Newsletter of the Federal Courts Vol. 44 Number 2 February 2012

CM/ECF Next Gen Enters New Phase .......................................................................................pg. 2

Pilot Program Introduces Protocols for Employment Cases ............................................pg. 3

General Counsel Named ...............................................................................................................pg. 9

INSIDE

Committee Works to Increase Security Awareness

Sufficient funding for security and enhanced

security awareness top the list of goals for Judge Nancy Atlas, chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Security. Read more about her commit-tee’s work in our interview beginning on page 10.

INtErvIEw

Continued on page 4

Continued on page 6

Rising to the OccasionFederal Court Families Give Back to their Communities

As kindergarteners in a San Francisco elementary school

snuggle into their blankets at naptime, they might have warm thoughts of . . . . federal court?

For the fifth year in a row, employees of the Northern District of California, San Francisco, have made blankets for a community school in the city ’s Tenderloin area. The court ’s goal is to give every child their own blanket.

Court employees are accustomed to helping their colleagues, stepping in to assist with caseloads and give relief after earth-quakes, hurricanes, floods, and other disasters. But Judiciary employees in federal courts around the country also are proud of their contributions to local causes and to the needy in their communities. They donate their own time outside of work, their money, and even, in one court, used footwear.

A shoes and socks drive in the Northern District of California helped homeless adults in the community.

“We knew that footwear, because of its expense, is a problem for the homeless,” said

Lynn Fuller, a court operations analyst. The court collected two large recycling tubs of gently used shoes and other footwear for donation to a local homeless center and employees contributed new socks. “Some people were so anxious to get shoes, they flagged us down as we were rolling the bins down the sidewalk to the shelter,” Fuller recounts.

Halfway across the country, at the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas-Fort Worth area, employees from the court and several federal agencies are helping to fill area food banks in the Feds Feed Families Program.

“Our last food drive was focused on children who miss meals, especially during the

Commitment to Serve Takes Federal Judge to War

Army Colonel Frank Whitney came home from war last month. He took

off his body armor, laid down his weapon, and returned to the bench in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina—although he never really left the bench in the 7 months he was called up to active duty.

According to the U.S. Army, Whitney was the first active federal judge to serve as a military judge in a theater of war; in this instance, in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Court staff in the Northern District of California make blankets to send to a local kindergarten.

The Third Branch February 20122

CM/ECF Next Gen Enters New Phase

The Judiciary’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, the envy of court systems

worldwide for more than a decade, reaches an important milestone in early 2012 as the requirements-gathering phase for its Next Generation concludes.

Judges and court staff nationwide have worked with the Administrative Office (AO) for more than two years to identify greater efficiencies and define new functional requirements. Still ahead are design, coding, testing, and implemen-tation phases.

“Next Gen is perhaps the largest-scope project ever undertaken by the Adminis-trative Office and court community,” said Judge Julie Robinson (D. Kan.), chair of the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. “There is extensive involvement of the court community, in numbers of people participating, and in the depth and signifi-cance of their work and contributions.”

Robinson said more than 50 AO staff members have been working, many of them nearly full-time, on the labor-intensive first phase of Next

Gen. She added that more than 150 judges, law clerks, clerks of court, infor-mation technology staff, and other court employees from all court types have devoted significant hours. The number of people working on Next Gen on a daily basis will shrink during the design phase, “but there will continue to be substantial personnel and resources devoted to the project,” Robinson said.

“The cooperation between the AO and court community has been phenomenal,” she said. “They have collaborated every

Fiscal Year 2012 Funding By Account

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, Pub. Law No. 112-74, provides full year funding for the Judiciary, including full funding, based on the latest estimates, for Defenders Services, Court Security, and Fees of Jurors and Commissioners

accounts. The following table is a breakdown of 2012 funding by account.

FY 2012 Judiciary Appropriations Final Appropriations ($000)

Appropriation Account

FY 2011

Enacted

Approp.

FY 2012

President’s

Budget

FY 2012

House Mark

H.r. 2434

FY 2012

Senate Mark

S. 1573

FY 2012

revised Appeal

(Min. require.)

FY 2012

Final Approp.

Final vs. 2011

U.S. Supreme Court

Salaries & Expenses

Care of Building and Grounds

$73,921

8,159

75,551

8,504

74,819

8,159

74,819

8,159

75,551

8,504

74,819

8,159

1.2%

0.0%

U. S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

U. S. Court of International trade

32,511

21,447

35,139

22,891

31,472

20,62831,913

20,968

33,525

22,133

32,511

21,447

0.0%

0.0%

Courts of Appeals, District Courts & Other Judicial Services (CADCOJS)

Salaries & Expenses

Direct

Vaccine Injury Fund

5,004,221

4.775

5,236,166

5,011

4,790,855

4,775

4,970,646

4,775

5,029,497

5,212

5,015,000

5,000

0.2%

4.7%

total

Defender Services

Fees of Jurors & Commissioners

Court Security

5,008,996

1,025,693

52,305

466,672

5,241,177

1,098,745

59,727

513,058

4,795,630

1,050,000

57,305

500,000

4,975,421

1,034,182

59,000

500,000

5,034,709

1,032,422

51,908

500,000

5,020,000

1,031,000

51,908

500,000

0.2%

0.5%

-0.8%

7.1%

Subtotal, CADCOJS

Administrative Office

Federal Judicial Center

Judicial retirement Funds

(mandatory)

U.S. Sentencing Commission

6,553,666

82,909

27,273

90,361

16,803

6,912,707

88,455

29,029

103,768

17,906

6,402,935

80,007

26,318

103,768

16,215

6,568,603

82,000

27,000

103,768

16,500

6,619,039

84,646

27,536

103,768

17,295

6,602,908

82,909

27,000

103,768

16,500

0.8%

0.0%

-1.0%

14.8%

-1.8%

total, the Judiciary $6,907,050 $7,293,950 $6,764,321 $6,933,730 $6,991,997 $6,970,021 0.9 %

Continued on page 9

The Third Branch February 2012 3

Pilot Program Introduces Protocols for Employment Cases

A pilot program for the federal district courts introduces new pretrial procedures for certain

types of federal employment cases, encouraging more efficient and less costly discovery.

The pilot in the Southern District of New York is an outgrowth of the 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation at Duke University. Conference attendees supported case-type-specific “pattern discovery” as a way to stem unnecessary cost and delay in the litigation process and agreed that employment cases would be a good place to start.

“Employment cases are a significant percentage of the federal docket,” Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York explained. “It is also an area where you have a group of lawyers who, because they regularly handle these types of cases, know there are ways to handle them more efficiently.”

Koeltl, who helped organize the Duke Conference, volunteered to lead a nationwide committee of attorneys to rethink discovery in employment cases. The protocols his committee developed for the pilot program create a new category of information exchange, replacing initial disclosures with initial discovery in employment cases alleging adverse action.

In any employment case, there is a core of information that will be exchanged in the course of the litigation.

But, typically, the production of that infor-mation is delayed through document requests and interrogatories, which are then subject to objections. Then, it takes time to resolve the objections.

“The core information will eventually be produced, but only months later with increased cost,” said Koeltl. “The employment protocols cut through the cost and the time delay by getting the information produced at the outset. The employment protocols substitute for the initial disclosure a required set of infor-mation from both the plaintiff and the defendant, which must be exchanged 30 days after a responsive pleading or motion.”

The Initial Discovery Protocols apply to all employment cases that challenge one or more actions alleged to be adverse. They do not apply to class actions, or cases in which the allegations involve only discrimination in hiring, harassment or hostile work environment, or viola-tions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

“It took over a year of really intensive work by both plaintiff and defendant lawyers to craft a set of realistic protocols,” said Koeltl. “They should cut several months off the typical case and make the

litigation process efficient for both sides.” Any district judge may choose to

adopt the protocols, which do not require changes to local rules. A standing order for their implementation in a pilot project, as well as a model protective order, is available online at fjc.gov under Educa-tional Programs and Materials.

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules encourages judges to join the pilot, and last month, Judge Jeremy Fogel, Director of the Federal Judicial Center, sent a memo to all chief district judges, advising them of the availability of the employment protocols. The FJC will be evaluating the pilot project and it is hoped that this model can be used to develop protocols for other types of cases. Judges adopting the protocols are asked to inform FJC senior researcher Emery Lee so that their cases may be included in the evaluation.

“An impetus behind the Duke Conference was the protests from clients who said the costs of litigation have become too great and may deter the fair resolution of the case,” said Koeltl. “The Initial Discovery Protocols pilot program, through the early exchange of information and documents, should help frame the issues to be resolved and lead to more efficient and targeted discovery.”

Employment Cases Filed in Federal District Courts

12,000

12,500

13,000

13,500

14,000

14,500

15,000

15,500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

“The employment protocols cut through the cost and the

time delay by getting the information produced at the

outset.”Judge John Koeltl

The Third Branch February 20124

But the Army was in need of a reserve military judge to deploy into theater who could fill the service gap between the assignments of two active duty military judges and preside over all courts-martial, both general and special. Whitney was their man.

“When my country asked, I felt a personal obligation to serve. My

father had served in World War II, and my grandfather had served in World War I,” Whitney said. Due to retire from the Army Reserves this May, he also knew this would be his last opportunity to serve in a combat zone.

“I’d never done a general court martial. So the first two months I was in theater, I overlapped with my predecessor who patiently trained me on the nuances of a general court martial,” he said. As a five-year veteran on the district court bench, Whitney was comfortable running a courtroom. “The training was to make sure I followed the correct procedures,

including the military rules for a court martial,” he said. “And there are some striking differences between the military and federal justice systems, particularly when it comes to pleas and sentencing.”

For example, in the federal system, a plea hearing, or Rule 11 hearing, is a relatively straightforward proceeding that might take 30 minutes. “It involves a district or magistrate judge asking the defendant a series of yes-or-no questions or short-answer questions. The judge does most of the talking,” said Whitney.

The plea hearing equivalent in the military system is called a providence inquiry. “We’re checking to make sure the plea is provident,” Whitney explains, “which means the soldier not only fully understands his or her rights and admits guilt, the soldier must also explain in his or her own words how he or she knowingly committed the crime. The soldier does most of the talking, not the judge. As you can imagine, it is hard for a soldier to explain in detail how he or she committed the crime, especially if it is a violent crime like rape. No one likes to openly speak about doing something wrong.” As a consequence, hearings can take 2 to 3 hours.

Presiding over 25 courts-martial in his time overseas, he conducted the last military trial in Iraq before the withdrawal of American troops.

Whitney has been a member of the United States Army Reserve since 1982, joining right out of college as a reserve military intelligence officer. In 1993, he transferred to the reserve JAG Corps and became a military judge in 2008. As a military judge, he has presided over special courts-martial at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and Fort Gordon, Georgia. Although he was appointed to the federal bench in 2006, being a federal judge didn’t automatically qualify him to be a military judge.

“All military judges are required to go through a certification course at the U.S. Army JAG school in Charlottesville, Virginia, before they can preside over courts-martial.” said Whitney. “Once certified, active component military judges preside over courts-martial throughout the world, handling both general and special courts-martial. Reserve military judges usually only preside over special courts-martial, which are akin to misdemeanor trials.”

Judge Frank Whitney presiding in his Bagram Airfield courtroom, Afghanistan.

Commitment to Serve Takes Federal Judge to Warcontinued from page 1

Body armor replaced judicial robes for travel in Iraq or Afghanistan. In this photo, Judge Whitney boarded a Blackhawk helicopter to fly from Al Faw Palace—US Forces Iraq HQ—to the US Embassy in Baghdad.

The Third Branch February 2012 5

There are other differences. Unlike in the federal system, there is no grand jury. Instead, there is an Article 32 proceeding, which is basically a mini-trial to determine whether charges should be referred to a court martial. It is a contested proceeding with a defense counsel and the accused in the room, where the defense has the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

“Most of these additional procedural requirements in the military system exist to prevent what is known as ‘undue command influence’—that is, the pressure of the military command structure either openly or subtlely rushing the criminal proceeding to a wrong or inappropriate result,” Whitney said. “It ensures that the accused is not pleading guilty under pressure from his chain of command or being charged because his chain of command is improperly pushing the prosecution. These safeguards make sure the soldier is charged and prosecuted because it is the just and right thing to do.”

Whitney presided over 25 courts-martial in the over six months he was in theater. “I might do 25 sentencings in a week in federal court, but in the military system, 25 courts martial including sentencings is a pretty heavy caseload,” he said.

Why hold court proceedings in a theater of war?

“In a combat zone in particular,” Whitney explained, “you want a criminal justice system that can quickly deter misconduct. If there is a place where order and discipline is most necessary, it’s at the forward operating areas of a combat zone. Soldiers have to understand that if they fail to follow orders in theater, they will be punished in theater, not flown out to face prosecution in Europe or the United States.”

From a practical standpoint too, holding courts-martial in Europe or the United States means pulling soldiers—both witnesses and panel members (the military equivalent of jurors)—out of a combat zone, affecting the ability of commanding officers to carry out military operations.

Although Whitney spent most of his time at secure installations in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, safety could not be taken for granted. Whenever he travelled long distances or went “outside the wire” in Iraq or Afghanistan, he wore body armor. The roof of the building where he held court at Bagram Airfield was four feet thick, built to absorb mortar or rocket rounds. Outside, 12-foot tall concrete T-walls, like over-sized Jersey barriers, provided

fortress-like security. But just before he arrived in Iraq, five soldiers were killed at an entry gate to Victory Base Complex, and mortar alerts were frequent. Two weeks into his mobilization, the Marine son of his North Carolina court’s deputy clerk was killed at a combat outpost in Afghanistan.

“That was probably the toughest moment for me overseas,” Whitney recalls. “I talked with his mother right before I left North Carolina. It was a reminder to me of how serious a business we were involved in.”

Afghanistan may have been the most hostile area. “The dangers were greatest there and you were a little more cautious,” Whitney said. “I was always wearing a weapon.” During the day, he’d move between secure buildings, but there were constant reminders of the war.

“We rarely had a mortar round hit inside the central area where I worked, but occasionally one did. For example, at Bagram Airfield, a dud hit a tree on the side of the round on which we all ran in the morning. They left the dud there, sticking out of the tree, as a reminder to everyone.”

Whitney is home in North Carolina now, settling back into the routine of a district court judge. What did he miss most about his court? “I missed having my wonderful staff who took care of so many things,” he says.

In theater, he worked without the assistance of law clerks, judicial assistants, and deputy clerks of court. He had to maintain his own docket and set all his hearings. He researched legal issues himself and drafted all his orders. Without a certified court reporter, he had to review every word of a transcript for accuracy.

“I had no idea how much work went on behind the scenes to make court happen,” he says. “I have a new level of appreciation for our court staff here in the Western District of North Carolina.”

Judge Whitney, center, stands with the lawyers who participated in the last U.S. court martial in Iraq. The court martial was held in southern Iraq at Contingency Operating Base (COB) Adder. The trial went 16 hours—starting at 0800 and ending at 2357 hours.

The Third Branch February 20126

summer when school is out,” said Clerk of Court Karen Mitchell. “Court employees and others in the Dallas-Fort Worth federal employee community collected seven tons of non-perishable food items. That’s a lot of food!”

During the holiday season, court employees give their own time to participate in an annual toy drive. Senior management works weekend shifts distributing the toys from a local warehouse. The court also displays a group of “angels”—the wishes and needs of local children and the elderly hung on an Angel Tree. Employees across the district’s 100-county area always give generously.

“It’s not easy to find the time to volunteer, especially during the holidays, but we try to focus on a handful of

projects each year,” said Mitchell. “Unfor-tunately, there is way more need than we can hope to meet.”

The court family in North Dakota knows the importance of a helping hand. “Our area has been hit by horrible floods over the years,” said Suzanne Morrison, an Eighth Circuit branch librarian in Fargo, North Dakota. “Each time, people from outside the community helped us recover.”

So when a tsunami hit in the Indian Ocean, employees were eager to raise funds for the relief program. They did it with proceeds from an employee-compiled Recipes for Relief cookbook.

“We have chili cook-offs and chocolate chip cookie throw downs all the time, so the cookbook seemed like the natural thing to do,” said Morrison. She estimates over 80 percent of the court family gave their spare time, or a recipe, or a donation to help publication.

Two-hundred hand-assembled cookbooks sold out in 10 minutes, with another 200 back-ordered.

Most recently, the court continued a holiday tradition with a silent auction of gift baskets put together by the court’s units. Begun 19 years ago with 11 baskets, this year the auction featured over 100 baskets with themes such as breakfast, sports, and pets.

“It’s the most fun we have all year,” said Morrison. “And all the money we contribute goes to benefit local charities.”

All federal courts may participate in the Combined Federal Campaign; last year Judiciary employees donated close to $2 million to CFC charities through payroll deductions. That total does not include cash or check contributions by employees. Through the CFC, employees in the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City), donate their time and talents to community activities one Saturday a year.

Rising to the Occasioncontinued from page 1

1

2

3Photos 1, 2, 3: Court staff from the Eastern District of Missouri, with Habitat for Humanity, help build homes for local families.

Photos 4, 5: North Dakota court employees gave their free time and family recipes for a cookbook. Its sale raised relief funds for tsunami victims.

4

5

The Third Branch February 2012 7

They’ve helped run youth basketball tournaments, worked on houses that needed repairs, and cleaned up yards.

In addition to CFC, many court employees help with food, blood, and toy drives, contribute clothing, donate to disaster relief funds, run in local races to raise money to cure disease, and give time to charitable organizations. Employees in the Western District of Missouri adopt families for the winter holidays, donating outerwear, clothing, and gifts. In the Southern District of Alabama employees prepare fish fry and barbeque lunches at the Relay for Life, a race to raise funds to fight cancer. This is the third year that staff at the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri have held a holiday party at a local crisis nursery with presents for everyone. “We play games, decorate cookies, and Santa visits,” said Clerk of Court Jim Woodward. “For some of the kids, this is the only Christmas they have.”

For the last eight years, they also have helped build homes for the community through Habitat for Humanity.

“It is our ongoing commitment to improve the lives of inner-city families,” said Woodward. “Fifteen or twenty of us volunteer each summer as a team. We help build a house and we get to know the home’s future owner. It ’s time well spent.”

Sometimes, the courts turn volun-teering into a friendly competition.

The sixth annual Battle of the Badges blood drive was held last month in the Los Angeles area. Groups from the courts, law enforcement agencies, and the fire departments in the Los Angeles area vie to see who can donate the most blood to benefit the American Red Cross.

“During our 2011 drive, district court staff made 51 donations,” said Gary Horimoto in the Central District of California. The donations help accident

victims, cancer patients, premature babies, burn patients, and others. “The American Red Cross recognized our district’s U.S. Probation Office as the Greatest Participation (per capita) Overall Winner,” said Horimoto.

Central District of California employees also participate in the annual Food From the Bar Drive to benefit the Los Angeles Regional Food bank. Like the Dallas/Fort Worth drive, the Los Angeles drive takes place in the summer when area children cannot take advantage of school meal programs and food banks typically have leaner supplies. In 2011, district court staff donated over 300 pounds of food and over $500 to the drive.

“It seems the worst tragedies happen to people who are least able to deal with them,” Woodward observed. “I’m proud of our court people. They always rise to the occasion. It’s part of what we, as public servants, should do.”

Photos 6, 7: Court employees in the Dallas-Fort Worth area helped collect 7 tons of food for local food banks.

6

7

Staff in Fargo, North Dakota compete to put together the best “theme” baskets for auction. Proceeds benefit local charities.

On weekends, employees in the Northern District of

Texas helped distribute toys at the holiday season.

Employees in the Northern District of California donated 113 pairs of shoes and five dozen pairs of socks to the homeless.

The Third Branch February 20128

Published monthly by theAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Office of Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20544

(202) 502-2600

Visit our Internet site at www.uscourts.gov

DIRECTORJudge Thomas F. Hogan

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFDavid A. Sellers

MANAGING EDITORKaren E. Redmond

PRODUCTIONOmniStudio, Inc.

CONTRIBUTORSDick Carelli, AO

Please direct all inquiries and address changes to The Third Branch at the above address or to

Karen_Redmond@ao.uscourts.gov.

Up-to-date information on judicial vacancies is available at

http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/JudicialVacancies.aspx

February Judicial Milestones

JUDICIAL BOXSCOrE

As of February 1, 2012

Courts of Appeals Vacancies ..................................16 Nominees ................................... 9

District Courts Vacancies ..................................65 Nominees .................................30

Court of International Trade Vacancies .................................... 2 Nominees ................................... 0

Courts with “Judicial Emergencies” .........32

This month, Milestones exceeded the available space. Please visit the Third Branch on-line at www.uscourts.gov/news/TheThirdBranch.aspx to read the complete Milestones for February.

Appointed: U.S. District Judge Christopher F. Droney, as a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, December 1.

Appointed: Andrew L. Carter, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, December 12.

Appointed: Dana L. Christensen, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, December 9.

Appointed: Mark R. Hornak, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, November 21.

Appointed: Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, November 28.

Appointed: Laura Turner Beyer, as a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, November 18.

Appointed: Carlota M. Bohm, as a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, November 28.

Appointed: James F. Metcalf, as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, November 21.

Senior Status: U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Kermit Victor Lipez, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, December 31.

Senior Status: U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Mary M. Schroeder, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 31.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, December 31.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, December 15.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf, U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, December 1.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, December 17.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, December 31.

Elevated: U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp to Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, succeeding U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon, December 1.

Elevated: U.S. District Judge Gary L. Sharpe, to Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, succeeding U.S. District Judge Norman A. Mordue, December 16.

Elevated: U.S. District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith, to Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, succeeding U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer, December 3.

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Catharine R. Aron, to Chief Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, succeeding U.S. Bankruptcy Judge William Stocks, December 31.

Retired: U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr., U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, December 1.

Retired: Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George C. Paine II, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, December 31.

Retired: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John H. Squires, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, December 31.

Retired: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Jack B. Schmetterer, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, December 31.

The Third Branch February 2012 9

step of the way, through the labor-intensive phase of defining functional requirements. And this collaboration will continue through the design phase, as we all work to ensure that the work of those who defined the functional requirements will be translated into the design of CM/ECF’s Next Gen.”

More than 400 requirements were identified by members of the bankruptcy, district, and appellate court chambers’ requirements groups, drawing more than 6,000 comments from the courts. The project also has received input from non-court representatives from the bar, academia, government agencies, and other organizations.

Continuous enhancements have been made to the existing CM/ECF system since the prototype versions were introduced in 1995. The system currently is used in all district, bankruptcy, and regional courts of

CM/ECF Next Gen Enters New Phasecontinued from page 2

appeal, in the Court of Federal Claims, the Court of International Trade, and by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Nearly six million docket entries are made on CM/ECF each month, and virtually all courts now accept or require electronic filings. In those courts, 51 percent of all docket entries are made by attorneys, not court staff, resulting in cost containment and savings.

More than 600,000 attorneys have filed case documents using CM/ECF, and attorneys currently are filing nearly 2.5 million documents via the Internet each month. In bankruptcy courts, attorneys now perform over 90 percent of all case-opening work.

Robinson said all CM/ECF users will notice the enhancements when Next Gen is implemented. “This product will include improved functionality for external filers and other external users of the system,” she said. (Members of the public can access federal court files remotely via the Judiciary’s Public Access to Court

Electronic Records, or PACER, service. You can learn more about PACER at www.pacer.uscourts.gov.)

“The improvements will be based on the functional requirements defined by a large and diverse group of external users, under the capable leadership of Bankruptcy Judge Rich Leonard [E.D. N.C.]. We expect improvements such as a single sign-on capability, so that external users will not have to sign on repeatedly as they access different courts’ sites,” Robinson said. “We also expect a search functionality that will greatly assist the external users.”

Basic goals for Next Gen included greater integration among the district, bankruptcy, and appellate versions of CM/ECF, shared data with other Judiciary systems, more streamlined processes, greater consistency (especially for external users), enhanced case management functionality for chambers, and greater efficiency through use of new tools and technology.

General Counsel Named

Robert K. Loesche has been appointed General Counsel at the

Administrative Office (AO) of the United States Courts, succeeding the recently retired William R. Burchill, Jr.

Loesche began his Judiciary career in 1979 as an attorney with the Federal Judicial Center. He joined the Office of General Counsel in 1981 and, since 1985, he has served as Deputy General Counsel.

The General Counsel provides legal counsel and services to the Director and staff of the AO and to the Judicial Conference; and responds to legal inquiries from judges and other court officials, among other responsibilities.

Loesche is a graduate of Haverford College and Boston University Law School.

Third Branch Heading Online Only

By spring 2012, the print version of the Judiciary’s monthly newsletter, The Third Branch, will be history. In its place, we will introduce a new on-line source for Judiciary news.

The new electronic format will let us post more timely news items and augment stories with audio interviews, video, and graphics. We’ll also save money when we eliminate printing and postage, an important consideration in these cost-conscious times.

All the features of the print Third Branch newsletter will be available on-line. Judiciary-related information, statistics, features, and inter-views that had been provided in print will be posted regularly.

To receive Third Branch e-news updates, you can sign up on our website at Email Updates: http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/EmailUpdates.aspx.

All the features of the print Third Branch newsletter will be available on-line.

The Third Branch February 201210

INtErvIEw

Committee Tackles Complex Security Issues

Judge Nancy F. Atlas was named chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Security in 2011. A long-time member of the Committee, she is the former chair of the Committee’s Budget and Finance Subcommittee and its Long-Range

Planning Subcommittee. Atlas is a district court judge in the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division), and was appointed to the bench in 1995.

I hope, in addition, that we can encourage our local court security committees to remain active, indeed become more active, in each district. Districts in this way will be prepared to address emergency situations, whether attributable to natural disasters or incidents intended to harm people at courthouses.

Q: A judicial security committee hasn’t always been a stand-alone committee of the Judicial Conference. In your opinion, why is such a committee on Judicial Security needed?

A: The current Committee on Judicial Security was established on October 1, 2005. It is an outgrowth of the original standing Committee on Court Security that the Judicial Conference established in September 1987, with a mandate to oversee all court security matters. In 1993, the Executive Committee voted to merge the Committee with the Committee on Space and Facilities to create the Committee on Security and Facilities (CSF).

Following the murders of the husband and mother of Judge Joan Lefkow (N.D. Ill.) in 2005, and the murder of a state court judge in Georgia, the Judicial Conference approved division of the CSF Committee into two committees—one focused solely on judicial security matters, and the other addressing space and facilities issues.

As evident from our last Committee meeting agendas, the Committee addresses a wide range of issues. Some of the major items include the formulation

and execution of the Judiciary’s Court Security appropriation; cost containment initiatives; legislative proposals that affect the way security services are provided to the courts; a review of the way the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) allocates court security officer positions to the districts; oversight of a comprehensive USMS business process re-engineering initiative to improve the way the USMS manages the funds provided by the Judiciary for court security officers and security equipment for courthouses; and the court-wide implementation of the Judiciary’s emergency preparedness program, which provides assistance to the courts in the areas of emergency preparedness, crisis response, and occupant emergency and continuity of operations planning.

Q: Each court is requested to establish a local Court Security Committee. what is the role of these committees and how do they relate to your Judicial Conference Committee?

A: The establishment of a Court Security Committee (CSC) in each district was a cornerstone recommendation of the 1982 Report of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Court Security, which was

Q: You recently held your first meeting as chair of the Judicial Security Committee. what are your goals as chair?

A: First, I want to ensure that the Judiciary receives sufficient funding so that an adequate level of security is provided to judges, the rest of the court family, and members of the public while in our courthouses. The Committee respects the fact that this is a time of constrained budgets, but we need to avoid creating unnecessary risks for judges, either at courthouses or off-site.

Also, we want to continue to maintain an open and productive relationship with the United States Marshals Service, especially in regard to their provision of security-related services. Our relationship with the Marshals Service has grown strong over the years, and now we are working to enhance communications and information transfer.

Another goal is to provide sitting judges with educational programs that enhance their and their families’ awareness of security issues. Not only is the Committee developing teaching tools to explain strategies for judges and their families’ physical safety, but we are offering education about possible responses by judges to the serious risks that are posed from the Internet, social media, and other communication methods. We all need to be aware that once information is posted on the Internet, it is very difficult—if not impossible—to remove it completely. Education of judicial nominees and new appointees, therefore, is also critical.

Judge Nancy F. Atlas (S.D. Tex.)

The Third Branch February 2012 11

endorsed by the Judicial Conference. The original charter of the CSCs was to meet regularly to review the status of existing security in the committee’s judicial district, discuss new or changing require-ments generated by renovations or new offices, and resolve conflicts or competing requirements for limited security resources available to the districts. In September 2007, the Judicial Conference approved, upon recommendation of this Committee, the additional responsi-bility for “ensuring oversight of the court’s emergency preparedness program.”

The Security Committee ensures that the CSC membership is inclusive. Each court and court unit housed within the district has a representative, as well as the General Services Administration, the district U.S. Marshal, and the United States Attorney, among others. The Committee periodically distributes checklists and suggested agenda topics in an effort to ensure that the CSCs meet with suffi-cient frequency and remain focused on new and longstanding district-wide court security issues.

Q: Your committee has ad hoc subcommittees. Can you tell us about them?

A: There are three ad hoc subcom-mittees: the On-Site Security Subcom-mittee, the Off-Site Security and Education Subcommittee, and the Budget and Finance Subcommittee.

The On-Site Security Subcommittee, chaired by Bankruptcy Judge Dana Rasure (N.D. Okla.), is responsible for addressing security issues at courthouses and in multi-tenant facilities housing court operations. This subcommittee is currently overseeing a comprehensive review of the Court Security Officer (CSO) staffing standards and the associated formula used to determine the number of CSOs allocated to each district.

Judge Henry Hudson (E.D. Va.) chairs the Off-Site Security Subcommittee. The subcommittee is responsible for responding to the Judiciary’s security issues when judges are away from court facilities, and for developing and presenting security-related educational outreach programs for judges. Work on Internet-related security matters and special concerns of our judges on the Southwest Border have been some of the focus over the last few years. Judge Hudson and the Off-Site Subcommittee have spearheaded the creation of and recent release of the video educational tool Project 365: Security Starts with You, and the follow-on Security Tips video series. The Subcommittee also works closely with the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to develop security related curricula for FJC-sponsored judicial training programs.

The Budget and Finance Subcom-mittee is chaired by Sixth Circuit Judge Karen Moore. That Subcommittee deals with the formulation and execution of the Judiciary’s Court Security appropri-ation. The security appropriation is used to fund court security officer positions and security systems and equipment of court-occupied space. Most of the funding is transferred annually to the U.S. Marshals Service, which is directly respon-sible for providing the security services. This appropriation also pays for security services provided to courts by the Federal Protective Service.

Q: the ad hoc On-Site Subcommittee currently is reviewing staffing standards for Court Security Officers. what will that review accomplish?

A: The CSO staffing standards define the duties performed by CSOs. The CSOs are mandated to provide adequate security at court facilities under the supervision of the USMS. Primary CSO duties involve entry screening, control

room monitoring, and roving patrols. These categories encompass various CSO security functions needed by courts. The CSO standards initially were developed in the early1990s. The Committee and the USMS Director believe that a review in light of current courthouse security challenges is appropriate. Also, the review is being performed at the direction of the Judicial Conference and its Budget Committee as a possible cost-containment initiative. In FY 2012, 83 percent, i.e., $351 million, of the Judiciary’s Court Security appropriation is devoted to the CSO program.

The staffing standards review is being undertaken by a joint USMS/Judiciary Working Group to validate the adequacy and appropriateness of the duties CSOs are currently performing. Judges from our Committee are very much involved in this process. The Working Group also plans to look at other CSO functions not captured in the current standards but which may be legitimate security requirements. This identification and validation of duties will be a major determinant of the cost of providing CSO staffing for a facility and, by extension, the funding needed for the program nationally.

Q: Judges’ physical safety has long been a security concern. How has personal security changed with electronic communications and the Internet Age?

A: The Internet and social media are having a profound impact. Prior to the advent of the internet and social media, threats to judges were in writing and sent through the mail, or were stated orally in court or telephone calls. Today, judges may receive threats by e-mail. More worrisome, however, are threats made in on-line blog posts or other electronic conversations through the Internet.

Continued on page 12

FIRST CLASS MAILPOSTAGE & FEES

PAIDU.S. COURTS

PERMIT NO. G-18

FIRST CLASS

Administrative Office of the U.S. CourtsOffice of Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20544

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

INtErvIEw continued from page 11

Many of these threats are not commu-nicated directly to the judge. To improve awareness of these types of threats, the Judicial Security Committee recom-mended, and the Judicial Conference endorsed, in March 2011, a policy encouraging circuits to adopt the Circuit Librarian Internet Security Initiative to routinely monitor the Internet for potential threats against judges.

Also, prior to the explosion of electronic communications, it was fairly simple for a judge to keep his or her telephone number and home address private, if desired. Today, however, this type of information is readily available on the Internet. Judges who do not want their personal information posted publicly must contact Internet sites periodically and request removal of their information. Unfortunately, in fact, it is unlikely that all

personal information can be removed from the Internet once posted, but judges can take certain steps to minimize its availability. The Committee has issued guidance on these matters and it is available to judges through the J-Net.

Q: the ad hoc Off-Site Subcommittee has made a series of security videos avail-able to judges. what is their purpose?

A: The primary purpose is heightened judicial awareness of security issues. Following the release in August 2009 of Project 365: Security Starts with you, the Administrative Office (AO), in coordi-nation with the USMS, produced a nine-part Security Tips video series for judges. These videos, which are lively and interesting, address inappropriate

communications, courtroom security, travel safety, Internet security, commuting, suspicious packages, residential security, false liens, and protective details. The series is available for viewing through the J-Net.

Q: when does a judge’s security education begin?

A: When nominees come to Washington, D.C. for confirmation hearings, they attend an orientation program presented by the AO. Nominees also are encouraged to arrange, through their district marshal’s office, a residential security survey, and a security briefing for chambers staff and members of the judge’s family. Of course, education of judges continues through the FJC New Judges Orientation, memos and videos from the AO, and periodic programs offered thereafter.