be made available to
                 create the Committee and administer its work, implement all programmatic
                 concerns reflected in the recommendations of both Task Forces, and to oversee the
                 implementation process. Funding should come from the Supreme Court budget.


                 It is clear that the single most important factor identified by the State Bar Task Force relating to the
       realization of the 1989 Reports goals is the creation of a permanent implementation effort. The 1989 Task
       Forces recognized that “the ultimate effectiveness of the Reports can only be measured by the extent to
       which bias is reduced or eliminated and the extent to which citizen confidence in the courts is increased.”
       (1989 Task Force Reports, Gender at p. 135; Race/Ethnic at p. 76.) Their work created the foundation for
       attacking bias in the Michigan justice system and the implementation plan proposed was dependent upon
       the continued involvement and leadership of the Supreme Court. The 1989 Task Forces knew that their
       work was only the critical first step. Essential to the continued progress was a plan that provided for
       accountability and monitoring of existing goals and the creation and development of new initiatives. Such a
       plan would have to be supported by the allocation of sufficient resources, both financial and administrative.



                 In proposing this plan, the 1989 Task Forces were very aware of the national experience of other
       task forces addressing these same issues. It was believed that the national experience was a sound predictor
       of the success or failure of these programs, and that it was unnecessary for every state to “reinvent the
       wheel” when a strong body of research, literature and experience was already available. Therefore, eight
       years later it is clearly appropriate that this Task Force also look to our colleagues across the country to
       assess the current state of implementation efforts across the nation.



                                                   A National Perspective

                 At the time the 1989 Task Forces were meeting, Michigan was one of a handful of states that led the
       country in studying race/ethnic and gender issues in the legal profession and the courts. In the 1989 Task
       Force reports, one of the overall recommendations was to establish a standing commission to monitor and
       assist in the implementation of the recommendations. At the same time, other states were studying their
       court systems and legal professions. Of the five states in the forefront of these issues, Michigan remains the
       only state that has not formed a permanent body to monitor the status and implementation of
       recommendations in these areas.


                                                                37
THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                  IMPLEMENTATION


               It was not until 1996, when State Bar of Michigan President Victoria Roberts formed the State Bar
       Task Force on Racial/Ethnic and Gender Issues in the Courts and the Legal Profession and the Michigan
       Supreme Court formed its Access to Justice Workgroup, that a committee was mandated to review the



       entirety of the project. The importance of a standing committee whose purpose is to monitor compliance
       with the recommendations can be seen by a comparison with other states having such committees.

               For example, in New Jersey, the Supreme Court Committee on Minority Concerns was permanently
       established in 1993 after a Task Force was formed in 1985, and a Unit established in 1988. New York's
       Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission on Minorities has issued an annual report for the past five years,
       after a three and one-half year period of investigation and the formation of a permanent entity in 1991.
       After releasing its report in 1994, the Oregon Supreme Court appointed an Implementation Committee, and,
       in 1997, established the Oregon Judicial Department Access to Justice for All Committee to continue the
       implementation process. Washington, perhaps in the national forefront of addressing these issues, has a
       permanent State Minority and Justice Commission after a Task Force was established in 1987. The
       Commission publishes an annual report, a newsletter, and conducts educational programs on diversity for
       judges and court personnel, among other efforts.                  Other states have experienced the implementation of
       initial recommendations and have created permanent bodies to implement them and to monitor progress as
       well as to make new recommendations. Many states have never had a group formed to study race or ethnic
       issues, while other states have studied only race or gender problems, without addressing the other issues..1

               Where does Michigan fall on this continuum in comparison to other states. This is not an easy
       analysis to make because, at least as to gender issues, there is no current group which is responsible for
       monitoring national progress.2 A National Consortium of Task Forces and Commissions on Racial/Ethnic


         1 The American Bar Association (ABA) has a Commission on Women in the Profession and, in an unusually
      promising effort, entered into a joint project with the ABA Commission on Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession
      to produce a report on the disadvantages facing women of color.

        2 An article published in 1993 [Babcock] reported that, as of the time of writing, 28 states had studied gender bias in the
      courts: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
      Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
      Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, and, of those states, 14 had issued reports: California,
      Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
      Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington. An ABA report published by its Commission on Women in the Profession, entitled
      "Unfinished Business: Overcoming the Sisyphus Factor", published in December 1995, states that 40 states have task forces.

                                                                  38
IMPLEMENTATION                                           THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS


        Bias in the Courts (National Consortium) is operated through the National Center on State Courts (NCSC)
        and has met annually since 1988. Thus, a comparison of Michigan with other states is easier to do on race
        and ethnic issues because of the concerted national efforts in these areas. In addition, Michigan has
        participated in the National Consortium through the State Court Administrator’s Office and by the
        participation of other interested members of the Michigan judiciary.

                 Despite national emphasis on these investigations, twenty-two states have no commission or task
        force on race and ethnic issues.3 Nine other states are in the start-up or data collection phase.4 Four states
        have not reported the status of their committees.5 Of the remaining fifteen states, six are in the report writing
        or post-report stage6 and the other nine, including Michigan, are in the implementation phase of activity..7

                 Some states have made good progress on gender issues in the courts and the legal profession. The
        New York Task Force on Women in the Courts issued its first report in 1986, following its creation in
        1984. The report issued after a decade of work addresses such mainstream topics as judicial education and
        domestic violence as well as innovative record keeping forms in divorce cases to more accurately track
        property issues, the status of women attorneys, court employees, sexual harassment, and alternative work
        schedules.8 The Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Access and Fairness Gender
        Fairness Subcommittee issued recommendations in 1990, and reported in 1996 that approximately one third
        of the recommendations had been implemented.9 Washington established a Gender and Justice Task Force


         3 These states are Alabama, Alaska, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
       Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,
       Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Although it has no commission, Virginia is in the process of developing diversity training for
       judges and court personnel, and has a group designed to solve the disproportionate representation of minority youth in secure
       confinement and to make efforts aimed at eliminating sentencing disparities. NCSC is working with developing task forces
       and commissions in Utah, Kentucky, Alabama, and New Mexico. The information in footnotes 3 through 7 are taken from
       materials distributed at the 1997 National Consortium meeting.

         4 These states are Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and
       Utah.

         5 These states are Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, and Kansas.

         6 These states are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, and Massachusetts.

        7 These states are California, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and
       Washington.

         8 "Appraising Change and Progress a Decade After the Report of the New York Task Force on Women in the Courts: A
       Report by the New York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts", May 1996.

         9 "Gender and Justice: Implementing Gender Fairness in the Courts", Implementation Report, Judicial Council of

                                                                     39
THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS                                                        IMPLEMENTATION


       in 1987, with a report published in 1989, and established an Implementation Committee, which worked
       from 1989 to 1993 to fulfill the recommendations in the report. In 1994, the Washington Supreme Court
       established the Gender and Justice Commission.10

              It is significant that Michigan has made progress toward the implementation of the 1989 Reports
       without the benefit of a structured implementation effort. Our state can be proud of the individual and
       organizational responsibility taken to build upon the 1989 recommendations. Yet, the experience of states,
       where formal implementation efforts have been adopted, can serve as powerful models for increased
       success.

              Should Michigan take the further step of establishing the proposed joint commission it will realize
       numerous additional benefits. Such a commission can function as a state clearinghouse for collecting and
       sharing information and assisting organizations and individuals in meeting their diversity goals. It can
       provide an established source of leadership and focus for future initiatives, which have not yet been
       addressed. A commission can create a forum for discussion and analysis of diversity issues and their
       impact upon the delivery of justice. Such a forum can fully explore the complex social, professional and
       ethical questions raised by these concerns, without resorting to formulaic and naïve solutions. It can
       monitor, regularly and consistently, the progress achieved in our state over the long run. It can highlight
       our successes, applaud our achievements and identify weaknesses in the system, which require attention and
       resolution. Most importantly, such a commission can raise awareness and educate all participants to the
       very real importance of a diverse and bias-free legal system.



                                           The Joint Commission Proposal

              It was the opinion of the membership of the 1989 Task Forces and it is the opinion of the members
      of the State Bar Task Force that “if the battle against bias is to be vigorously pursued and eventually won, the
      Supreme Court must lead the effort.” The implementation plan proposed in 1989 reflected this philosophy.
      Fundamental to this plan were the following factors:



      California Advisory Committee on Access and Fairness Gender Fairness Subcommittee, July 1996.

        10 "Report of the Gender and Justice Commission of the Washington State Supreme Court", July 1996.


                                                             40
IMPLEMENTATION                                       THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS


                        Continued leadership by the Michigan Supreme Court;

                       Creation of a body which would possess responsibility for oversight and realization of the
                     Report’s recommendations;

                        Creation of a research and evaluation methodology which would identify the extent and
                     success of (1) educational efforts, (2) implementation of specific recommendations, and (3) the
                     elimination of bias in the courts; and

                        Allocation of sufficient resources to the effort.

                 The State Bar Task Force strongly recommends implementation of 1989 Recommendations IX-16
        and IX-17, with the following modifications:

                        A Joint Commission on Diversity Issues and the Michigan Justice System should be created
                     by the Michigan Supreme Court and the State Bar of Michigan;

                        The Joint Commission should not only work to implement the 1989 recommendations, but
                     should place special emphasis on the conclusions and recommendations of the State Bar Task
                     Force;

                        The Joint Commission should include within its mandate the investigation of all
                     discrimination and bias that impact on fair delivery of legal services and justice;

                        The Joint Commission should identify substantive areas of investigation which were not
                     addressed by the 1989 Task Force and adopt a plan for developing findings and new
                     recommendations;

                        The recommendation for funding strategies should be expanded to include not only the
                     Supreme Court budget, but also State Bar, IOLTA, grant and foundation funding, as well as
                     other financial resources within the legal community.

                 Regarding the creation and structure of the Joint Commission, the State Bar Task Force recommends
       that:

                        The Joint Commission be created for a 5-year term, coinciding with the State Bar of
                     Michigan’s long-range plan, with evaluation of its effectiveness taking place at the end of that
                     term;

                       The Joint Commission’s role should be clearly defined as advisory to the Michigan Supreme
                     Court and State Bar of Michigan;

                        The Joint Commission should draw its membership from many jurisdictions and diverse
                     backgrounds and expertise, including representation from the judiciary, court administration,
                     and the organized bar and academic communities in both law and social science;

                        Members of the Joint Commission should be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme

                                                               41
THE STATUS OF THE 1989 REPORTS’ JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS                                              IMPLEMENTATION


                Court and the President of the State Bar of Michigan;

                    The Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court should name an Associate Justice to serve
                as liaison to the Commission; the President of the State Bar of Michigan should name a member
                of the Board of Commissioners to serve as liaison to the Commission.




                                                       42
A SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION

  OF THE 1989 REPORTS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS




    “STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATION” TABLE




                            43
                                                                                                                                                     PAGE 43 - I
                                                           STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATION




              RACE/                                                                SOURCE OF INQUIRY     FULLY (†) OR
      TEAM




                                                                                                                                               PARTIALLY
             GENDER/    REC NO.             1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER          (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
              JOINT
                                                                                                                                               IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                          TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED


1.    1        G       V-1        The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   PROS                           

2.    1        G       V-2        The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   PROS                           †

3.    1        G       V-3        The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   PROS                           †

4.    1        G       V-4        The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   PROS                                                               

5.    1        G       V-5        The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   PROS                           

6.    1        G       V-6        The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   PROS                           †

7.    1        G       V-7        The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   SCAO                           

8.    1        G       V-8        The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   JQ                                                                 

9.    1        G       V-9        The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   JQ                                                                 

10.   1        G       V-10       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   SCAO/JQ                        

11.   1        G       V-11       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   SCAO                                              

12.   1        G       V-12       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   JQ                                                                 
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                                 PAGE 43 - II



                RACE/                                                                SOURCE OF INQUIRY         FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                                     PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.             1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER              (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                                IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                                TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED


 13.   1         G       V-13       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   MJI/ICLE                                                               

 14.   1         G       V-14       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   JQ                                                                     

 15.   1         G       V-15       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   MJI/ICLE                                                               

 16.   1         G       V-16       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   MJI/ICLE/SBM                                                           

 17.   1         G       V-17       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   MJI/ICLE/SBM                                                           

 18.   1         G       V-18       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   STATE                              †
                                                                                     MJI/ICLE/
 19.   1         G       V-19       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women
                                                                                     SCAO/JQ/PROS                                                           

 20.   1         G       V-20       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   JI                                 †

 21.   1         G       V-21       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   MCR                                

 22.   1         G       V-22       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   SCAO                                                                   

 23.   1         G       V-23       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   MJI/ICLE/SCAO                                                          

 24.   1         G       V-24       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   JQ                                                                     

 25.   1         G       V-25       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   JI                                                                     
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                           PAGE 43 - III



                RACE/                                                                SOURCE OF INQUIRY     FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                                 PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.             1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER          (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                            IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                            TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED


 26.   1         G       V-26       The Court’s Response to Violence Against Women   STATE                          †

 27.   2         G       VI-1       Domestic Relations                               MJI/ICLE                                                           

 28.   2         G       VI-2       Domestic Relations                               JQ                                                

 29.   2         G       VI-3       Domestic Relations                               SBM                                                                

 30.   2         G       VI-4       Domestic Relations                               JQ                                                                 

 31.   2         G       VI-5       Domestic Relations                               SCAO                                              

 32.   2         G       VI-6       Domestic Relations                               SCAO                                                               

 33.   2         G       VI-7       Domestic Relations                               JQ                                                                 

 34.   2         G       VI-8       Domestic Relations                               MJI/ICLE                                                           

 35.   2         G       VI-9       Domestic Relations                               JQ                                                                 

 36.   2         G       VI-10      Domestic Relations                               JQ                                                           (IN PRACTICE)

 37.   2         G       VI-11      Domestic Relations                               JQ                                                                 

 38.   2         G       VI-12      Domestic Relations                               JQ                                                                 
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                      PAGE 43 - IV



                RACE/                                                          SOURCE OF INQUIRY     FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                           PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.             1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER    (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                      IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                      TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED


 39.   2         G       VI-13      Domestic Relations                         JQ                                                                 

 40.   2         G       VI-14      Domestic Relations                         MJI/ICLE                                                           

 41.   2         G       VI-15      Domestic Relations                         SCAO                                                               

 42.   2         G       VI-16      Domestic Relations                         STATE                                             

 43.   2         G       VI-17      Domestic Relations                         FOC                                               

 44.   2         G       VI-18      Domestic Relations                         FOC                                                                

 45.   2         G       VI-19      Domestic Relations                         FOC                                                          (IN PRACTICE)

 46.   3         G       VI-20      Domestic Relations                         MED/ADR/ARB                                                        

 47.   2         G       VI-21      Domestic Relations                         MJI/ICLE                                                           

 48.   2         G       VI-22      Domestic Relations                         JQ                                                                 

 49.   2         G       VI-23      Domestic Relations                         JQ                             

 50.   2         G       VI-24      Domestic Relations                         JQ                             †

 51.   2         G       VI-25      Domestic Relations                         JQ/FOC                                                             
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                          PAGE 43 - V



                RACE/                                                          SOURCE OF INQUIRY         FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                               PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.             1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER        (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                          IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                          TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED


 52.   2         G       VI-26      Domestic Relations                         JQ/FOC                      (MAJORITY OF
                                                                                                               JUDGES)

 53.   2         G       VI-27      Domestic Relations                         JQ/FOC                             

 54.   2         G       VI-28      Domestic Relations                         JQ/FOC                                                                 

 55.   2         G       VI-29      Domestic Relations                         JQ/FOC                                                                 

 56.   3         G       VI-30      Domestic Relations                         MED/ADR/ARB                        †

 57.   4         G       VII-1      Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   SCAO                                                                   

 58.   4         G       VII-2      Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   MJI/ICLE                           

 59.   4         G       VII-3      Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   SCAO                                                                   

 60.   2         G       VII-4      Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   JI                                                                     

 61.   4         G       VII-5      Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   SCAO                               

 62.   4         G       VII-6      Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   JQ                                                                     

 63.   4         G       VII-7      Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   JQ                                 

 64.   4         G       VII-8      Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   JQ                                                                     
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                       PAGE 43 - VI



                RACE/                                                          SOURCE OF INQUIRY      FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                            PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.             1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER     (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                       IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                       TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED


 65.   3         G       VII-9      Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   MED/ADR/ARB                                                         

 66.   3         G       VII-10     Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   MED/ADR/ARB                                        

 67.   3         G       VII-11     Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   MED/ADR/ARB                                        

 68.   3         G       VII-12     Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   MED/ADR/ARB                                        

 69.   3         G       VII-13     Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   MED/ADR/ARB                                                         

 70.   4         G       VII-14     Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   SCAO                            

 71.   4         G       VII-15     Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   SCAO                            †

 72.   4         G       VII-16     Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   MJI/ICLE                        

 73.   4         G       VII-17     Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   MJI/ICLE                                                            

 74.   4         G       VII-18     Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   SCAO                                                                

 75.   4         G       VII-19     Gender Bias Within the Court Environment   State                                              
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                         PAGE 43 - VII



                RACE/                                                              SOURCE OF INQUIRY      FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                                PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.             1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER         (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                           IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                           TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED


 76.   5         G       VIII-1     Status of Women in the Profession              State                                                               

 77.   5         G       VIII-2  Status of Women in the Profession                State


 78.   5         G       VIII-3     Status of Women in the Profession              State                                                               

 79.   5         G       VIII-4     Status of Women in the Profession              SBM                      (IN PRACTICE)

 80.   5         G       VIII-5     Status of Women in the Profession              SBM                      (IN PRACTICE)            

 81.   5         G       VIII-6     Status of Women in the Profession              SBM                                                                 

 82.   5         G       VIII-7     Status of Women in the Profession              SBM                                                                 

 83.   5         G       VIII-8     Status of Women in the Profession              SBM                             

 84.   5         G       VIII-9     Status of Women in the Profession              SBM                                                

 85.   5         G       VIII-10    Status of Women in the Profession              SBM                                                

 86.   5         G       VIII-11    Status of Women in the Profession              SBM                             

 87.   5         G       VIII-12    Status of Women in the Profession              SBM                                                



            The status regarding the implementation of this recommendation could not be determined by the Task Force.
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                                   PAGE 43 - VIII



                RACE/                                                                       SOURCE OF INQUIRY      FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                                         PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.              1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER                 (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                                    IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                                    TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED


 88.    5        G       VIII-13    Status of Women in the Profession                       SBM                             

 89.    5        G       VIII-14    Status of Women in the Profession                       MLS                                                

 90.    5        G       VIII-15    Status of Women in the Profession                       MLS                                                                  

 91.    5        G       VIII-16    Status of Women in the Profession                       MLS                                                                  
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 92.    2       R/E      V-1        Jurors and Attorneys
                                                                                            MJI/ICLE                                                             
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 93.    2       R/E      V-2        Jurors and Attorneys
                                                                                            MJI/ICLE                                                             
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 94.    5       R/E      V-3        Jurors and Attorneys
                                                                                            MJI/ICLE                                                             
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 95.    5       R/E      V-4        Jurors and Attorneys
                                                                                            State                                              
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 96.    4       R/E      V-5        Jurors, and Attorneys
                                                                                            JQ                                                                   
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 97.    4       R/E      V-6        Jurors, and Attorneys
                                                                                            JQ                                                                   
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 98.    4       R/E      V-7        Jurors, and Attorneys
                                                                                            MJI/ICLE                                                             
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 99.    3       R/E      V-8        Jurors and Attorneys
                                                                                            MED/ADR/ARB                                                          
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 100.   4       R/E      V-9        Jurors, and Attorneys
                                                                                            SCAO                                                                 
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                                  PAGE 43 - IX



                RACE/                                                                       SOURCE OF INQUIRY     FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                                        PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.              1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER                (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                                   IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                                   TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED

                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 101.   5       R/E      V-10       Jurors and Attorneys
                                                                                            SBM                                                                
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 102.   4       R/E      V-11       Jurors, and Attorneys
                                                                                            JQ                                                
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 103.   3       R/E      V-12       Jurors and Attorneys
                                                                                            MED/ADR/ARB                                                        
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 104.   3       R/E      V-13       Jurors and Attorneys
                                                                                            MED/ADR/ARB                                                        
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 105.   3       R/E      V-14       Jurors and Attorneys
                                                                                            MED/ADR/ARB                                                        
                                    Courtroom Treatment of Minority Litigants, Witnesses,
 106.   3       R/E      V-15       Jurors and Attorneys
                                                                                            MED/ADR/ARB                                                        
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 107.   4       R/E      VI-1       Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                            MJI/ICLE                                                           
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 108.   4       R/E      VI-2       Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                            JQ                                                                 
                                    Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the Administration,
 109.   5       R/E      VI-3       Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                            SCAO                           †
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 110.   4       R/E      VI-4       Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                            JQ                                                                 
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 111.   4       R/E      VI-5       Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                            JQ                                                                 
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 112.   4       R/E      VI-6       Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                            JQ                                                                 
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 113.   4       R/E      VI-7       Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                            MCR                                               
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                                 PAGE 43 - X



                RACE/                                                                    SOURCE OF INQUIRY     FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                                     PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.              1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER             (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                                IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                                TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED

                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 114.   4       R/E      VI-8       Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                         JQ                                                                 
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 115.   4       R/E      VI-9       Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                         JQ                                                                 
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 116.   4       R/E      VI-10      Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                         JQ                                                                 
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 117.   4       R/E      VI-11      Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                         JQ                                                
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 118.   4       R/E      VI-12      Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                         SCAO                                              
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 119.   4       R/E      VI-13      Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                         JQ                                                
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the
 120.   4       R/E      VI-14      Administration, Staffing and Behavior of the Court
                                                                                         JQ                                                                 
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the Criminal
 121.   1       R/E      VII-1      Justice Process
                                                                                         MCR                            †
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the Criminal
 122.   1       R/E      VII-2      Justice Process
                                                                                         MCR                            †
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the Criminal
 123.   1       R/E      VII-3      Justice Process
                                                                                         SCAO                                              
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the Criminal
 124.   4       R/E      VII-4      Justice Process
                                                                                         MJI/ICLE/JQ                                                        
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the Criminal
 125.   4       R/E      VII-5      Justice Process
                                                                                         JQ                                                                 
                                    The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the Criminal
 126.   1       R/E      VII-6      Justice Process
                                                                                         SCAO                                              
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                               PAGE 43 - XI



                 RACE/                                                                  SOURCE OF INQUIRY      FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                                     PARTIALLY
                GENDER/    REC NO.              1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER            (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                 JOINT                                                                                                                               IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                                TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED

                                     The Impact of Racial/Ethnic Bias on the Criminal
 127.   1        R/E      VII-7      Justice Process
                                                                                        JQ                              †
                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 128.   5        R/E      VIII-1     Minorities
                                                                                        State                                                               
                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 129.   5        R/E      VIII-2  Minorities                                           JQ

                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 130.   5        R/E      VIII-3     Minorities
                                                                                        State                                                               
                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 131.   5        R/E      VIII-4     Minorities
                                                                                        State                                                               
                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 132.   5        R/E      VIII-5     Minorities
                                                                                        JQ                                                 
                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 133.   5        R/E      VIII-6     Minorities
                                                                                        SBM                                                                 
                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 134.   5        R/E      VIII-7     Minorities
                                                                                        SBM                                                
                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 135.   5        R/E      VIII-8     Minorities
                                                                                        SBM                             
                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 136.   5        R/E      VIII-9     Minorities
                                                                                        SBM                             
                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 137.   5        R/E      VIII-10    Minorities
                                                                                        SBM                                                                 
                                     Professional Development and Opportunities for
 138.   5        R/E      VIII-11    Minorities
                                                                                        SBM                             



             The status regarding the implementation of this recommendation could not be determined by the Task Force.
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                           PAGE 43 - XII



                RACE/                                                                SOURCE OF INQUIRY     FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                                 PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.              1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER         (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                            IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                            TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED

                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 139.   5       R/E      VIII-12    Minorities
                                                                                     SBM                                               
                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 140.   5       R/E      VIII-13    Minorities
                                                                                     SBM                            
                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 141.   5       R/E      VIII-14    Minorities
                                                                                     SBM                            
                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 142.   5       R/E      VIII-15    Minorities
                                                                                     SBM                            
                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 143.   5       R/E      VIII-16    Minorities
                                                                                     SCAO                                              
                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 144.   5       R/E      VIII-17    Minorities
                                                                                     MLS                                                                
                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 145.   5       R/E      VIII-18    Minorities
                                                                                     MLS                                               
                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 146.   5       R/E      VIII-19    Minorities
                                                                                     MLS                                               
                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 147.   5       R/E      VIII-20    Minorities
                                                                                     MLS                                               
                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 148.   5       R/E      VIII-21    Minorities
                                                                                     MLS                                                                
                                    Professional Development and Opportunities for
 149.   5       R/E      VIII-22    Minorities
                                                                                     MLS                            

 150.   3        J       IX-1       Ethical Standards and Disciplinary Systems       MCR                                               

 151.   3        J       IX-2       Ethical Standards and Disciplinary Systems       MCR                                               
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                         PAGE 43 - XIII



                RACE/                                                               SOURCE OF INQUIRY     FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                                PARTIALLY
               GENDER/    REC NO.              1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER        (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                JOINT                                                                                                                           IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                           TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED


 152.   3        J       IX-3       Ethical Standards and Disciplinary Systems      MCR                                               

 153.   3        J       IX-4       Ethical Standards and Disciplinary Systems      MCR                                               

 154.   3        J       IX-5       Ethical Standards and Disciplinary Systems      ADS                                               

 155.   3        J       IX-6       Education – The Judiciary and the Courts        MJI/ICLE/JC                    

 156.   3        J       IX-7       Education – MJI and professional associations   MJI/ICLE                       

 157.   3        J       IX-8       Education– MJI and professional associations    MJI/ICLE                                                           

 158.   3        J       IX-9       Education– MJI and professional associations    MJI/ICLE                                                           

 159.   3        J       IX-10      Education – Attorneys                           MJI/ICLE/SBM                                                       

 160.   3        J       IX-11      Education – Attorneys                           MJI/ICLE                                                           

 161.   3        J       IX-12      Education – Law Schools                         MLS                                               

 162.   3        J       IX-13      Education – Law Schools                         MLS                                               

 163.   3        J       1X-14      Education – Law Schools                         MLS                                                                

 164.   3        J       IX-15      Education – The Public                          SBM                                                                
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                                          PAGE 43 - XIV



                 RACE/                                                              SOURCE OF INQUIRY     FULLY (†) OR
        TEAM




                                                                                                                                                PARTIALLY
                GENDER/    REC NO.             1989 TASK FORCE SUBJECT MATTER        (SEE KEY AT END OF   SUBSTANTIALLY ()   NOT IMPLEMENTED
                 JOINT                                                                                                                          IMPLEMENTED
                                                                                           TABLE)         IMPLEMENTED


 165.   3         J       IX-16      Implementation                                 SCAO                                              

 166.   3         J       IX-17      Implementation                                 SCAO                                              

 167.   3         J       1X-18      Implementation                                 SCAO                                              

                                               TOTALS                                                             40                38                87




             The status regarding the implementation of two of the recommendations could not be determined by the Task Force.
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION BY RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                              PAGE 43 - XV


                                                                        KEY TO SOURCE OF INQUIRY


                  ADR                     ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
                  ADS                     ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SYSTEM
                  ARB                     ARBITRATION
                  FOC                     FRIEND OF THE COURT
                  ICLE                    INSTITUTE OF CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
                  JC                      JUDICIAL CONFERENCES
                  JI                      JURY INSTRUCTIONS
                  JQ                      JUDICIAL QUESTIONNAIRE
                  MCR                     MICHIGAN COURT RULES
                  MED                     MEDIATION
                  MJI                     MICHIGAN JUDICIAL INSTITUTE
                  MLS                     MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOLS
                  PROS                    PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, (PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN, PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS
                                               COORDINATING COUNCIL)
                  SBM                     STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN
                  SCAO                    STATE COURT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
                  STATE                   STATE OF MICHIGAN
                              PRIORITY GOALS FOR THE FUTURE



       While each recommendation and goal set forth in this document is important, the State Bar Task
Force believes that some recommendations should be given special attention and emphasis. In addition to
the joint recommendations discussed previously, the Task Force members identified the following areas as
particularly important. As such, these are recommendations, which deserve special attention as necessary
and fundamental to the appearance of fairness and equal treatment and the achievement of a truly bias-free
and non-discriminatory justice system.


                           DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COORDINATING COUNCILS

       The Task Force believes that the creation of local and statewide coordinating councils has been
essential to the success of the domestic violence reforms that have been adopted over the last eight years.
The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Domestic Violence Prevention Treatment
Board should encourage, initiate, monitor, and report on the development of local coordinating councils to
provide an integrated approach to domestic violence cases in those counties where such groups have not yet
formed. Local coordinating councils should be required in every county to establish effective procedures to
process and enforce personal protection orders and provide additional training and information to local
police agencies, including Law Enforcement Information Network operators, prosecutors, clerks, and
shelter personnel and advocates.

       The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan should develop ways to increase the
establishment of statewide coordinating councils to provide more training and education on domestic
violence for all segments of the criminal justice system including law enforcement. The Michigan Judicial
Institute should assist in this effort by developing innovative education programs to enhance the success of
local domestic violence coordinating councils. The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan should
gather annual statistics on the number of existing and new local councils established, and report its findings
annually.


              PROSECUTORIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION ORDERS

       Great progress has been made in the availability and effectiveness of personal protection orders in
domestic violence cases. However, personal protection order statutes and court rules should be amended to


                                                     45
PRIORITY GOALS FOR THE FUTURE


       provide that prosecuting attorneys be required to assist applicants in obtaining personal protection orders in
       addition to their statutory obligation to enforce personal protection order violations. The Legislature should
       provide additional funding and/or the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan should seek federal
       monies to support prosecutors' offices in performing these additional duties. Until such time, the
       Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan should continue to encourage local prosecutors to cooperate
       with local coordinating councils to enhance the quality of non-legal victim assistance in obtaining personal
       protection orders.


                     EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF MCR 2.404 ON MEDIATION PRACTICES

              By order of the Michigan Supreme Court dated March 5, 1997, the Michigan Court Rules were
       amended to adopt a new rule regulating the selection process for mediation panels. MCR 2.404, effective
       October 1, 1997, implements the specific mechanisms enumerated in Race/Ethnic Recommendation V-12
       of the 1989 Task Force report. MCR 2.404 standardizes the process of selecting mediators. The rule
       specifically requires that the mediation process be free from race/ethnic and gender bias. These changes are
       expected to promote the goal of increasing the number of women and racial/ethnic minorities in the
       mediation and alternate dispute resolution process.

              Once chief judges of trial courts have had an opportunity to implement the provisions of MCR
       2.404, the State Court Administrative Office will have the opportunity to evaluate the first annual reports
       filed by the chief judges pursuant to MCR 2.404 (D)(1) to determine the extent of compliance, and the
       impact of the court rule amendment on increasing the number of women and minority mediators. It is
       important that meaningful statistical data be collected to assess the actual success of the new provisions. Not
       only should the State Court Administrative Office function as a clearinghouse for this information, it should
       also be empowered to regulate, enforce and sanction non-compliance. Non-complying courts should be
       required to resolve problems within their systems and to adopt successful methods used by courts with a
       positive record of compliance.


                             REGULATION AND SUPERVISION OF PRIVATE MEDIATION
                                AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS


              Regulation and supervision of mediation and alternative dispute resolution procedures should be
       extended to all private contractual systems, which are used to resolve legal disputes.

                                                            46
                                                                           PRIORITY GOALS FOR THE FUTURE


     RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF WOMEN AND MINORITY FACULTY IN LAW SCHOOLS

       Law schools should adopt and follow policies aimed at the recruitment, advancement toward tenure
and retention of women and minority faculty members. Out-of-state schools with good records in
recruiting and retaining tenured women and minority faculty should be studied and their practices and
policies adapted to Michigan law schools. Statistics should be collected which accurately reflect the
recruitment, employment and tenure patterns of law schools over an extended period of time.


    APPOINTMENT AND HIRING POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN THE MICHIGAN JUSTICE SYSTEM

       Progress must continue toward a representational bench and bar. The Governor should appoint
more women and minorities to judicial positions at all levels and in jurisdictions throughout the state.
Courts should appoint referees, magistrates and quasi-judicial personnel in numbers which accurately
reflect the racial/ethnic and gender demographics of the populations they serve. Representation should be
increased in the offices of the Attorney General, State Public Administrators Office, Prosecutor’s offices
and in the disciplinary systems. The number of minorities hired as law clerks, judicial assistants and
commissioners should be increased at all levels of the judiciary, but particularly at the Court of Appeals and
Supreme Court levels. Women and minorities should continue to be appointed, elected and hired into
positions of authority and leadership in the State Bar of Michigan.


              MANDATORY LEGAL EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION IN FAMILY LAW

       In accordance with the State Bar recommendation on MCLE, a system of mandatory legal education
in the area of family law and family violence should be developed for judges and attorneys. Until a
statewide mandatory continuing legal education standard is adopted, each Circuit Court - Family Division
should adopt minimum continuing legal education standards for appointment in that jurisdiction. Any
attorney appointments out of the family division should be given only to attorneys who have complied with
these requirements. Referrals from bar associations regarding family matters should be consistent with
these requirements.




                                                     47
PRIORITY GOALS FOR THE FUTURE


                                             COURT PERSONNEL TRAINING

              Significant training effort has gone into the development and production of programs for judges,
       court administrators and executive court staff. However, the need for quality training programs on race,
       ethnic and gender bias issues extends to other levels of court personnel. The Task Force recommends that
       funding for these “on site” programs be increased in order to enable the Michigan Judicial Institute to fully
       implement this recommendation. Training, whether in-service locally or through a state or regional
       program, is an expensive undertaking.


                   STATE COURT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

              The Supreme Court should develop specific standards related to court administration and race/ethnic
       and gender bias. A mechanism for monitoring administrative compliance with Supreme Court standards
       should be developed. The State Court Administrative Office, at the direction of the Chief Justice of the
       Michigan Supreme Court, should be given the authority to review local court operations and make
       recommendations for improvements when necessary. This authority should include the ability to mandate
       adoption of internal administrative policies and procedures, which will enhance the fair and equitable
       delivery of justice to all citizens. In the event that courts are unwilling to comply with these reasonable
       requirements, the State Court Administrator should be able to recommend meaningful sanctions and
       regulations to correct the problem.


                           “ONE COURT OF JUSTICE” FUNDING ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE

              The Michigan legislature should recognize the authority of the Supreme Court of Michigan under
       the separation of powers doctrine. It should support the Supreme Court in the implementation of "One
       Court of Justice" and facilitate standardized administrative delivery systems and uniform, equitable
       enforcement of gender-neutral policies and management practices. The legislature should not impose
       unfunded mandates upon the courts of this state.




                                                           48
                             NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

       The State Bar Task Force wishes to recognize and acknowledge many of the organizations that have
worked over the last eight years to comply with and implement the goals set forward in the 1989 Reports.
In many instances, these achievements were done completely voluntarily and without additional financial
resources or personnel. In examining the philosophies and policies of these organizations, it is clear that
they possess a strong commitment to both the appearance and delivery of fair and equal justice. They
believe that their constituency is better served through the elimination of race, ethnic and gender bias and
invidious discrimination in all prohibited forms. Finally, they are not persuaded that small steps to improve
the justice system are doomed to be “too little too late.” These organizations took seriously the mandate of
the Michigan Supreme Court in Administrative Order 1990-3 to seriously consider the proposal made and
to assure the “fair and equal application of the rule of law for all persons in the Michigan court system.”
The following list identifies those entities that have turned this mandate into noteworthy action:


                                    MICHIGAN JUDICIAL INSTITUTE

       The Michigan Judicial Institute has consistently and comprehensively designed its educational
curriculum to reflect the recommendations of the 1989 Task Force as they relate to the education of judges
and court personnel.


                              GOVERNOR AND MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE
                         GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
                       PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN/
                        PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS COORDINATING COUNCIL/
                   DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT BOARD/
                               STATE COURT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE


       These organizations have joined together to initiate significant reforms in the attitude about and the
approach to domestic violence in Michigan. Of particular note is the progress achieved in the availability of
personal protection orders and the success of local domestic violence coordinating councils.




                                                    49
NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                              STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN

             The State Bar of Michigan responded to the challenge of the 1989 Reports by establishing a
      Department for an Open Justice System and appointing an Associate Executive Director to oversee its
      operation. During the last eight years, this department has dedicated its efforts to the implementation of the
      1989 Task Force recommendations. In addition, the State Bar of Michigan has recently hired the former
      Director of the 1989 Task Forces as a consultant to the bar on open justice issues. Other State Bar
      initiatives of particular importance include:

           Enhancement of the Committee on the Expansion of Under-represented Groups in the Law
             Committee

           Creation of the Domestic Violence Committee

           Adoption of the Statement of Goals for Minority Hiring, Retention and Promotion

           Enhancement of the Law Economics Survey

           Establishment of the Opening Doors Conference

           Creation of the Task Force on Racial, Ethnic and Gender Issues in the Courts and the Legal
             Profession


                                               FRIENDS OF THE COURT

             Throughout the state, Friends of the Court Offices have struggled to respond to the growing needs of
      their constituency. They have been mandated to increase enforcement and collection efforts on child
      support, enforce parenting time requirements, utilize increased conciliation and mediation techniques,
      establish non-traditional office hours and standardize judicial recommendations. Despite the serious
      funding issues for these offices, many Friends of the Court reported serious efforts to address these
      concerns and to adopt innovative programs.




                                                           50
                                                                       NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                             CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

       As a result of recommendations by the State Bar of Michigan Standing Committee on Standard
Criminal Jury Instructions and the Michigan Supreme Court Standard Jury Instructions Committee, civil
and criminal jury instructions were amended to adopt consistently gender neutral language in almost all
provisions and commentary.


                                MICHIGAN STATE BAR FOUNDATION

       The Michigan State Bar Foundation has demonstrated a long commitment to supporting the efforts
of the 1989 Task Forces and the State Bar Task Force. In 1988, the Foundation made an initial grant of
$28,600 to fund the attorney survey project. The following year, a supplemental grant of $5,500 was
awarded to support an extension of the Task Forces’ work. This extraordinary commitment has been
repeated in the $25,000 grant awarded to the State Bar Task for the current effort.


                      STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY

       On September 9, 1990 the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly adopted proposed
revisions to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Michigan Court Rule 9.205 and the Code of Professional
Conduct. These proposals were generated as a result of the 1989 recommendations and were a courageous
and controversial action taken by the policy-setting body of the State Bar of Michigan.


                              STATE COURT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

The State Court Administrative Office has exercised great leadership and initiative in its efforts to
implement the 1989 Task Forces’ recommendations. As a result, it has accomplished the following:

          Creation of model personnel policies and procedures for adoption by all courts

          Development and dissemination of information and materials for pro se litigants, including
           developing the procedures for acquiring a personal protection order in domestic violence cases

          Development of court demographic information regarding employment practices and the race,
           ethnicity and gender demographics of court personnel


                                                   51
NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                Providing local court management studies relating to access to justice issues

                Implementation of family court training and administration programs

                Development and implementation of court standards for access to justice concerns for people
                 with disabilities and interpretation services for foreign-speaking litigants


                                           MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

             The Michigan Supreme Court has provided leadership and guidance on the issues of bias and
      discrimination in the justice system of Michigan, beginning with the Citizen’s Commission to Improve
      Michigan’s Courts in 1986. The establishment of the 1989 Task Forces and the Court’s subsequent support
      of its findings and recommendations have been essential to the efforts for reform. Under its direction, the
      State Court Administrative Office and the Michigan Judicial Institute have accomplished much toward the
      realization of the goals set forth in 1989. Additionally, the Supreme Court itself has issued the following
      directives, orders and rules:

                Administrative Order 1990-3 directing action on several proposals of the 1989 Task Force

                Administrative Order 1990-45 amending the Michigan Court Rules regarding professional
                 conduct of judges and attorneys

                Administrative Order 1994-8 providing for the allocation of ten percent (10%) of the net
                 proceeds of the Lawyer Trust Account Program to support implementation within the judiciary
                 of the 1989 recommendations

                Michigan Court Rules on Mediation governing the selection and use of mediators in a bias-free
                 and non-discriminatory manner

                Establishment of the Access to Justice Work Group to internally review the progresses of the
                 judiciary toward the 1989 goals.




                                                          52
“RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

         BY AGENCY” TABLE




                53
                                                                                    RACE/ETHNIC




G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
                                                            G
                                                                  G
                                                                        G
                                                                              G
                                                                                      GENDER
                                                                                       JOINT




V-9
V-8
V-7
V-6
V-5
                                                            V-4
                                                                  V-3
                                                                        V-2
                                                                              V-1




V-24
V-23
V-22
V-21
V-19
V-17
V-16
V-15
V-14
V-13
V-12
V-11
V-10




V-20 †
V-18 †
                                                                                      NO.
                                                                                      REC
                                                                                       ATTORNEY
                                                                                       GENERAL

                                                                                    ATTY DISCIPLINE BRD   /
                                                                                      ATTY GRIEVANCE
                                                                                        COMMISSION


                                                                                    BOARD OF LAW
                                                                                     EXAMINERS




                                                    
                                                                                     CHIEF JUDGES

                                                                                     DOMESTIC VIOLENCE




                                    
                                            
                                                        
                                                                              



                                                                                      PREVENTION AND
                                                                                     TREATMENT BOARD


                                                                                      FRIEND OF
                                                                                      THE COURT




                                            
                                                                                     GOVERNOR

                                                                                      INSTITUTE OF




    
            
                
                        
                                                
                                                                                    CONTINUING LEGAL
                                                                                       EDUCATION

                                                                                    JUDICIAL TENURE
                                                    




                                                                                      COMMISSION




                
                    
                    
                                                                                     LAW SCHOOLS
                                                        
                                                        
                                                        
                                                                              




                                                                                     LEGISLATURE

                                                                                       LOCAL &
                                                                                     SPECIAL PURP
                                                                                      BAR ASSOC.

                                                                                    MICHIGAN JUDICIAL




    
            
                
                            
                            
                            
                            
                                            
                                            
                                            
                                            




                                                                                        INSTITUTE
                                                                                                              RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS BY AGENCY




                                    
                                            
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            




                                                                                     PAAM-PACC

                                                                                      STATE BAR
                    




                                                                                     OF MICHIGAN

                                                                                       SBM –
                                                                                     COMMITTEES
                        




                                                                                    SBM – SECTIONS

                                                                                     STATE COURT

                            
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                                    
                                                    




                                                                                    ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                                                        OFFICE
                                                                                      SENTENCING
        
                                        




                                                                                      GUIDELINES
                                                                                      COMMISSION
                                            




                                                                                    STATE AGENCIES


                                                                                       SUPREME
                                                                                                                                                             PAGE 53 - I





                    
                    
                                
                                        
                                        
                                                        




                                                                                        COURT
                                                RACE/ETHNIC




G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
                                                  GENDER
                                                   JOINT




VI-9
VI-8
VI-7
VI-6
VI-5
VI-4
VI-3
VI-2
VI-1
V-26
V-25




VI-22
VI-21
VI-20
VI-19
VI-18
VI-17
VI-16
VI-15
VI-14
VI-13
VI-12
VI-11
VI-10
                                                  NO.
                                                  REC
                                                   ATTORNEY
                                                   GENERAL

                                                ATTY DISCIPLINE BRD   /
                                                  ATTY GRIEVANCE
                                                    COMMISSION


                                                BOARD OF LAW




                                
                                                 EXAMINERS




    
                                                 CHIEF JUDGES
                                                                          RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS BY AGENCY




                                                 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
                                                  PREVENTION AND
                                                 TREATMENT BOARD


                                                  FRIEND OF




    
    
    
    
                                                  THE COURT

                                                 GOVERNOR

                                                  INSTITUTE OF






                
                
                    
                    
                    
                            
                                    




                                                CONTINUING LEGAL
                                                   EDUCATION

                                                JUDICIAL TENURE
                                                  COMMISSION
                                




                                                 LAW SCHOOLS




        
        
        
                        
                            
                                        




                                                 LEGISLATURE

                                                   LOCAL &
                            




                                                 SPECIAL PURP
                                                  BAR ASSOC.

                                                MICHIGAN JUDICIAL






                
                
                
                    
                    
                    
                            
                                    




                                                    INSTITUTE


                                                 PAAM-PACC

                                                  STATE BAR
            




                                                 OF MICHIGAN

                                                   SBM –
                                            




                                                 COMMITTEES


                                                SBM – SECTIONS

                                                 STATE COURT






                
                
                
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                            
                                    
                                    




                                                ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                    OFFICE
                                                  SENTENCING
                                                  GUIDELINES
                                                  COMMISSION


                                                STATE AGENCIES


                                                   SUPREME


        
        
                
                
                    
                    
                    
                    
                        
                        
                        
                                    
                                    
                                                                          PAGE 53 - II




                                                    COURT
                                                        RACE/ETHNIC




G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
                                                          GENDER
                                                           JOINT




VII-9
VII-8
VII-7
VII-6
VII-5
VII-4
VII-3
VII-2
VII-1
VI-30
VI-29
VI-28
VI-27
VI-26
VI-25
VI-24
VI-23




VII-16
VII-15
VII-14
VII-13
VII-12
VII-11
VII-10
                                                          NO.
                                                          REC
                                                           ATTORNEY
                                                           GENERAL

                                                        ATTY DISCIPLINE BRD   /
                                                          ATTY GRIEVANCE
                                                            COMMISSION


                                                        BOARD OF LAW
                                                         EXAMINERS




    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                        
                                
                                
                                        
                                        
                                                

                                                         CHIEF JUDGES
                                                                                  RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS BY AGENCY




                                                         DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
                                                          PREVENTION AND
                                                         TREATMENT BOARD


                                                          FRIEND OF
                                
                                            




                                                          THE COURT

                                                         GOVERNOR

                                                          INSTITUTE OF




        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                                    




                                                        CONTINUING LEGAL
                                                           EDUCATION

                                                        JUDICIAL TENURE
                                                          COMMISSION


                                                         LAW SCHOOLS
                
                                    




                                                         LEGISLATURE

                                                           LOCAL &
                                                         SPECIAL PURP
                                                          BAR ASSOC.

                                                        MICHIGAN JUDICIAL





    
        
            
                        
                        
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                                    




                                                            INSTITUTE
                                    




                                                         PAAM-PACC

                                                          STATE BAR
                                                         OF MICHIGAN

                                                           SBM –
                    




                                                         COMMITTEES


                                                        SBM – SECTIONS

                                                         STATE COURT
    
    
    
            
            
            
            
            
                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                                    




                                                        ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                            OFFICE
                                                          SENTENCING
                                                          GUIDELINES
                                                          COMMISSION


                                                        STATE AGENCIES


                                                           SUPREME
    
        
        
        
        
                
                
                
                            
                            
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                                    
                                                                                  PAGE 53 - III




                                                            COURT
                                                    RACE/ETHNIC




R
R
R
R
R
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
                                                      GENDER
                                                       JOINT




V-5
V-4
V-3
V-2
V-1
VIII-9
VIII-8
VIII-7
VIII-6
VIII-5
VIII-4
VIII-3
VIII-2
VIII-1
VII-19
VII-18
VII-17




VIII-16
VIII-15
VIII-14
VIII-13
VIII-12
VIII-11
VIII-10
                                                      NO.
                                                      REC
                                                       ATTORNEY




                            
                                                       GENERAL

                                                    ATTY DISCIPLINE BRD   /
                                                      ATTY GRIEVANCE
                                                        COMMISSION


                                                    BOARD OF LAW
                                                     EXAMINERS




                                
                                                


                                                     CHIEF JUDGES
                                                                              RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS BY AGENCY




                                                     DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
                                                      PREVENTION AND
                                                     TREATMENT BOARD


                                                      FRIEND OF
                                                      THE COURT
                                    




                                                     GOVERNOR

                                                      INSTITUTE OF




        
        
        
        
                                                    CONTINUING LEGAL
                                                       EDUCATION

                                                    JUDICIAL TENURE
                                                      COMMISSION




            
            
            
                


                                                     LAW SCHOOLS




    
                                        




                                                     LEGISLATURE

                                                       LOCAL &
                                                     SPECIAL PURP
                                                      BAR ASSOC.

                                                    MICHIGAN JUDICIAL





        
        
                                                




                                                        INSTITUTE
                            




                                                     PAAM-PACC

                                                      STATE BAR
            
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                




                                                     OF MICHIGAN

                                                       SBM –
                    




                                                     COMMITTEES


                                                    SBM – SECTIONS

                                                     STATE COURT
        
        
                                            




                                                    ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                        OFFICE
                                                      SENTENCING
                                                      GUIDELINES
                                                      COMMISSION


                                                    STATE AGENCIES


                                                       SUPREME

        
        
                        
                        
                                                                              PAGE 53 - IV




                                                        COURT
                                            RACE/ETHNIC




R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
                                              GENDER
                                               JOINT




V-9
V-8
V-7
V-6




VI-9
VI-8
VI-7
VI-6
VI-5
VI-4
VI-3
VI-2
VI-1
V-15
V-14
V-13
V-12
V-11
V-10




VI-14
VI-13
VI-12
VI-11
VI-10
                                              NO.
                                              REC
                                               ATTORNEY
                                               GENERAL

                                            ATTY DISCIPLINE BRD   /
                                              ATTY GRIEVANCE
                                                COMMISSION


                                            BOARD OF LAW
                                             EXAMINERS








            
            
            
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                                    
                                    
                                             CHIEF JUDGES
                                                                      RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS BY AGENCY




                                             DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
                                              PREVENTION AND
                                             TREATMENT BOARD


                                              FRIEND OF
                                              THE COURT

                                             GOVERNOR

                                              INSTITUTE OF
                        


                                            CONTINUING LEGAL
                                               EDUCATION

                                            JUDICIAL TENURE
                                              COMMISSION


                                             LAW SCHOOLS
            
                




                                             LEGISLATURE

                                               LOCAL &
                                




                                             SPECIAL PURP
                                              BAR ASSOC.

                                            MICHIGAN JUDICIAL
    
        
        
                
                        
                                        
                                        




                                                INSTITUTE


                                             PAAM-PACC

                                              STATE BAR
                                             OF MICHIGAN

                                               SBM –
                                             COMMITTEES


                                            SBM – SECTIONS

                                             STATE COURT








            
            
            
                    
                            
                            
                                    
                                    
                                        




                                            ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                OFFICE
                                              SENTENCING
                                              GUIDELINES
                                              COMMISSION


                                            STATE AGENCIES


                                               SUPREME



        
        
        
        
                
                        
                        
                        
                                                                      PAGE 53 - V




                                                COURT
                                                RACE/ETHNIC




R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
                                                  GENDER
                                                   JOINT




VII-7
VII-6
VII-5
VII-4
VII-3
VII-2
VII-1




VIII-9
VIII-8
VIII-7
VIII-6
VIII-5
VIII-4
VIII-3
VIII-2
VIII-1




VIII-17
VIII-16
VIII-15
VIII-14
VIII-13
VIII-12
VIII-11
VIII-10
                                                  NO.
                                                  REC
                                                   ATTORNEY




                        
                        
                                                   GENERAL

                                                ATTY DISCIPLINE BRD   /




                        
                                                  ATTY GRIEVANCE
                                                    COMMISSION


                                                BOARD OF LAW
                                                 EXAMINERS




                    
                            
                                    
                                            
                                                CHIEF JUDGES
                                                                          RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS BY AGENCY




                                                 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
                                                  PREVENTION AND
                                                 TREATMENT BOARD


                                                  FRIEND OF
                                                 THE COURT

                                                 GOVERNOR

                                                  INSTITUTE OF




        
                                            




                                                CONTINUING LEGAL
                                                   EDUCATION

                                                JUDICIAL TENURE
                                                  COMMISSION





                    




                                                 LAW SCHOOLS


                                                 LEGISLATURE

                                                   LOCAL &
                




                                                 SPECIAL PURP
                                                  BAR ASSOC.

                                                MICHIGAN JUDICIAL
        
                                            




                                                    INSTITUTE
                        
                        




                                                 PAAM-PACC

                                                  STATE BAR

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        




                                                 OF MICHIGAN

                                                   SBM –
        
        




                                                 COMMITTEES
        
            




                                                SBM – SECTIONS

                                                 STATE COURT
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        




                                                ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                    OFFICE
                                                  SENTENCING
                                        




                                                  GUIDELINES
                                                  COMMISSION


                                                STATE AGENCIES


                                                   SUPREME
    
                    
                    
                                            
                                            
                                            
                                            
                                                                          PAGE 53 - VI




                                                    COURT
                                            RACE/ETHNIC




J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
R
R
R
R
R
                                              GENDER
                                               JOINT




IX-9
IX-8
IX-7
IX-6
IX-5
IX-4
IX-3
IX-2
IX-1




IX-17
IX-16
IX-13
IX-10




IX-15
IX-12
IX-11




1X-18
1X-14
VIII-22
VIII-21
VIII-20
VIII-19
VIII-18
                                              NO.
                                              REC
                                               ATTORNEY
                                               GENERAL

                                            ATTY DISCIPLINE BRD   /




                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                                              ATTY GRIEVANCE
                                                COMMISSION


                                            BOARD OF LAW
                                             EXAMINERS




            
                
                                
                                             CHIEF JUDGES
                                                                      RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS BY AGENCY




                                             DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
                                              PREVENTION AND
                                             TREATMENT BOARD


                                              FRIEND OF
                                              THE COURT

                                             GOVERNOR

                                              INSTITUTE OF




        
        
        
                                        




                                            CONTINUING LEGAL
                                               EDUCATION

                                            JUDICIAL TENURE
                            
                            
                                
                                




                                              COMMISSION

        



    
    
    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    




                                             LAW SCHOOLS


                                             LEGISLATURE

                                               LOCAL &
                    
                                    




                                             SPECIAL PURP
                                              BAR ASSOC.

                                            MICHIGAN JUDICIAL
        
        
        
        
        




                                                INSTITUTE
                        




                                             PAAM-PACC

                                              STATE BAR
        
                    








    




                                             OF MICHIGAN

                                               SBM –
                    




                                             COMMITTEES


                                            SBM – SECTIONS

                                             STATE COURT
        
        
        




                                            ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                OFFICE
                                              SENTENCING
                                              GUIDELINES
                                              COMMISSION


                                            STATE AGENCIES


                                               SUPREME
            
            
            
            
            








                            
                            
                            
                            
                                                                      PAGE 53 - VII




                                                COURT
                              ISSUES FOR FUTURE INVESTIGATION

       One element of the State Bar Task Force’s mandate was to “identify and develop a strategy for
collecting information about race, ethnic and gender issues not addressed in the Supreme Court Task Force
reports.” That strategy is the creation of a Joint Commission on Diversity, which was discussed in greater
detail above in The Status of the 1989 Reports’ Joint Recommendations. Charged with oversight and given
a permanent term of existence, the Joint Commission can determine how best to gather information about
new issues and make recommendations regarding them. The short life of the State Bar Task Force, and the
difficulty of its primary mandate, made it virtually impossible to develop a detailed and comprehensive
strategy for the future. However, many of the strategies, which have used by the 1989 Task Force and
again in 1997 have proven highly effective.

       This Task Force endorses a future research effort that will use data collection methods such as the
court user survey, attorney and judge surveys, public hearings, interviews, and focus groups. Their timing
and coordination with other efforts, as well as their content, are deserving of much more thorough
consideration than was possible during the 1997 project.

       While collecting information about progress on the 1989 recommendations, however, the Task
Force was informed of a number of serious race, ethnic and gender issues deserving of review and not
addressed in the 1989 Reports. Among the “new” issues brought to the Task Force’s attention were the
following:

                pay disparity due to race, ethnic and gender considerations;

                sexual orientation bias within the legal profession and the justice system;

                education of Michigan judges about statutes and national standards relating to sexual
             orientation issues;

                establishment of rules of judicial conduct for Michigan judges to rely upon when faced with
             sexual orientation issues;

                disparity in child custody and support awards due to the sexual preference of a parent;

                disparity in the percentages of men and women leaving the legal profession;



                                                     55
ISSUES FOR FUTURE INVESTIGATION


                    access to the justice system which is reduced due to the race, ethnicity or gender of the
                 litigant;

                    the relationship between poverty and race, ethnicity or gender in the delivery of legal
                 services;

                    disparity in the quality of assigned representation provided to criminal defendants which
                 impacts disproportionately on minorities and women;

                    disparity in the quality of assigned representation provided to criminal defendants as a result
                 of compensation policies of appointing courts;

                    jury selection issues;

                    sentencing practices under proposed State Sentencing Guidelines and mandatory minimum
                 sentencing;

                    issues of balancing work and family;

                    issues relating to law school admissions;

                    juvenile justice issues;

                    elimination of the Detroit Recorder’s Court as a part of court reorganization; and

                    hate crimes.

             These serious issues, and more, are worthy of consideration by a joint implementation commission,
       which can gather credible information and develop meaningful strategies to address them.




                                                          56
THE STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

  1989 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS




          GO TO NEXT SECTION WHICH HAS THE STATUS
            OF THE INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS




               GO TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS




                            57

				
DOCUMENT INFO