History of the Conference of Chief Justices nn.... ,

Prepared in 1986 by the National Center for State Courts

300 Newport Ave. (Zip Code 23185) PO. Box 8798 Williamsburg, Virginia 23 187-8798

Updated in 1993 by the Standing Committee of Past Presidents of the Conference of Chief Justices //I History of the Conference of Chief

Justices/

Prepared in 1986 by the National Center for State Courts

300 Newport Ave. (Zip Code 23185) PO. Box 8798 Williamsburg, Virginia 23 187-8798

Updated in 1993 by the Standing Committee of Past Presidents of the Conference of Chief Justices

library National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Ave. Williamsburg, VA 231 87-8798 Table of Contents

Foreword(1986) ...... 4 Foreword ( 1993) ...... 5 Introduction to 1993 Update The National Status and Responsibilities of the Conference of Chief Justices ...... 7 Analysis of Programs of the Conference of Chief Justices. 1986-1993 ...... 8 Part 1: Conference of Chief Justices: The Organization ...... 11 The Beginning ...... 13 Membership and Leadership ...... 14 Committee Structure and Meeting Schedule ...... 14 Relationship with the National Center for State Courts ...... 15 Relationships with Other Legal and Judicial Organizations ...... 16 Part 11: The Work of the Conference of Chief Justices...... 19 Education Program ...... 21 Policy Positions ...... 22 State Court Relations with the Federal Government ...... 23 Conference Committees ...... 24 Habeascorpus ...... 24 State-Federal Relations ...... 25 Funding for State Courts: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) State Justice Institute (SJI) ...... 26 Judicial Immunity ...... 28 Lawyer Competence and Professionalism ...... 29 Jurisdiction in Indian Country ...... 29 Combating Discrimination in the Courts ...... 30 Judicial Performance Evaluation ...... 31 Judicial Education Guidelines ...... 31 Reliance on State Constitutions ...... 31 Decisions Regarding Medical Treatment ...... 32 Children and the Courts ...... 32 Other CCJ Committees ...... 33 PartI1I:Summary ...... 35 Appendices...... 39 A . ChairmedPresidents. 1949 to 1993 ...... 39 8. ChairmedPresidents by State. 1949 to 1993 ...... 40 C . Executive CouncilslBoards of Directors, 1949 to 1993 ...... 42 D . Meeting Dates and Locations. 1949 to 1993...... 51 E . Annual and Midyear Meetings Discussion Topics, 1950 to 1993...... 60 Foreword (1986)

The board of directors of the Conference of Chief Justices was of the view that it might be helpful to the members of the Conference to hve a history available to provide a perspective on current activities. Accordingly, at the request of the Conference, the National Center for State Courts has prepared this document. In it no attempt was made to attribute various activities to individuals, with the exception of the original organizers of the Conference, but rather to concentrate on organizational structure and subject matter. The Conference of ChiefJustices is particularly indebted to Paul C. Reardon, a retired Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and former president of the National Center for State Courts, who volunteered to assist in the preparation of this his- tory. The Conference is also indebted to Marilyn McCoy Roberts and Brenda A. Williams of the National Center staff for their individual conhibutions to the preparation of the his tory. This history, together with the conference handbook, should give all chiefjustices, espe, cidly those newly appointed, a better understanding of the purposes, accomplishments and activities of the Conference of ChiefJustices.

Edward E Hennesse y August 6,1986 Foreword (1993)

The history ofthe Conference of ChiefJustices was originally published in 1986. Much has happened in the seven years since to increase the role of the Conference as the official representative of the state courts on the national level. These seven years have seen, as a result of Conference efforts, the establishment of the State Justice Institute as a significant funding source fm state court improvements; the creation of the National Judicial Council of State and Federal Courts, us well as many other avenues for closer cooperation and coordination at the national level ofthe federal and state court systems; and the reorganiza- tion and strengthening of the Conference's representation of the state courts before all three hunches of the federal government with the help of the National Center. The CCJ standing committee of past presidents undertook to update the 1986 history, and the board of directors has authorized its publication. Two former CCJ presidents, e re tired Chief Justice McKusick , of Maine, and re tired Chief Justice Erickstad, of North Dakota, have done the updating. They have had, as always, the valuable assistance of Brenda Williams, of the secretariat services of the National Center fm State Courts. I find it most appropiate to repeat the view expressed by Chiefjustice Hennessey in his 1986 foreword: This histoy, as now updated, together with the conference handbook, should continue to give all chief justices, especially those newly appointed, a better under- standing of the purposes, accomplishments, and activities of the Conference of Chief Jus- tices.

Robert F. Stephens August 2,1993 Introduction to 1993 Update

The National Status and Responsibilities with the chief justice of the United States and the of the Conference of Chief Justices Judicial Conference of the United States, the Con- ference of Chief Justices has gained membership for The Conference of Chief Justices has estab- state judges on various committees of the federal lished itself as the primary representative of conference, has joined in the creation and mainte- the state courts, providing them national leader- nance of the National Judicial Council, and has co- ship and a national voice. The chief justices, as sponsored significant joint gatherings of state and the heads of the judicial departments in their re- federal judges, such as the National Conference on spective states, come together in this organization State-Federal Judicial Relationships in Orlando, to represent the state courts in the same way as the Florida, in April 1992. Coordination between the National Governors Association represents the ex- federal and state courts at all levels and between ecutive branches of state government. That na- their research and education arms (the Federal Ju- tional status, progressively achieved over more than dicial Center and the National Center for State 40 years, has brought with it national responsibili- Courts) has grown steadily stronger. The two con- ties. The history of the Conference is the story of ferences have also attempted, to the extent possible, how it achieved its national status and how it has to coordinate their public policy positions, as, for discharged the accompanying responsibilities. example, on the question of the elimination or limi- The national status achieved by the Conference tation of diversity jurisdiction. of Chief Justices demonstrates itself in many ways. Third, the Conference of Chief Justices has be- First, the members of the Conference, along with come the principal spokesman for the state courts the members of the Conference of State Court Ad- before the legislative and executive branches of the ministrators (COSCA), elect the governing board federal government. In performing that role, the of the National Center for State Courts. The Na- Conference has the help of the Office of Govern- tional Center, in addition to acting as the ment Relations of the National Center for State Conference’s secretariat, now serves as the Courts. In recent years, the Conference has been Conference’s instrumentality for carrying out many active before Congress in regard to proposed legisla- of the responsibilities that go with leadership. By tion on product liability and judicial immunity is- resolution adopted in 1984, the Conference formally sues, among others, and has represented the state designated the National Center as the instrumen- courts before executive agencies in regard to state tality to provide the states services essential to the judicial pensions and drug issues affecting state operation of the state courts. The “ownership” by courts. the chief justices (and the state court administra- Fourth, the Conference’s national leadership tors) of the National Center for State Courts im- role is recognized in the organizational structure or poses a responsibility on the Conference of Chief the operations of many other court-related organi- Justices to obtain financial support for the National zations. The judicial members of the board of di- Center through the state charge program and rectors of the State Justice Institute (SJI) are ap- through appropriate federal funding. pointed by the president of the United States from Second, at the national level, the Conference a panel of nominees presented by the Conference of Chief Justices represents the state courts in their of Chief Justices, and, since its formation, the SJI relations with the federal court system. Working board has been chaired by a state chief justice- 7 8 CCJ HISTORY first, Chief Justice Torbert, of Alabama, and now tice and then makes those views known, as appro- Chief Justice Lucas, of California. The president priate, to the state courts of the country, to the other of the Conference of Chief Justices also sits on the branches of the state and federal governments, and governing board of The Council of State Govern- to the general public. Resolutions supporting the ments. By acts of Congress, one member of both use of cameras in the courtroom and urging the es- the National Commission on Judicial Discipline tablishment of commissions by each state to study and Removal and the Federal Courts Study Com- gender bias and minority concerns in the courts are mittee comes from the Conference. but two examples of the many policy statements of Fifth, the Conference of Chief Justices main- the Conference. tains liaisons with other organizations working for Ninth, the Conference of Chief Justices influ- the improvement of law and justice, such as the ences judicial policy in the states through the edu- American Bar Association's (ABA's) Judicial Ad- cational programs presented at its midyear and an- ministration Division (on such projects as its task nual meetings. Those meetings typically are at- force on the reduction of litigation cost and delay); tended by more than 40 of the state chief justices, the ABA's Central and East European Law Initia- several of whom at each meeting are new to their tive (CEELI); the National Conference of Com- positions. The CCJ annual meetings are held with missioners on Uniform State Laws (in drafting, for the annual meetings of COSCA so that each chief example, the Uniform Transfer of Litigation Act); justice and state court administrator can attend and the US. Secretary of State's Advisory Com- many of the CCJ educational programs. Those pro- mittee on Private International Law. grams run the gamut of the responsibilities of a state Sixth, the Conference has from time to time chief justice, from managing the entire state court organized or supported other efforts for improving system, to presiding over the state's highest appel- the state courts. Examples are the state trial judges late court, and on to the substantive decision mak- asbestos litigation committee, later renamed the ing and other responsibilities of that court. The mass tort litigation committee, on which two chief breadth of the education programs of the Confer- justices serve; the multidisciplinary coordinating ence is illustrated in the following analysis of the committee advising the National Center's Decision programs conducted by the Conference between Making Regarding Life-sustaining Medical Treat- 1986 and 1993. ment Project, chaired by a recently retired chief justice; and the National Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards (also presided over Analysis of Programs of the Conference by a chief justice). of Chief Justices, 1986-1993 Seventh, the Conference ofchiefJustices regu- larly sponsors or cosponsors national conferences The 16 meetings of the Conference of Chief Jus- of importance to the administration of justice in tices held from January 1986 through August 1993 the state courts, and in one instance it cosponsored covered a wide range of subjects falling into eight an international conference of distinction, the Fifth general categories. First, every meeting has received lnternational Appellate Judges Conference held in oral reports from a variety of organizations impor- Washington in September 1990. The national con- tant to the state courts, including the National Cen- ferences have dealt with the following subjects, ter for State Courts and the State Justice Institute. among others: reliance on state constitutions; court The Conference of Chief Justices also receives re- technology (three conferences), legislative-judicial ports from the National Judicial College and, from relations, court management (two conferences), time to time, the Judicial Administration Division civil jurisdiction of state and tribal courts, substance and other arms of the American Bar Association abuse and the courts, and state-federal judicial re- relative to such subjects as lawyer competence and lationships. professionalism, the model code of judicial conduct, Eighth, the Conference of Chief Justices, and lawyer disciplinary enforcement. through resolutions adopted at its midyear and an- Second, the Conference of Chief Justices has nual meetings, takes public positions upon policy had programs of broad, general educational value issues of significance to the administration of jus- to the state chief justices, including: 1. A panel discussion in San Juan on the po- 2. Gender, race, and ethnic bias in the courts; litical status of Puerto Rico; 3. Judicial ethics; 2. A moderated discussion (held in Au- 4. Judicial disciplinary systems; gust 1990), in which the attorney general 5. Judicial performance evaluation; of the United States and the minister of 6. Judicial selection; justice of the Soviet Union participated, 7. Judicial education: on “Rule of Law, Federalism and Sepa- 8. Futures planning; ration of Powers: The USA and the 9. Trial court performance standards; USSR”; 1o., Asbestos litigation; 3. Federal Indian law (held in Phoenix, 11. Child support enforcement; Arizona); and 12. Indigent defense; 4. The roots of American constitutionalism. 13. Alternative dispute resolution; 14. Emerging technology; Third, the Conference programs have addressed 15. Communication and motivation within broad sociolegal issues that affect state supreme court the state court system; decision making, including the following: 16. Law libraries; and 17. Public mental health care and the courts. 1. Decisions regarding medical treatment; 2. Permanency planning for abused and Sixth, other programs have concerned the re- neglected children; sponsibility that state chief justices and supreme 3. AIDS; courts have for supervision of the legal profession. 4. Tort reform; Included in this category are programs on: 5. First Amendment developments; 6. Canadian-American constitutionalism, 1. Lawyer competence; comparing decisions under the Cana- 2. Professionalism; dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with 3. Alcohol and other drug problems in the those under the US.Bill of Rights; legal profession; and 7. Drug issues affecting the courts; 4. Client security funds. 8. Conservatorships and guardianships; and 9. Punitive damages. Seventh, although the bulk of the work of the Conference of Chief Justices in relation to the fed- Fourth, the Conference has had several programs eral courts, the federal legislative and executive relating to the state chief justices’ responsibilities in branches, and Indian courts is done through its com- presiding over an appellate court and participating mittees and resolutions, the Conference has had sev- in its decision making. These programs have cov- eral programs falling within these categories, such ered: as:

1. The “nuts and bolts” of leading a state 1. Postconviction review in death penalty supreme court; cases; 2. Appellate time standards; and 2. Report on the Federal Courts Study 3. The relationships between the state and Commission; the federal constitutions. 3. Federal government drug policies; and 4. Jurisdiction of Indian courts. Fifth, a state chief justice’s responsibilities for managing the entire state court system have domi- Eighth, the Conference has had frequent pro- nated meetings during this eight-year period, includ- grams on the external relations of a state court sys- ing programs such as: tem with the media, with the state legislature and other budgeting agencies, and with the general pub- 1. The “nuts and bolts” of a chief justice’s lic. job in managing the court system; PART I

Conference of Chief Justices: The Organization Conference of Chief Justices: The Organization

The Beginning throughout the country. Through this meeting the judicial branch of state government also expressed In 1949, at a meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, the its intent to keep pace with the executive and leg- Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) was born. It islative departments in improving its processes and owed much initially to individuals such as Chief procedures. Justice Arthur T. Vanderbilt, of New Jersey, Chief The chairman of the Section of Judicial Ad- Justice Robert G. Simmons, of Nebraska, and Chief ministration, Judge Richard Hartshorne, of New Justice Laurance M. Hyde, of Missouri, its first chair- Jersey, together with Frank Bane, executive direc- man. The desirability of creating the organization tor of The Council of State Governments, secured had been discussed by leading state court judges at funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the meetings of the American Law Institute (ALI) and Davella Mills Foundation to pay the traveling ex- the American Bar Association (ABA). There penses of the chief justices to the first two meet- seemed to be many reasons why its formation would ings. By the time of the third annual meeting of profit the state courts and the people.~ they served. the Conference, in New York, the states themselves In 1948, both at the American Law Institute sent their chief justices, so foundation support was meeting in Washington, D.C., and at the ABA no longer needed. meeting in Seattle, the judges of many state supreme As early as 1952, the Conference of Chief Jus- courts met at luncheons presided over by Chief Jus- tices had become an independent and nationally tice Simmons and decided to organize a national respected organization. A 1952 report by The conference of chief justices with the assistance of Council of State Governments, then the secretariat the current members of the Section of Judicial Ad- for the Conference, heralded the importance of its ministration of the ABA. establishment and predicted a continued interest Chief Justice Hyde chaired the organizing com- in the national stature of the organization. mittee. It was decided to have the organizational meeting of the Conference in St. Louis just before The future of the Conference of Chief Justices the annual meeting of the American Bar Associa- is not subject to precise prediction. Its found- tion in September 1949. During the summer of ing, however, has been called the most impor- 1949, the organizing committee urged all chief jus- tant event in judicial administration in the last tices to attend the meeting in St. Louis both by decade or more. Judging from the accomplish- letters from the organizing committee and by invi- ments of the Judicial Conference of the United tations delivered in person by judges and lawyers of States and from the benefits of the Governors’ each state (recruited by members of the organizing Conference, it may be asserted that the Con- committee). Forty-four of the 48 states were repre- ference of Chief Justices will greatly influence sented at the first meeting, 32 by their chief justices the advancement of our judicial systems by pro- and 12 by associate justices designated by their chief viding a testing ground for new ideas and pro- justices as representatives of their courts. cedures which, when successful in one state, This first meeting reflected the conviction of may be adopted and adapted by judges and leg- the state judicial leaders that by pooling informa- islators in other states. It may thereby reassert tion on state judicial problems, they could improve the high status of the judiciary as an indepen- the organization and administration of justice dent, coequal branch of government, and as a 13 14 CCJ HISTORY

firm foundation of our democracy. (Report, the purpose stated in 1949) as “to provide an op- The Council of State Governments, March 3 1, portunity for consultation among the highest judi- 1952) cial officers of the several states, commonwealths, and territories concerning matters of importance in improving the administration of justice, rules and Membership and Leadership methods of procedure, and organization and opera- tion of state courts and judicial systems, and to make At its first meeting in 1949, the Conference of Chief recommendations and bring about improvements Justices elected Chieflustice Laurance M. Hyde, of on such matters.” Missouri, as chairman for 1949-50 and Chief Jus- Under the present bylaws, membership in the tice Edward W. Hudgins, of Virginia, as vice-chair- Conference is limited to the highest judicial offi- man. The other executive council members elected cial of each state of the United States; the District were chief justices John E. Hickman, of Texas, of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Charles Loring, of Minnesota, John T. Loughran, the territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the ofNew York, Stanley E. Qua, of Massachusetts, and Virgin Islands; and the Commonwealth of the Carl V. Weygandt, of Ohio. Articles of Organiza- Northern Mariana Islands. Members of the.Con- tion were adopted that called for an annual meet- ference also include the presiding judges of appeals ing at which the highest court of each state would courts that are the courts of last resort exclusively be represented by the chief justice or an associate in criminal matters; at present, Texas and Okla- justice designated by him. At the first meeting, a homa have such members. resolution was adopted accepting the offer of the The present board of directors is composed of Council of State Governments to serve as secre- five directors ex officio, president, president-elect, tariat for the Conference. (The Council served until first vice-president, second vice-president, and im- 1976, when the National Center for State Courts mediate past president; five directors elected by the became the secretariat.) members of the Conference at annual meetings; and The structure of the board of directors (until one director appointed by the president-elect at the 1983 called the executive council) and the criteria annual meeting from among present members or for membership have remained essentially the same former members who are still serving on the high- through the years, although the board is now larger. est court of a state, excluding those serving on a A resolution adopted at the first meeting provided court of last resort having jurisdiction limited to for the officers of the Conference to be a chairman criminal matters. The Conference of Chief Jus- and vice-chairman, each to be members and offic- tices is governed by this board of directors, which is ers of the executive council, elected bt each annual assisted by several standing and temporary commit- meeting with terms to expire at the adjournment of tees. the following annual meeting; two executive coun- cil members with terms expiring at the adjournment of the annual meeting in even-numbered years; Committee Structure and Meeting three executive council members with terms expir- Schedule ing at the adjournment of each annual meeting in odd-numbered years; and a secretary to the execu- From the beginning, the Conference of Chief Jus- tive council. tices has established committees to facilitate the In 1983 the Conference of Chief Justices was operations of the organization. A,resolutions com- incorporated as a Virginia nonstock corporation. mittee was established as early as 1949 and a nomi- The decision to incorporate grew out of the con- nating committee in 1950. Most of the substan- cern of several chief justices for protection against tive committees in the early years appear to have individual personal liability for actions or statements been established to plan particular segments of the made on behalf of the Conference. The articles education program at the annual meeting. The filed with the Virginia Corporation Commission meeting program committees were established later. stated the purpose of the organization (similar to The first substantive committee of significance, ence by the ABA. This arrangement was satisfac- e the committee on habeas corpus, was formed in tory for many years. It enabled the chief justices to 1952. For most of the years from 1952 to the late maintain ties with the American Bar Association 1980s, the Conference has had a committee on ha- and to reduce travel expenses by staying on for the beas corpus. In more recent years, the Conference’s ABA meetings. As the Conference grew stronger, committee on state-federal relations has been as- this close association with the ABA began to be signed that topic of enduring concern. Over the questioned. Finally, at the 1969 annual meeting, a years many other topics have recurred as subjects of resolution was adopted to amend the bylaws “to pro- education programs or have risen to the status of vide that the Conference, on the last day at any committee study, but most committees have been regular session, discuss invitations received for its terminated after a few years. next annual session, and by majority vote, deter- The bylaws provide that the Conference, the mine where the next Conference meeting shall be board of directors, and the president may establish held, this procedure to take effect commencing with committees for such purposes as each may deter- the 1970 meeting.” After adoption of this policy, mine necessary from time to time. The president however, it was not until the 1971 annual meeting appoints committee members and chairs to serve that the Conference actually met in a city other during his or her term of office. Membership is than that where the ABA was meeting. To this limited to members and former members of the Con- day the Conference continues generally to hold its ference. annual meeting just before the annual meeting of The Conference now has both standing and the ABA to facilitate travel for those chief justices temporary committees. The standing committees who wish to go on to that meeting. The present are permanently involved in ongoing operations and bylaws provide that the Conference hold an an- concerns, such as nominations, resolutions, site se- nual meeting in the summer and a midyear meet- lection, planning and programs, the National Cen- ing in the winter. The time and place of meetings ter for State Courts, and state-federal relations. In are determined by the Conference after recommen- e January 1992 a standing committee of past presi- dation by the site selection committee. dents was added, with a mission to build and main- The first midyear meeting took place in 1978. tain a close association between the Conference and The purpose of midyear meetings was greater focus its former leaders to gain the benefit of their collec- on the business agenda of the Conference. In fact, tive counsel and support. Other standing commit- however, the format of these meetings has been es- tees address substantive concerns of long-term sig- sentially the same as that of the annual meetings. nificance, such as delay reduction and discrimina- The midyear meetings are typically held just before tion in the courts. the ABA midwinter meetings, but customarily at a The temporary committees (sometimes called different location. Every third year, the task forces or special committees) are typically con- Conference’s midyear meeting is held in cerned with defined projects, often of great impor- Williamsburg at the headquarters of the National tance, that are expected to be completed in a lim- Center for State Courts. The Conference’s annual ited time. Examples are the committees on deci- meetings have been held with the annual meetings sions regarding medical treatment, on jurisdiction of the Conference of State Court Administrators in Indian country, and on drug issues affecting state since its establishment in 1955, but the midyear courts. meetings of the organizations have been held sepa- The original Articles of Organization called for rately. annual meetings of the Conference at times and places designated by the executive council. In the beginning the annual meeting of the Conference Relationship with the National Center of Chief Justices was held just a few days before, for State Courts and in the same place as, the annual meeting of the American Bar Association. Hotel and some social When the first National Conference on the Judi- function arrangements were made for the Confer- ciary, held in Williamsburg in March 197 1, decided 16 CCJ HISTORY that a national center of, by, and for the state courts The Conference of Chief Justices has played was desirable, the executive council of the Confer- major roles in bringing the National Center for State ence of Chief Justices was charged with the task of Courts to its present position as the premier educa- making that idea a reality. Chief Justice James S. tion, training, and research organization by, for, and Holden, of Vermont (chairman-elect of the Con- of the state courts. One of the Conference’s roles ference), and Chief Justice William s. Richardson, has been to support the Center’s state charge pro- of Hawaii, served as chairman and member, respec- gram (now a significant part of the Center’s fund- tively, of the steering committee that promptly ing) and to lobby Congress to provide federal fund- brought the National Center into existence by in- ing for state courts through LEAA and more recently corporation into the District of Columbia on June the State Justice Institute, as well as other federal 15, 1971. programs. As the “owners”of the National Center, The National Center for State Courts has the state chief justices and state court administra- evolved into the instrumentality of the Conference tors have a direct stake in the financial health of of Chief Justices. In 1976 the National Center took the National Center’s operations, which are so es- over from The Council of State Governments as sential to the state courts. Another of the secretariat for the Conference. It has since provided Conference’s roles has been the cosponsorship of a wide range of services, such as meeting planning, national conferences, symposia, and similar gather- professional staff support for Conference commit- ings convened and managed by the Center, such as tees, government relations service, and management the two national conferences on court management of national conferences sponsored by the Confer- held in San Diego (1981) and Phoenix (1990), and ence of Chief Justices. In 1980 the National Cen- the three national conferences on court technology ter was restructured to recognize more fully that the held in Chicago (1984), Denver (1988),and Dallas Conference of Chief Justices has the primary respon- (1992). sibility for its governance. The Conference, along with the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), became the fundamental governing body Relationships with Other Legal and for the National Center. The two conferences of Judicial Organizations the top court leadership of the states replaced the previous Council of State Court Representatives As mentioned earlier, the idea of a conference of (who in each state had been appointed by the chief chief justices had grown out of informal meetings of justice but frequently was not the chief justice) as the chief justices who attended meetings of the the authority to elect the board ofdirectors that gov- American Law Institute and American Bar Asso- erns the National Center. By further changes in ciation. From 1949 to 1955 some meetings ofCCJ the National Center’s bylaws, the president of the were held jointly with the Section of Judicial Ad- Conference of Chief Justices automatically becomes ministration of the ABA. In the years since this the chairperson of the board of the National Cen- close affiliation with the ABA was dissolved, the ter, and the Conference’s president, president-elect, Conference has maintained an interest in ABA and first vice-president are ex officio members of projects designed to strengthen and improve the ef- the Center’s board. (At the same time, the top three ficiency of court administration. It has continued officers of COSCA serve ex officio on that board, to maintain a professional affiliation with the ABA with the COSCA president being automatically the through cooperation on projects of mutual interest, vice-chairperson.) The president of the National such as the ABA Standards of Judicial Administra- Center in turn is regularly elected secretary and trea- tion and the CCJ task force on lawyer competence. surer of the Conference of Chief Justices. If one The Conference by resolution in 1992 urged chief were to draw a parallel between the not-for-profit justices to encourage membership and participation National Center and a business corporation, the state by their judges in the American Bar Association’s chief justices of this country, together with their state Judicial Administration Division and its several con- court administrators, would correlate to stockhold- ferences. In addition, the Conference of Chief Jus- ers “owning” the National Center. tices, as an affiliated organization, has a delegate in the ABA House of Delegates. 17

The Council of State Governments gave vital ence of Chief Justices meetings with their chief jus- assistance to the Conference of Chief Justices in its tices. From its beginning, the annual meetings of first 27 years. The Council provided many valu- COSCA have been held at the same time and place able services to CCJ and contributed to its strong as those of the Conference of Chief Justices. In the beginnings and attainment of national recognition. early years the administrators met separately but In addition to recording the activities of the Con- shared most of the social events with the chief jus- ference, the Council provided the necessary research tices. In 1960 the two organizations held their first needed by the Conference to draw conclusions and joint education session. Today the tradition ofjoint make recommendations concerning improvements annual meetings continues, with all social events in judicial administration. The Council of State and most education programs being held jointly. The Governments gathered and maintained some of the president of each conference regularly attends the first comprehensive data on the organization and midyear meeting of the other by invitation. practices of the state court systems. Since 1976 the The Conference of Chief Justices and COSCA Conference has maintained official contact with the have come to work more and more closely, a devel- Council’s work with leaders of state executive and opment that is highly appropriate in view of the * legislative branches through representation both on closely related responsibilities that the chief justice the Council’s board of directors and at key Council and the state court administrator (usually appointed meetings. by the chief justice) carry in each state. Currently, The Conference of Chief Justices has also had the Conference of Chief Justices has several joint a long relationship with the Conference of State committees with COSCA, for example, the stand- Court Administrators (COSCA), formerly the Na- ing committee on the National Center for State tional Conference of Court Administrative Offic- Courts, which serves as secretariat for both confer- ers (NCCAO). NCCAO was formed in 1955 as a ences, the committee on drug issues affecting state result of court administrators attending the Confer- courts, and the task force on judicial pension plans. PART I1

The Work of the Conference of Chief Justices The Work of the Conference of Chief Justices

Education Program the Conference discussed opinion writing and tech- niques for ensuring simplicity and clarity in rules of The education programs of the Conference of Chief appellate procedure. The chief justices also decided Justices serve several purposes. They are a means that a comprehensive factual analysis of the orga- of information exchange about court operations nization and procedures of the state court systems among the states; a forum for discussion of prob- was essential to attaining broad improvements in lems and (and their solutions) that affect the ad- judicial administration. The Council of State Gov- ministration of justice in the state courts, a vehicle ernments undertook this study, beginning with ap- for keeping the chiefjustices up-to-date on national pellate court organization, and their reports were events and changes in federal law that affect state the focal point of discussion and policymaking for courts, and a means of intellectual stimulation on the next few meetings. These reports included, for topics of interest to the chief justices. each state court system, information about the Early education programs consisted primarily method of selection, tenure, compensation, and of informal discussion in which the chief justices retirement of judges; court jurisdiction and proce- shared information about their experiences in their dure; type of court administration; number of judges; own courts. In addition to these discussion ses- and rule-making authority. sions, during the first six years some joint sessions The theme of the third annual conference was were held with the Section of Judicial Administra- methods of reducing appellate costs and delays. At tion of the ABA. But within the first decade of this meeting, the importance of state judicial con- the Conference, education programs at the annual ferences was discussed. It was concluded that, de- meetings began to form the basis for policy posi- spite the difficulties of organizing these conferences tions and activities. in many states, their possible contributions to im- Conference records indicate that in its early provement of the administration of justice had suf- years program planning was handled by commit- ficient value to warrant further efforts toward es- tees responsible for planning a program segment tablishing and adequately financing them. Another on a particular topic. It was not long, however, major outcome of this meeting was the adoption of until the discussion format was replaced by panel a 16-point resolution concerning improvement of presentations and lectures. In recent years, small the organization and operation of the nation’s lo- group discussions have been used. CCJ members cal courts of first instance. This resolution was share information through participation in panel adopted as a statement of principles and goals to- discussions in which they contribute information ward which all states should work. about events in their own states. The other educa- At the fourth annual meeting, one of the main tion purposes4iscussion of problems and solutions topics was the use of the federal writ of habeas cor- and provision of information on current events of pus. A panel discussion showed that under the ex- professional or personal interest-are served by the panded concept of the use of the writ of habeas panel and lecture formats with opportunities for corpus, state supreme court action could be rendered discussion from the floor. null and void by an inferior federal court, that the While the Conference education programs over denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme the years have covered a wide range of topics, there Court meant very little as far as the finality of state have been recurring themes. At the first meeting, court convictions was concerned, and that federal 21 22 CCJ HISTORY

and state courts were becoming clogged with thou- the Conference’s position on pending or proposed sands of groundless claims. Out of that discussion federal legislation affecting the state court. emerged the appointment of the Conference’s first The policy positions adopted by the Confer- committee on habeas corpus and its first resolution ence of Chief Justices have received widespread at- on the topic. tention through news releases to national media Essentially all of the topics discussed at the first and legal publications, by transmittal of resolutions five annual meetings of the Conference of Chief to appropriate members of Congress, through tes- Justices have been recurrent themes for education timony before congressional committees and pre- programs through the years. They are: sentations to federal executive agencies, and through publications of The Council of State Gov- appellate procedure ernments and the National Center for State Courts. state court administration Positions taken by the Conference over the court reorganization years have focused on the following issues, among standards of judicial administration others: intergovernmental relations federal-state relations, including habeas corpus habeas corpus professional discipline of lawyers and judges federal funding for state court systems lawyer competence and judicial performance State Justice Institute evaluation judicial immunity court-community relations efficiency of the court system reduction of delay and excessive backlog in the Education programs on these topics have courts spawned policy positions and special task forces and national time standards for case processing committees on issues of foremost concern to the increasing the understanding of the general Conference. public about the court system and its From time to time, education programs at an- operations nual and midyear meetings have included reviews court-comm uni ty relations of recent developments in substantive and proce- law-related education dural law and of recent United States Supreme Court judicial education decisions. The programs also have occasionally dealt minority or gender bias in the courts with topics of personal interest to the chief justices, cameras in the courtroom such as current health care practices and world af- child support enforcement fairs. evaluation of judicial performance

The accomplishments of the Conference of Policy Positions Chief Justices in establishing national policy an- cerning the state court systems have been signifi- As mentioned earlier, policy positions of the Con- cant. Conference representatives are often called ference of Chief Justices are generally formulated upon to testify before congressional committees following presentations and discussions on topics of and, on a number of occasions, they have influ- concern at meetings or the report of a committee of enced federal legislation affecting state courts. The the Conference. These positions take the form of Conference also has developed an effective work- resolutions adopted at annual and midyear meet- ing relationship with the Judicial Conference of ings. In some cases a policy position is fully stated the United States. In 1982 the relationship was in a resolution, while in other cases a resolution formalized with the appointment of four state may call for further study of an issue, for the filing judges, two of them chief justices, to a new sub- of an amicus brief, or for letters to be written to committee on federal-state relations of the Judicial Congress. Some resolutions set forth standards or Conference. endorsements of standards, while others set forth 23

Conference resolutions setting forth the views courts in dealing with all three branches of the fed- of the chief justices on issues affecting the efficient eral government has become one of its paramount operation of the courts have also alerted the public, activities. Some of the most valuable work of the as well as those in the courts and legal professions, Conference has been done to establish ongoing re- to the importance of these issues. On occasion, CCJ lations with all three branches of the federal gov- also endorses worthy efforts for state court improve- ernment to work steadily for the improvement of ments undertaken by other groups and thereby gain the administration of justice in the state courts. for them needed support from state court personnel Since 1976 the Conference has benefited from the and the public. For example, the Conference sug- presence in Washington of the National Center for gested that the National Conference of Commis- State Courts, which has actively served as liaison sioners on Uniform State Laws draft a uniform trans- for the chief justices, particularly with the Congress fer of jurisdiction act and then in 1993 urged its and the executive agencies. adoption by the legislatures of several states. The In regard to Congress, CCJ first monitors bills Conference in 1990 endorsed the Law School Ad- that will affect state courts. The Conference stud- mission Council’s Bar Passage Study and in 1983 ies those bills and takes positions on them. Two supported the ABqlJAD in revising and updating examples of proposed legislation opposed by the the Standards of Judicial Administration. Conference are (1 ) products liability statutes that The Conference of Chief Justicesalso has voiced would preempt state tort law in product liability cases a number of concerns and outlined its position on and substitute a federal law binding on state judi- them by filing amicus briefs in the United States cial proceedings and (2) the Violence Against Supreme Court. In Chandler v. Flonda449 U.S. 560 Women Act creating a federal civil cause of action (1981), the Conference sought to preserve the au- that would impair the ability of state courts to man- thority of state courts to allow experimental televi- age criminal and family law matters traditionally sion coverage of criminal courts. An amicus brief entrusted to them. The Conference has frequently was filed, on behalf of the Conference, in Supreme sponsored or cosponsored legislation supporting the Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United state courts. Important legislation in this area in- States, Inc. 446 U.S. 719 (1980) contesting a fed- volves federal funding for state courts. Other ex- eral court order to a state court to pay attorney fees amples are the elimination or limitation of federal arising from a §1983 law suit. In the case of District diversity jurisdiction, the restoration of judicial im- of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feuman and Hickey munity after PuUiam v. AUen, and the limitation of 460 U.S. 462 (1983), the Conference of Chief Jus- federal habeas corpus. The chief justices make their tices asked the Supreme Court to bar federal court policy positions known through testimony before intrusion into decisions affecting admissions to the congressional committees, through correspondence bar of state court systems. In the case of Guys with individual members of the House and Senate, Pulhm, Magistrate for the County of Culpeper, Vir- and through personal meetings with legislators and ginia v. Richard R. Allen and Jessie W. Nickolson 466 their staffs. U.S. 522 (1984), the Conference urged reversal of The Conference also provides a voice for the the decision of the court of appeals and supported state courts before executive agencies of the federal the position of the petitioner that the assessment of government. For example, the Conference leader- attorney fees was not appropriate. ship has been actively involved in meetings with the attorney general, the drug czar, and others in- volved in the war on drugs to establish appropriate State Court Relations with the Federal participation by state courts in federal grant pro- Government grams. It has actively participated with other inter- ested groups of public officials in the not-yet-effec- As the Conference of Chief Justices has achieved a tive Internal Revenue Service’s Nondiscrimination position of national leadership, particularly in the Rules for Retirement Plans and has established a last 15 to 20 years, its representation of the state task force of chief justices for liaison with the White 24 CCJ HISTORY

House. In 1993 the Conference president created a Violence Against Women Act, and it has supported committee on state judicial/federal executive liai- the state conference in its effort to restore judicial son with the particular charge of establishing and immunity after PuUiam v. Akn. At the same time, maintaining a line of communication between the the state conference has supported such positions White House and the Conference. of the U.S. conference as eliminating or limiting Finally, and perhaps most significant, the Con- federal diversity jurisdiction. ference of Chief Justices has built an effective work- The work of the Conference of Chief Justices ing relationship with the federal courts at the na- in the field of state-federal relations gained recog- tional level. Many specific examples come to mind. nition of the importance and worth of the state In 1990, on an idea originated by the Conference, courts and a commitment on both sides to cooper- the National Judicial Council on State and Federal ate for the greater good of both systems. Courts came into existence, composed of four state chief justices and four federal judges and cochaired by a chief justice and a federal judge. The National Conference Committees Council has the missions of increasing the number and effectiveness of the federal-state judicial coun- Standing committees of the Conference have been cils in the several states and otherwise developing established to facilitate the operation of the organi- mechanisms for moving toward Hamilton’s vision zation; for example, committees on midyear and an- in The Federalist No. 81 that the federal and state nual meeting programs, nominations, and site se- courts are “one whole.” The Judicial Conference of lection. Other standing committees have been cre- the United States has also reached out to the Con- ated to address areas of ongoing interest to the chief ference of Chief Justices in a variety of valuable ways. justices. Temporary committees have been formed Four state judges sit on the federal-state jurisdiction to study special topics of concern. The increased committee of the Judicial Conference of the United number and activity of committees formed since States, and previously sat on the comparable sub- 1976 required participation on the part of commit- committee on federal-state relations. Because fed- tee members, particularly the committee chairper- eral rules serve as a model for many states’ rules of sons. This increased activity and productivity was court procedure, state judges sit on some of the fed- made possible when the National Center for State eral rules.committees. A chief justice was appointed Courts began to provide secretariat services to the by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the federal Conference in 1976. courts study committee created by Congress in the While the composition and jurisdiction ofCon- late 1980s. The Conference of Chief Justices and ference committees has varied depending on the the Judicial Conference of the United States met significance of an issue at a particular time, major jointly for the first time on Monday, September 10, committee activity can be categorized under the sub- 1990, to address common problems of the two court jects discussed in the following pages. systems. During the rest of that same week, they had the valuable experience of serving as the joint Habeas Corpus hosts of the Fifth International Appellate Judges Conference. The National Center for State Courts Habeas corpus has been the most persistently de- and its research and training counterpart, the Fed- bated topic on state-federal relations in the history eral Judicial Center, are coordinating efforts in fields of the Conference. In fact, throughout most of the of joint interest. Over the years the Conference of Conference’slifetime there has been a separate com- Chief Justices and the Judicial Conference of the mittee on habeas corpus. The effect on the rela- United States have, to a very large extent, taken tionships between the federal and state court sys- parallel positions on legislation pending in Congress. tems stemming from the growth in the number of For example, the U.S. conference has joined the habeas corpus petitions in the federal district courts state conference in opposing legislation that would was first formally considered at the 1952 annual invade the traditional bailiwick of the state courts, meeting in San Francisco. At that meeting, a reso- such as the civil cause of action provision of the lution was passed that stated the concern of the ’ 25

Conference as follows: “By reason of certain prin- tutional rights have been fully protected.” In con- ciples enunciated in certain recent federal decisions, clusion he said, “The need for federal habeas cor- a person whose conviction in a criminal proceed- pus relief can be largely eliminated by the state ing in a state court has thereafter been affirmed by courts themselves, and efforts in pursuit of this im- the highest court of that state, and whose petition portant goal should be promoted by both state and for a review of the state court’s proceedings has been federal policy.’’ (Washington Memurandurn, June 14, denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, 1978.) may nevertheless obtain from a federal district judge While it has thus far been unsuccessful, the or cpurt, under writ of habeas corpus, new, inde- Conference continues to inform appropriate con- pendent, and successive hearings based upon a peti- gressional committees of its strong and continuing tion supported only by the oath of the petitioner support for proposed legislation to limit federal ha- and containing only such statement of facts as were, beas corpus review of state convictions. or could have been, presented in the original pro- At its midyear meeting in 1990, the Confer- ceedings in the state courts.” The chief justices re- ence supported the recommendations of the Ad Hoc solved that orderly federal procedure under our dual Committee on Federal Habeas Corpus in Capital system of government should require that a final Cases of the Judicial Conference of the United judgment of the state’s highest court “be subject to States (the Powell commission), which the resolu- review or reversal only by the Supreme Court of the tion noted “would promote finality in capital cases United States.’’ The resolution empowered the without jeopardizing the rights of persons with a chairman of the Conference to appoint a special colorable claim of factual innocence.” The same committee to study the matter. This resolution and resolution opposed the majority report of the ABA the appointment of a committee began a discussion criminal justice section and congressional propos- among the leaders of the state and federal courts, as als based on that report, stating that delay in capi- well as the Congress of the United States and vari- tal cases would be thereby effectively increased ous legal and judicial organizations, that has lasted rather than reduced. Again, at its annual meeting m to this day. This habeas corpus committee contin- in 1991, CCJ reaffirmed its long-standing position ued until 1975. In 1980 it once again rose to the in support of limiting federal habeas corpus in death level of a special committee when the committee penalty cases when state proceedings have rendered on federal review of state court convictions was es- a full and fair adjudication of the claim. At the tablished. More recently, the state-federal relations same time, the chief justices have urged the judi- committee has taken over responsibility for the sub- cial leaders of each state to assure that proper legal ject. representation is provided for death-row inmates. Since 1952, habeas corpus has been discussed in some form at almost every meeting of the Con- State~FederuIRelations ference, and numerous resolutions relative to it have been adopted. Many of the resolutions have con- Most of the significant efforts of CC] in the area of cerned pending federal legislation with regard to state-federal relations have been accomplished habeas corpus review. It has been the responsibility through the state-federal relations committee, first of the habeas corpus committee or the state-federal established in 1957, and through other special com- relations committee to write letters, arrange for per- mittees and task forces that have been created as a sonal meetings with members of Congress, and tes- result of issues identified by this committee. tify before congressional subcommittees. All these A resolution adopted at the ninth annual meet- communications have relayed the policy of CCJ, ing of the chief justices in New York City directed which was stated on one occasion by the chairman the chairman of the Conference to appoint a spe- of the state-federal relations committee as follows: cial committee “to examine the role of the judi- “Our state court systems are able and willing to pro- ciary as it affects the distribution of powers between vide needed relief to the federal court system” by the states and the federal government, including providing “adequate review of state court criminal the time-honored control of the privilege of admis- proceedings to assure that federally defined consti- sion to the bar and practice of law in each of the 26 CC] HISTORY

several states; and further, that the special commit- National Center for State Courts. Resolutions tee make recommendations for achieving sound and passed at the 1973 and 1974 meetings gave the spe- appropriate relationships.” The specific example cial committee responsibility for developing pro- given in that 1957 resolution of an issue expected posals for long-term federal funding for the National to arise in the area of state-federal relations does Center for State Courts, as well as for state court not adequately suggest the breadth or the large vol- systems themselves. (Annual Meeting Summaries, ume of issues dealt with regularly by the state-fed- 1972, 1973, 1974.) era1 relations committee. This is one of CCJ’s busi- The work of this committee was the beginning est committees. It has a large agenda at every meet- ofan uphill battle toward reauthorization of LEAA ing and does a great deal of work between the meet- with expanded provisions for the state courts. The ings: Studies by this committee generate many of inclusion of positions advocated by the Conference the resolutions adopted by the Conference, which, of Chief Justices in the 1976 LEAA Reauthoriza- in turn, require the committee to arrange for CCJ tion Act was a major accomplishment. For the representatives to appear before Congress to pro- first time Congress recognized that in the disburse- mote CCJ policy positions. ment of LEAA funds recognition should be given Examples of resolutions the Conference has the state courts as a separate branch of government. acted upon are: Amendments to the LEAA Reauthorization Act support for the elimination of federal diversity mandated membership by the chief justice in each jurisdiction; state’s planning agency that administered the LEAA opposition to legislative proposals to curtail the funds, separate judicial branch planning commit- jurisdiction of the federal courts in busing, tees, and allocation of an adequate share of funds abortion, and school prayer cases; to judicial branch programs. support for the creation of a commission to study After passage of the LEAA Reauthorization Act the allocation of jurisdiction between in 1976, many proposals were considered by Con- the federal and state court systems; gress for further reorganization of LEAA; the Con- opposition to attempts by the Federal Trade ference took positions on these proposals and made Commission to regulate the activities of its own recommendations. In a statement forwarded state bar associations; to the attorney general in August 1977, the Con- opposition to legislation that would preempt ference recommended that the leadership of state state tort law in the field of products liabil- court systems play a key role in any revised pro- ity and substitute a federal law binding on gram of federal assistance to state and local crimi- state judicial proceedings; and nal justice systems. opposition to a section of the proposed Violence Against Women Act creating a federal State Justice Institute (SJI) Cause of action in the area of criminal and family law matters traditionally entrusted Frustrated with LEAA funding, in 1978 the Con- to the states. ference of Chief Justices authorized a task force for a state court improvement bill. Including state court administrators as well as chief justices, the task force Funding for State Courts was to make recommendations on “problems of al- hwEnforcement Assistance Administration location of jurisdiction between state and federal (LEU) courts. . . (and) methods by which federal funding In the last two decades the Conference of Chief of efforts to improve the administration of justice Justices has made a major effort through the state- in the several states can be accomplished without federal relations committee and other special com- sacrifice of the independence of state judicial sys- mittees to obtain appropriate federal funding for tems.” state courts. At the 1978 meeting, another resolution A special committee on federal funding of state adopted by the Conference set forth the basic prin- courts was established in 1972 at the request of the ciples for building relationships with the federal gov- 27

ernment and that the Conference agreed should to be called the State Justice Institute that would e underlie any federal program of assistance to state administer a national discretionary grant program. court systems. Those principles, in summary, called It would not be an operating agency, but would have for a separate federal program directed specifically a small staff and pursue its objective through grants to the needs of state judiciaries and free from ex- to state and local courts, to organizations providing ecutive branch control at both the federal and state services to state court systems, as well as to univer- levels. sities and other agencies with expertise in judicial In its final report to the Conference in the affairs. The proposed corporation would have the spring of 1979, the task force concluded that “the authority to fund research, demonstration, clearing- federal government and Congress in particular has house, judicial education, training, technical assis- a very direct interest in the quality of justice in tance, and evaluation programs and to participate state courts” for the following reasons: in joint projects with other agencies. Full author- ity for operation of the corporation, including es- There is a federal interest in the quality tablishment of policy and funding priorities, would of justice as there is in the quality of health be vested in a board of directors, the majority of care and in the quality of the educational sys- whom would be state court officials, appointed by tem. Indeed, the achievement offair and equal the U.S. president and confirmed by the Senate. as well as effective justice is an essential char- After preliminary hearings, the State Justice Insti- acteristic of this society. tute Act of 1979 was introduced in both the House State courts share with federal courts, un- and Senate in March of 1980. der the Constitution, the obligation to enforce While this proposed act had many supporters the Constitution and the laws of the United in the judiciary, including the chief justice of the States made in pursuance thereof. United States, it was not an instant success in Con- The Congress has imposed additional spe- gress. In 1979 the task force was succeeded by the cific burdens on the state judiciaries, burdens State Justice Institute committee, which was charged which must be effectively carried out if impor- with implementing the task force recommendations. tant congressional policy objectives are to be After six years of effort by that committee, other achieved. members of the Conference, the National Center’s The effort to maintain high quality jus- Washington liaison, and key senators and congress- tice in the federal courts has led to an increas- men, the State Justice Institute Act was signed into ing effort to limit the caseload of the federal law on November 9, 1984 (Title I1 of Public Law courts by giving increased responsibility to the 98-620). Again, after extensive Conference effort, state courts. an appropriation for the Institute was obtained for The congressional desire to achieve fiscal year 1985-86 and a request made for a 1986- prompt justice in the federal courts through 87 appropriation. Much of the success of the Con- the implementation of the Speedy Trial Act ference in securing passage of the State Justice In- of 1974 has resulted in a limiting of the num- stitute Act is owed to Senator Howell Heflin, of ber of criminal and civil cases being disposed Alabama, the former chief justice of that state, who of in federal court, with a consequent increased was an original sponsor of the bill in 1980 and a criminal and civil caseload in the state courts. strong supporter throughout the process. Over a The decisions of the United States Su- seven-year period former chief justice Robert Ut- preme Court very greatly increased the proce- ter, of the state of Washington, as chairman of the dural due process protections which must be CCJ State Justice Institute committee, flew over afforded a criminal defendant, thus making it 100,000 miles on behalf of the Conference in sup- increasingly important that state judiciaries are port of the legislation. He had the effective assis- equipped to implement those decisions if the tance of the CCJ’s Washington liaison and of many important liberty interests are to be achieved. of the chief justices. . SJI was finally incorporated in the state of Vir- The task force proposed an independent agency ginia on September 29,1986. The first 1 1-member 28 . CCJ HISTORY

SI1 board, appointed by the president of the United Judicial Immunity States, included Chief Justice Torbert, of Alabama, as chairman and Chief Justice Erickstad, of North The Conference has addressed the issue of judicial Dakota, former chief justice Cameron, of Arizona, immunity in two ways. First, it studied insurance and retired chief judge Cooke, of New York, as well for judges, and second, it sought a legislative solu- as three other state judges and a state court adminis- tion to the problem. Judicial immunity has been trator. The organization of SJI did not, however, the subject of studies by several Conference com- end the need for action by the Conference of Chief mittees-the state-federal relations committee, an Justices in its support. The Conference has main- insurance coverage committee, and currently a task tained a continuous legislative effort to obtain ade- force to prepare a report on Pulliam v. AUen. quate annual appropriations for SJI and the exten- The insurance coverage committee, appointed sion (in 1988 and 1992) of its congressional autho- in 1981, studied the availability of liability insur- rization. Under the SJI Act, the Conference has ance for judges and polled the Conference on the also had the continuing responsibility for sending subjects of lawsuits filed against judges and insur- to the White House nominations for the four state ance coverage. court judicial seats on the SJI board, as well as the The task force to study Pulliam was established nomination of a state court administrator on the in 1984 pursuant to a resolution proposed by the SI1 board. state-federal relations committee. That same reso. The annual SJl appropriation has never ex- lution urged Congress to amend 42 U.S.C. 61988 ceeded $13.5 million, but the SJI under the leader- to exempt state judges from fee awards for “judicial” ship ofchief Justice Torbert and, after 1991, of Chief actions challenged under the federal civil rights act, Justice Lucas, of California, has made excellent use 42 U.S.C.81983, and called on the Judicial Confer- of those funds for the improvement of the adminis- ence of the United States to consider problems posed tration of justice in the state courts. Many of the by Pulliam and to support efforts to amend 61988. projects and conferences sponsored or endorsed by The next year the Conference amended its legisla- the Conference were possible only with SJl grants. tive policy position on judicial immunity to cover Two of those grants were of particular significance all “official” actions rather than only “judicial” ac- in building an effective working relationship be- tions. The task force conducted a national survey tween the state courts and the federal court system. in 1985 and updated it in 1986 to learn the number On Monday, September 10, 1990, the Conference ofcases filed against judges in the wake of thePuUiam of Chief Justices met for the first time ever with the decision. Judicial Conference of the United States and, for Early in 1986 the chairman of the task force the rest of that week, cosponsored with its federal testified at Senate hearings concerning the counterpart the Fifth International Appellate Judges Conference’s position on the issue. He spoke in fa- Conference attended by more than 90 chief justices vor of legislation that would exempt judges from fee of foreign countries. CCJ’s participation was made awards in cases challenging judicial actions and of- possible by a $100,000 grant from SJI toward the ficial actions for the following reasons: 1) Broad expenses of that week’s meetings. A second SJI judicial immunity is essential to the independence funded project, the April 1992 National Conference that is at the heart of the judicial function. 2) The on State-Federal Judicial Relationships, brought to- threat of attorney fee awards against judges is as chill- gether over 300 state and federal judges as well as ing to the integrity of the judicial process as the award legal scholars, lawyers, and others to identify the of direct damages would be. 3) Many fee awards most pressing problems affecting the relations be- against judges stem from good faith application of tween the two court systems and to establish an laws not previously declared invalid by any court. agenda for addressing them. 4) In unsettled areas of the law, the threat of attor- In sum, the history of the State Justice Institute ney fee awards will affect, in a substantial way, the is a happy story of accomplishment by the Confer- true exercise of judicial independence and thus de- ence of Chief Justices, aided by many other persons ter judges from enforcing the law. 5) Attorney fee and groups concerned with the state courts. awards against judges are not necessary to protect 29 civil rights because state courts can be counted on council held its organizing meeting in Washington to fairly apply the law (State Court Journal, winter on May 17, 1983, and met on several other occa- 1986, p. 2). sions during 1984 and 1985. The purpose of the Since 1986 the Conference of Chief Justices has council is to review lawyer competence programs, continued to urge the Congress to reverse PuUlam, to encourage coordination and evaluation of new an effort that has had the earnest assistance of the in it ia t i ves, to encourage infor ma t ion exchange ABA's Judicial Administration Division, the Judi- among its members and to maintain a clearinghouse cial Conference of the United States, the American on lawyer competence, to advise CCJ of problems Judges Association, and other judicial groups. The that warrant its attention and of programs that merit principal opposition has come from the American its support, and to develop a model state lawyer com- Civil Liberties Union and the civil rights bar. At petence program. Through its meetings and coop- each session bills that would restrict fee awards eration with the ABA's Consortium on Professional against judges have been presented, some of which Competence, the council has substantially met its would also restrict injunctive relief against judges. wider objectives, but it has not produced a model Although judicial immunity bills have been reported plan. out of committee on a few occasions, they have failed At its 1985 annual meeting in Lexington, Ken- to get favorable action in either the House or Sen- tucky, the Conference formed a committee on law- ate. The Conference, however, continues to give a yer competence to prepare the model plan and to high priority to restoring traditional judicial immu- draft a concise body of standards for consideration nity. at the 1986 annual meeting in Omaha. The model plan was approved by the Conference at the 1986 Lawyer Competence and Professionalism annual meeting. In 1987 the committee was renamed the com- The Conference of Chief Justices for many years has mittee on professionalism and lawyer competence maintained a strong interest in improving lawyer to reflect its broader mandate and in 1990 was made performance. This concern flows from the supervi- a permanent standing committee. It continues to sory role of state supreme courts over bar admissions monitor the efforts of the American Bar Associa- and attorney conduct. In response to public criti- tion and other groups to enhance lawyer profession- cism of bar performance, the Conference has exam- alism and competence and serves as a conduit to ined the effect of law school clinical programs upon each of the chief justices on worthwhile programs the quality of professional performance and the ef- in other states. The 1994 midyear meeting of the fectiveness of bar examinations as forecasters of bar Conference is scheduled to have an educational pro- performance. gram on the project sponsored by the Georgia Su- Following a national conference on enhancing preme Court requiring every lawyer to have at least the competence of lawyers sponsored in 1981 by the one hour annually of continuing legal education in ALI-ABA Committee on Professional Education, professionalism. the Conference formed a task force on lawyer com- petence to explore competence-related issues. The Jurisdiction in Indian Country task force examined a variety of programs and brought legal educators and bar leaders together to At its annual meeting in 1985, the Conference of share their experiences. The task force submitted a Chief Justices directed its president to create a com- literature review and report to CCJ during its an- mittee to study the problems involving civil juris- nual meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in 1982. diction within Indian country. The seriousness of CCJ adopted the conclusions and recommendations those problems was highlighted by two divided opin- of the report and authorized the formation of a coor- ions of the United States Supreme Court in a case dinating council on lawyer competence to broaden raising the issue of whether a North Dakota state the work of the task force. court had subject matter jurisdiction over a civil The membership of the coordinating council is action arising between an Indian tribe and a non- drawn from the bench, the bar, and academia. The 30 CCl HISTORY

Indian within an Indian reservation.’ In that case, flict to Common Ground” and attended by 240 the three affiliated tribes ofNorth Dakota sued Wold people, was considered by all a great success. Engineering, a non-Indian defendant, for design- At its 1992 annual meeting, the Conference ing and constructing an allegedly defective water urged SJI funding for a second national conference system for the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. modeled on that held in Seattle in 1991, as well as Contrary to the view of the North Dakota Supreme a smaller closed-invitation leadership conference to Court, the United States Supreme Court held that develop a national agenda for preventing and re- the state trial court did have jurisdiction in the ac- solving both civil and criminal disputes at local, tion by Indians against non-Indians. state, and federal levels. The SJI funded only the It was originally thought that a solution to the leadership conference with a grant of $100,000. myriad jurisdictional problems to be addressed by That leadership conference is scheduled to be held the committee might well be through federal legis- in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in September 1993. lation or joint efforts of the CCJ and the Judicial In 1992 the committee was renamed the com- Conference of the United States. It is now gener- mittee on jurisdiction in Indian country to reflect ally accepted that readier solutions come through the broadening of its mandate to include criminal cooperation between tribes and the tribal courts, on jurisdiction. Additional forums to clarify the au- the one hand, and the state government and state thority of state and tribal courts were held in South courts, on the other, to find mutual grounds for agree- Dakota and Michigan. The South Dakota forum ment and to give reciprocal recognition to each concentrated on the coordination of civil and In- other’s court judgments through comity. Since the dian child welfare cases between the two court sys- committee was created, encouraging progress has tems. The Michigan forum proposed various court been made in improving relations between tribal rules for each court system for giving credence to and state courts, one step at a time. the judgments of the other system. As a result of an enlightening panel discussion From the beginning, a coordinating council of on the issue of civil jurisdiction within Indian coun- state and Indian judges, a federal judge, law profes- try at the 1987 annual meeting, the Conference, by sors, and lawyers has guided the various phases of resolution, asked the National Center for State these efforts. The chair has been former chief jus- Courts to seek SJI funding for an in-depth study of tice Pearson, of Washington State. the possibility of convening a national conference on tribal-state court relations. In January 1989, the Combating Discrimination in the Courts National Center received its first SJI grant to con- duct phase one, a study to identify the primary types At its midyear meeting in 1981, the Conference of of disputed jurisdiction cases through surveys and Chief Justices adopted a comprehensive resolution legal research. Later in 1989, the National Center on equal employment opportunity and affirmative received another SJI grant for phase two, which was action in the state courts. Specifically, it urged state to conduct demonstration forums in three states to judicial leaders to encourage the full and equal clarify the respective authority of the state and tribal participation of women and minority group mem- court systems. Arizona, Oklahoma, and Washing- bers in the work of the courts and called upon offi- ton were selected as those states. Subsequently, a cials in the legislative and executive branches who third SJI grant funded a national conference to dis- select judges, as well as the members of judicial se- cuss and analyze the lessons learned from the first lection commissions or advisory groups, to incor- two grants. That conference, held in Seattle on porate affirmative action values as they decide whom June 30-July 2, 1991, under the theme “From Con- to recommend or appoint to judgeships.

’ Three Afilrnred Tribes v. Wold Engineering, 321 N.W. 2d SI0 (N.D. 1982), artgranted, 461 U.S. 904,103 S. Ct 1872,76 L. Ed. 2d 805 (1983), vacated and remanded, 467 U.S.138,104 S. Ct 2267,81 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1984);on remand Three AffilicuedTriber,364 N.W. 2d 98 (N.D. 1985), cert granted, 474 US.900, 106 S. Ct. 270,88 L. Ed. 2d 224 (1985); judgment reversed, 476 US. 877, 106 S. CL 2305,90 L. Ed. 2d 881 (1986) ; on remand Three Affiliated Triber, 392 N.W 2d 87 (N.D. 1986). 31

In 1986 the Conference created a committee evaluation and again included the subject on its on discrimination in the courts and two years later education program for the 1986 annual meeting. made that committee a permanent one. At its 1988 annual meeting, the Conference urged each chief Judicial Education @idelines justice to address gender bias and minority concerns in the state courts and to create separate task forces The Conference of Chief Justices also has been in- devoted to the study of gender bias and minority terested in improving judicial performance through concerns in the court system. The committee moni- education. In 1976 it established a judicial educa- tored the results of the task forces set up in the sev- tion committee to develop appropriate guidelines. eral states and at the 1993 midyear meeting urged At the 1984 midyear meeting the committee rec- each chief justice to establish a task force to remedy ommended specific guidelines for effective programs any discrimination found by the studies and to of judicial education. These guidelines provide for implement their recommendations. the establishment of programs for new judicial of- In its work the CCJ committee on discrimina- ficers to instruct them in their duties, required at- tion in the courts has had the active cooperation of tendance by all judges at a program of judicial or the counterpart COSCA committee on equality in legal education for a minimum of 40 hours at least the courts. every three years, educational leave with compen- From time to time the CCJ committee has re- sation for travel and living expenses; educational viewed documents such as the Code on Judicial leave for judicial officers who serve as faculty, and Conduct and the Trial Court Performance Standards establishment of a judicial education board in each to make pertinent suggestions. For example, the state to determine education policy. These guide- committee made specific suggestions for inclusion lines demonstrate the commitment of the Confer- of language in the proposed Trial Court Performance ence to the need for effective judicial education pro- Standards concerning equal access and fair treat- grams. ment for minorities and women. Reliance on State Constitutions Judicial Performance Evaluation In 1982 a committee was established to study the In 1982 the Conference ofChiefJustices established subject of reliance on state constitutions and was a judicial performance evaluation committee to de- charged with preparing a report or a program on velop and administer appropriate means for evalu- this topic. The committee was established because ating the performance of judges. The committee of the increasing trend for state courts to invoke studied existing judicial performance evaluation pro- state constitutional provisions in making decisions grams. Much of the information on these programs on issues where they formerly relied on the U.S. was provided by the National Center for State Constitution. The Conference of ChiefJustices de- Courts’ Judicial Performance Evaluation Project. termined that it was important to examine this rap- With the assistance of National Center staff, the idly emerging body of law. The result of the work of committee submitted a report to the Conference in this committee was a national conference on devel- 1985. Judicial performance evaluation was also a opments in state constitutional law held March 9 topic on the education program at both the 1984 and 10, 1984, in Williamsburg, Virginia, and co- and 1993 annual meetings. At the 1985 midyear sponsored by the Conference of Chief Justices, the meeting Conference adopted a resolution urging the Marshall-Wythe School of Law of the College of American Bar Association to continue its efforts to William and Mary, and the National Center for State encourage all courts to consider processes for evalu- Courts. The conference provided a forum for ex- ating judicial performance. The ABA guidelines amining developments in state constitutional law were approved by the ABA House of Delegates in and for improving communication on the subject August 1985. The Conference ofChiefJustices has among the states. It was attended by 120 persons, continued to be interested in judicial performance including judges, lawyers, and constitutional schol- 32 CCJ HISTORY ars. Thirty-one states were represented by justices At the 1991 annual meeting the committee re- of their courts of last resort. The conference led to ported that the project had been completed with the publication in 1985 by West Publishing Com- the production of Guidelines for State Court Decision pany of Developments in State Constitutional law: Making in Life-sustaining MehlTreatment Cases, of The WiUiumsburg Conference, a collection of essays which several thousand copies were published on a by speakers at the conference edited by a National pro bono basis by West Publishing Company. The Center for State Courts staff member. CCJ committee advised the National Center on the method of publication and distribution of the guide- lines and also encouraged the National Center to Decisions Regarding Medical Treatment develop a second edition to encompass issues aris- The Conference of Chief Justices originated the ing in cases involving newborns and children. The concept of standards or guidelines for assisting trial second edition was also published and widely dis- courts in decisions regarding medical treatment. tributed by West Publishing Company. Simulta- The Conference suggested the membership of the neously with the production of the guidelines and multidisciplinary coordinating council and project with funding again provided by the State justice to prepare them, and through a committee steadily Institute, the National Center prepared a model supported and advised the project carried out by judicial education curriculum incorporating the the National Center for State Courts with SJI fund- guidelines. In all of these efforts, the CCJ commit- ing. tee provided ongoing support, specifically advising In 1984 the Conference established a task force the National Center staff at all stages of the projects on decision making in authorizing and withhold- and serving as a communications link between the ing life-sustaining medical treatment and charged chief justices and the coordinating council. it with reporting within a year on the merit and mechanisms for establishing a coordinating coun- Children and the Courts cil, including representatives from other organiza- tions with an interest and expertise in the subject, The Conference of Chief Justices maintains a stand- that would develop principles and guidelines for ing committee on children and the courts, thus dem- decision making in this area. The task force was onstrating its concern for the problems of young not prepared to report on the intended schedule, people and for the needs of courts with jurisdiction but a committee that succeeded the task force ar- over them. The Conference’s work in this area is ranged for highly successful education programs on reflected in the educational programs and resolu- the subject at later meetings. At the annual meet- tions of its meetings and in its active work in Wash- ing of 1987, the Conference recommended that the ington to monitor legislative and executive action National Center, with the advice of the CCJ com- and to represent the chief justices’ views to Con- mittee, apply to the State Justice Institute for a grant gress and the relevant executive agencies. By reso- to establish a coordinating council to develop prin- lutions and other means, the Conference has pro- ciples and guidelines for decision making in life- moted continuing judicial education programs for sustaining medical treatment SjI awarded an ini- appellate judges in permanency planning and other tial grant of $181,006 for the project. A National subjects relating to the problems of children in the Center project, “Decision Making in Authorizing courts as well as the use of lay volunteers to serve as and Withholding Life-sustaining Medical Treat- guardians for children in court and the training of ment: Guidelines for State Courts,” began on April such volunteers. In this, the Conference of Chief 1, 1989, with a 12-member multidisciplinary coor- justices has actively cooperated with and assisted dinating council with members appointed at the the National Council of juvenile and Family Court suggestion of the Conference. A recently retired Judges. chief justice (previously chair of the CCJ commit- One focus of the Conference’s effort in Con- tee) presided over the coordinating council and a gress has been to obtain adequate funding, adminis- sitting chief justice served as vice-chair. tered on a state level by the courts themselves, for 33 the federal mandates imposed upon state courts in judicial pension plans (joint with COSCA) children’s matters. Another focus of that effort has reduction of cost and delay in litigation been to support legislation that will help the courts perform their vital functions relating to children and In 1991 the Conference designated the state that will avoid unnecessary and burdensome man- trial judges committee on asbestos litigation as one dates in that area. The Conference has had educa- of its special committees and in 1992 changed its tional programs on child support enforcement and name to special committee on mass tort litigation on conservatorships and guardianships (applying to to reflect its broadened concerns. The committee, adults as well as children). In its lobbying efforts on which two chief justices serve, has been effec- and educational programs, the Conference of Chief tive in developing and implementing improved case- Justices has had the active support and cooperation management techniques for mass tort caseloads and of COSCA. in facilitating cooperation between state and fed- eral judges handling asbestos as well as silicone gel Other CCJ Committees breast implant litigation. It can fairly be said that the Conference ofchief Highly useful work is also being done, or has Justices in its committee work, in its educational recently been done, by CCJ committees or task programs, and in its policies is concerned with any forces on: and all matters affecting the administration of jus- media and public information tice in the state courts. The Conference is deeply law-related education conscious of its responsibilities as the one organita- celebration of the U.S.Constitution’s tion that can speak authoritatively on a national bicentennial level for the courts of the 50 states and the other six drug issues affecting state judicial systems (joint jurisdictions whose chief justices hold CCJ mem- with COSCA) bership. PART111

Summary e Summaryh

he history of the Conference of Chief Jus- ness are the establishment and funding of the State tices since its beginning in 1949 can be di- Justice Institute and the improved cooperation be- Tvided into three stages. The first stage was tween the state and federal courts achieved through the first decade, in which the Conference devoted the National Judicial Council of State and Federal most of its efforts to organizing, establishing an iden- Courts and other conference-promoted initiatives. tity separate from the ABA, and sharing experiences As one observer has written, the Conference and expertise. During the second stage, which lasted has evolved “into a respected voice in the develop- until the mid-l970s, the Conference served mainly ment of national policy regarding law and justice.” as a vehicle for personal interchanges and discus- The Conference has addressed major issues of con- sions of common problems among the leaders of cern to the legal and judicial community, for ex- the state court systems. ample, lawyer competence, judicial performance The present third stage began in 1976 with the evaluation, judicial education, time standards for availability of the professional staff support for Con- case processing, asbestos and other mass tort litiga- ference activities from the National Center for State tion, and drug issues affecting the state courts. The Courts. In this stage, the personal interchanges have scope of the concerns of the Conference is further continued but have been greatly supplemented by illustrated by the subjects studied during the past the in-depth study of issues and by the Conference’s decade by two of its special committees: the prob- active representation of state court interests in rela- lem of jurisdiction within Indian country and deci- tion to all three branches of the federal government, sion making in regard to life-sustaining medical as well as the legal profession and the general pub- treatment . lic. In the period since 1976 the Conference of Plainly, the Conference is and will remain an Chief Justices has risen in visibility as the primary important national force in efforts to improve the representative of the state court systems at the na- administration of justice. tional level. Two specific examples of its effective-

37 Chief Justice State Year Served Laurance M. Hyde Missouri 1949- 1950 Edward W. Hudgins Virginia 1950-1951 John T. Loughran New York 195 1-1952 John E. Hickman Texas 1952-1953 Arthur T. Vanderbilt New Jersey 1953-1954 Carl V. Weygandt Ohio 1954-1955 William H. Duckworth Georgia 1955-1956 Edmund W. Flynn Rhode Island 1956-1957 John R. Dethmers Michigan 1957-1958 Albert Conway New York 1958-1959 Harvey McGehee Mississippi 1959-1960 John E. Martin Wisconsin 1960-1961 Raymond S. Wilkins Massachusetts 1961* 1962 J. Ed Livingston Ala bam a 1962-1963 Frank R. Kenison New Hampshire 1963-1964 William M. McAllister Oregon 1964-1965 Theodore G. Garfield Iowa 1965-1966 Carleton Harris Arkansas 1966-1967 Robert B. Williamson Maine 1967-1968 Roger J. Traynor California 1968-1969 Oscar R. Knutson Minnesota 1969-1970 Robert W. Calvert Texas 1970-197 1 James S. Holden Vermont 197 1- 1972 William S. Richardson Hawaii 1972-1973 Edward E. Pringle Colorado 1973-1974 Joseph R. Moss South Carolina 1974-1975 Charles S. House Connecticut 1975-1976 Howell T. Heflin Alabama 1976 C. William O’Neill Ohio 1977-1978 James Duke Cameron Arizona 1978-1979 Lawrence W. 1’Anson Virginia 1979-1980 Robert J. Sheran Minnesota 1980-1981 Albert W. Barney Vermont 1981-1982 Lawrence H. Cooke New York 1982-1983 Ralph J. Erickstad North Dakota 1983-1984 W. Ward Reynoldson Iowa 1984-1985 Edward E Hennessey Massachusetts 1985-1986 Robert C. Murphy Maryland 1986-1987 C. C. Torbert, Jr. A la bama 1987-1988 Gordon R. Hall Utah 1988-1989 Harry L. Carrico Virginia 1989-1990 Vincent L. McKusick Maine 199001991 Robert N. C. Nix, Jr. Pennsylvania 1991- 1992 Robert E Stephens Kentucky 1992-1993

39 Appendix B Conference of Chief Justices ChairrnenlPresidents by State 1949 to 1993

Alabama Iowa J. Ed Livingston (14) 1962-1963 Theodore G. Garfield (17) 1965-1966 Howell T. Heflin (28) 1976 W. Ward Reynoldson (36) 1984-1985 C. C. Torbert, J. (39) 1987-1988 Kansas Alaska Kentucky American Samoa Robert E Stephens (44) 1992-1993

Arizona Louisiana James Duke Cameron (30) 1978-1979 Maine Arkansas Robert B. Williamson (19) 1967-1968 Carleton Harris (18) 1966-1967 Vincent L. McKusick (42) 1990-1991

California Maryland Roger J . Traynor (20) 1968- 1969 Robert C. Murphy (38) 1986-1987

Colorado Massachusetts Edward E. Pringle (25) 1973-1974 Raymond S. Wilkins (13) 1961-1962 Edward E Hennessey (37) 1985-1986 Connecticut Charles S. House (27) 1975-1976 Michigan John R. Dethmers (9) 1957-1958 Delaware Minnesota District of Columbia Oscar R. Knutson (21) 1969-1970 Robert J. Sheran (32) 1980-1981 Florida Mississippi Georgia Harvey McGehee (11) 1959-1960 William H. Duckworth (7) 1955-1956 Missouri Hawaii Laurance M. Hyde (1) 1949-1950 William S. Richardson (24) 1972- 1973 Montana Idaho Nebraska Illinois Nevada Indiana

40 41

New Hampshire Utah Frank R. Kenison (15) 1963-1964 Gordon R. Hall (40) 1988-1989

New Jersey Vermont Arthur T. Vanderbilt (5) 1953-1954 James S. Holden (23) 1971-1972 Albert W. Barney (33) 1981-1982 New Mexico Virginia New York Edward W. Hudgins (2) 1950-1951 John T. Loughran (3) 1951-1952 Lawrence W. I’Anson (31) 1979-1980 Albert Conway (10) 1958-1959 Harry L. Carrico (41) 1989-1990 Lawrence H. Choke (34) 1982-1983 Virgin Islands North Carolina Washington North Dakota Ralph J. Erickstad (35) 1983-1984 West Virginia

Northern Mariana Islands Wisconsin John E. Martin (12) 1960-1961 Ohio Carl V. Weygandt (6) 1954-1955 Wyoming C. William O’Neill (29) 1977-1978 ( ) order of service as president Oklahoma

Oregon William M. McAllister (16) 1964-1965

Pennsylvania Robert N. C. Nix, J. (43) 1991-1992

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island Edmund W. Flynn (8) 1956-1957

South Carolina Joseph R. Moss (26) 1974-1975

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas John E. Hickman (4) 1952-1953 Robert W. Calvert (22) 1970-1971 Appendix C Conference of Chief justices Executive Councils/Boards of Directors e 1949 to 1993

194905 0 Laurance M. Hyde, Missouri, William H. Duckworth, Georgia Chairman Edmund W. Flynn, Rhode Island Edward W. Hudgins, Virginia, James Morris, North Dakota Vice-chairman Walter V. Schaefer, Illinois J. E. Hickman, Texas Griffin Smith, Arkansas Charles Loring, Minnesota John T. Loughran, New York 1954055 Carl V. Weygandt, Ohio, Stanley E. Qua, Massachusetts Chairman Carl V. Weygandt, Ohio William H. Duckworth, Georgia, Vice-chairman 1950-51 Edward W. Hudgins, Virginia, Roger L. Dell, Minnesota Chairman Edmund W. Flynn, Rhode Island John T. Loughran, New York, Frederick G. Hamley, Vice-chairman Washington Phil S. Gibson, California Frank R. Kenison, New W. W. Harvey, Kansas Hampshire J. E. Hickman, Texas Griffin Smith, Arkansas Albert B. Neil, Tennessee Stanley E. Qua, Massachusetts 1955056 William H. Duckworth, Georgia, Chairman 1951052 John T. Loughran, New York, Stanley E. Qua, Massachusetts, Chairman Vice-chairman J. E. Hickman, Texas, Vice- Roger L. Dell, Minnesota Chairman Frank R. Kenison, New Hugh R. Adair, Montana Hampshire Phil S. Gibson, California Harvey McG ehee, Mississippi W. W. Harvey, Kansas Charles M. Merrill, Nevada Harold H. Murchie, Maine Frederick W. Brune, Maryland Albert B. Neil, Tennessee 1956-57 Edmund W. Flynn, Rhode 1952-53 J. E. Hickman, Texas, Chairman Island, Chairman Arthur T. Vanderbilt, New Jersey, John R. Dethmers, Michigan, Vice-chairman Vice-chairman Hugh R. Adair, Montana Frederick W. Brune, Maryland William H. Duckworth, Georgia Albert Conway, New York James Morris, North Dakota James E. Livingston, Alabama Harold H. Murchie, Maine Harvey McGehee, Mississippi James H. Wolfe, Utah Charles M. Merrill, Nevada

1953054 Arthur T. Vanderbilt, New Jersey, 1957058 John R. Dethmers, Michigan, Chairman Chairman Carl V. Weygandt, Ohio, Vice- Albert Conway, New York, Chairman Vice-chairman

42 43

Matthew W. Hill, Washington 1961062 Raymond S. Wilkins, J. Ed Livingston, Alabama Massachusetts, Chairman Harvey McGehee, Mississippi J. Ed Livingston, Levi S. Udall, Arizona Alabama, First Vice- Robert B. Williamson, Maine Chairman Frank R. Kenison, New 1958-59 Albert Conway, New York, Hampshire, Second Vice- Chairman Chairman Harvey McGehee, Mississippi, Theodore G. Garfield, Iowa First Vice-chairman William M. McAllister, Oregon Frederick W. Brune, Jay S. Parker, Kansas Maryland, Second Vice- Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr., Chairman Arizona John B. Foumet, Louisiana J. Wallace Winborne, Matthew W. Hill, Washington North Carolina John E. Martin, Wisconsin Levi S. Udall, Arizona 1962-63 J. Ed Livingston, Robert B. Williamson, Maine Alabama, Chairman Frank R. Kenison, New 1959060 Harvey McGehee, Mississippi, Hampshire, First Vice- Chairman Chairman Frank R. Kenison, New William M. McAllister, Oregon, Hampshire, First Vice- Second Vice-chairman Chairman Theodore G. Garfield, Iowa, John E. Martin, Wisconsin, (second of two-year term) Second Vice-chairman Frederick W. Brune, Maryland J. Allan Crockett, Utah (two-year term) John B. Foumet, Louisiana C. A. Taylor, South Carolina Morris C. Montgomery, (two-year term) Kentucky Wilfred C. Tsukiyama, Hawaii Robert G. Simmons, Nebraska (two-year term) Raymond S. Wilkins, John C. Bell, Jr., Pennsylvania Massachusetts (one-year term)

1960-61 John E. Martin, Wisconsin, 1963-64 Frank R. Kenison, New Chairman Hampshire, Chairman Raymond S. Wilkins, William M. McAllister, Oregon, Massachusetts, First Vice- First Vice-chairman Chairman Theodore G. Garfield, Iowa, I. Ed Livingston, Second Vice-chairman Alabama, Second Vice- J. Ed Livingston, Chairman Alabama, Immediate Past J. Allan Crockett, Utah Chairman William M. McAllister, Oregon Frederick W. Brune, Maryland Jay S. Parker, Kansas Carleton Harris, Arkansas Robert G. Simmons, Nebraska Walter V. Schaefer, Illinois J. Wallace Winborne, North (former chief justice still Carolina serving on supreme court) 44 CCI HISTORY

Claude A. Taylor, South Carolina chief justice, still on Wilfred C. Tiukiyama, Hawaii supreme court, expired) Robert B. Williamson. Maine Claude A. Taylor, South Carolina (deceased; two-year 1964-65 William M. McAllister, Oregon, term would have expired 1967) Chairman Roger J. Traynor, California Theodore G. Garfield, Iowa, First (two-year term expired in Vice-chairman 1967) Carleton Harris, Arkansas, Second Vice-chairman 1966067 Carleton Harris, Arkansas, Frank R. Kenison, New Chairman Hampshire, Immediate Past Robert B. Williamson, Maine, Chairman First Vice-chairman Francis B. Condon, Rhode Island Roger J. Traynor, California, (one-year term completed in Second Vice-chairman 1965) Theodore G. Garfield, Iowa, J. Allan Crockett, Utah (former Immediate Past Chairman chief justice still serving on Robert W. Calvert, Texas (two- Supreme Court; one-year term) year term expired 1968) Charles S. Desmond, New York James S. Holden, Vermont (two- (two-year term will be year term expired 1967) completed in 1966) Joseph R. Moss, South Carolina John W. Eggleston, Virginia (one-year term expired 1967) (one-year term completed in B. K. Roberts, Florida (one-year 1965) term of former chief justice Oscar R. Knutson, Minnesota still on supreme court, (two-year term will be expired 1967 ) completed in 1966) Obert C. Teigen, North Dakota Robert B. Williamson, Maine (one-year term expiring 1967) (two-year term completed Joseph Weintraub, New Jersey in 1965) (two-year term expired 1968)

1965-66 Theodore G. Garfield, Iowa, 1967-68 Robert B. Williamson, Maine, Chairman Chairman Carleton Harris, Arkansas, First Roger J. Traynor, California, Vice-chairman First Vice-chairman Robert B. Williamson, Maine, Oscar R. Knutson, Minnesota, Second Vice-chairman Second Vice-chairman William M. McAllister, Carleton Harris, Arkansas, Oregon, Immediate Past Immediate Past Chairman Chairman Robert W. Calvert, Texas (two- Charles S. Desmond, New York year term expired 1968) (two-year term expiring) Stanley H. Fuld, New York (two- James S. Holden, Vermont year term expired 1969) (two-year term expired 1967) Frank C. Haymond, West Oscar R. Knutson, Minnesota Virginia (one-year term of (two-year term expired) former chief justice still on James B. Milliken, Kentucky supreme court, expired 1968) (one-year term of former Stephen C. O’Connell, Florida ’ 4s

(two-year term expired 1969; Harold E Snead, Virginia (term because of resignation from expired 197 1 1 court in September 1967, Daniel E Wolcott, Delaware replaced in November 1967 (term expired 197 1 1 by Obert C. Teigen, North Dakota) 197007 1 Robert W. Calvert, Texas, Kingsley A. Taft, Ohio (two- Chairman year term expired in 1969) James S. Holden, Vermont, First Joseph Weintraub, New Jersey Vice-Chairman (two-year term expired in 1968) Robert H. McWilliams, Colorado, Second Vice- 1968069 Roger J. Traynor, California, Chairman* Chairman Oscar R. Knutson, Minnesota, Oscar R. Knutson, Minnesota, Immediate Past Chairman First Vice-chairman Robert T. Price, Kansas (term Robert W. Calvert, Texas, expired 197 1 ) Second Vice-chairman Joseph R. Moss, South Carolina Robert B. Williamson, Maine (term expired 1972) Immediate Past Chairman William S. Richardson, Hawaii John B. Fournet, Louisiana (term expired 1972) (two-year term expired 1970) Harold E Snead, Virginia Stanley H. Fuld, New York (term expired 197 1 ) (two-year term expired 1969) Daniel E Wolcott, Delaware William C. Perry, Oregon (two- (term expired 197 1 ) year term expired 1970) Floyd L. Jackson, Oklahoma Kingsley A. Taft (two-year term (appointed by chairman for expired 1969) one -year) Obert C. Teigen (replaced Justice *Went on federal bench. By O’Connell in September 1967; decision of executive council two-year term expired in 1969) replaced by Chief Justice Campbell Thornal, Florida Richardson; he, in turn, by (one-year term of former Kenneth J. O’Connell, of chief justice still on supreme Oregon. court, expired 1969) 1971-72 James S. Holden, Vermont, 1969-70 Oscar R. Knutson, Minnesota, Chairman Chairman William S. Richardson, Hawaii, Robert W. Calvert, Texas, First Vice- First Vice-chairman Chairman Edward E. Pringle, Colorado, James S. Holden, Vermont, Second Vice-chairman Second Vice-chairman Robert W. Calvert, Texas Roger J. Traynor, California, Ross W. Dyer, Tennessee Immediate Past Chairman Lorna E. Lockwood, Arizona John B. Fournet, Louisiana Joseph R. Moss, South Carolina (term expired 1970) Kenneth J. O’Connell, Oregon William C. Perry, Oregon (term Thomas H. Roberts, Rhode expired 1970) Island Robert T. Price, Kansas (term Robert C. Underwood, Illinois expired 197 1 ) 46 CCJ HISTORY

1972073 William S. Richardson, Hawaii, 1975-76 Charles S. House, Connecticut, Chairman Chairman Edward E. Pringle, Colorado, Howell T. Heflin, Alabama, First First Vice-chairman Vice-chairman Joseph R. Moss, South Carolina, C. William O’Neill, Ohio, Second Vice-chairman Second Vice-chairman B. K. Roberts, Florida, Deputy Robert T. Donnelly, Missouri, Chairman Deputy Chairman Norman E Arterbum, Indiana Charles R. Donaldson, Idaho Ross W. Dyer, Tennessee Armand A. Dufresne, Jr., Maine Robert C. Finley, Washington Harold R. Fatzer, Kansas C. William O’Neill, Ohio Lawrence W. I’Anson, Virginia Thomas H. Roberts, Rhode Benjamin R. Jones, Pennsylvania Island Edward E. Pringle, Colorado Robert C. Underwood, Illinois Joe W. Sanders, Louisiana

1973-74 Edward E. Pringle, Colorado, 1976-77 Howell Heflin, Alabama, Chairman Chairman* Joseph R. Moss, South Carolina, C. William O’Neill, Ohio, First Vice-chairman Chairman* Charles S. House, Connecticut, James Duke Cameron, Arizona, Second Vice-chairman Vice-Cha irman J. Allan Crockett, Utah, Deputy Lawrence W. I’Anson, Virginia, Chairman Second Vice-chairman Norman E Arterburn, Indiana Jay A. Rabinowitz, Alaska, James A. Finch, Jr., Missouri Deputy Chairman C. Edwin Moore, Iowa Ralph J. Erickstad, North Dakota C. William O’Neill, Ohio Harold R. Fatzer, Kansas William S. Richardson, Hawaii William H. D. Fones, Tennessee Harold E Snead, Virginia Daniel L. Herrmann, Delaware Donald R. Wright, California Charles S. House, Connecticut Joe W. Sanders, Louisiana 1974-75 Joseph R. Moss, South Carolina, Robert J. Sheran, Minnesota Chairman *Because former chief justice Charles S. House, Connecticut, Helflin did not seek reelec- First Vice-chairman tion, Chief Justice O’Neill Robert C. Underwood, Illinois, became the chairman January Second Vice-chairman 18, 1977. Robert C. Finley, Washington, Deputy Chairman 1977-78 C. William ONeill, Ohio, Armand A. Dufresne, Jr., Maine Chairman Joe R. Greenhill, Texas James Duke Cameron, Arizona, Howell T. Heflin, Alabama Vice-chairman Pat Irwin, Oklahoma Lawrence W. I’Anson, Virginia, C. Edwin Moore, Colorado Second Vice-chairman Donald Richard Wright, Cameron M. Batjer, Nevada, California Deputy Chairman Ralph J. Erickstad, North Dakota Amo H. Denecke, Oregon 47

Daniel L. Henmann, Delaware Vincent L. McKusick, Maine John B. McManus, Jr., Robert C. Murphy, Maryland New Mexico Jay A. Rabinowitz, Alaska Ben E Overton, Florida C. C. Torbert, Jr., Alabama Robert J. Sheran, Minnesota 1981-82 Albert W. Barney, Vermont, Chairman 1978-79 James Duke Cameron, Arizona, Lawrence H. Cooke, New York, Chairman First Vice-chairman Lawrence W. I’Anson, Virginia, Joe R. Greenhill, Texas, Second Vice-chairman Vice-chairman Robert J. Sheran, Minnesota, Mary S. Coleman, Michigan, Second Vice-chairman Deputy Chairman Robert Boochever, Alaska, Vincent L. McKusick, Maine Deputy Chairman (term expires 1982) Albert W. Barney, Vermont Robert C. Murphy, Maryland Amo H. Denecke, Oregon (term expires 1982) J. P. Morgan, Missouri Theodore R. Newman, Jr., Ben E Overton, Florida District of Columbia (term Neville Patterson, Mississippi expires 1983) Robert E Utter, Washington John S. Palmore, Kentucky (term expires 1983) 1979-80 Lawrence W. I’Anson, Virginia, Robert E Utter, Washington Chairman (term expires 1982) Robert J. Sheran, Minnesota, Roger L. Wollman, South Dakota First Vice-Chairman (term expires 1983) Albert W. Barney, Vermont, Past chairman position Second Vice-chairman vacant due to retirement of Arthur J. England, Jr., Florida, Robert J. Sheran, Minnesota. Deputy Chairman James Duke Cameron, Arizona 1982-83 Lawrence H. Cooke, New York, Lawrence H. Cooke, New York Chairman Arno H. Denecke, Oregon Ralph J. Erickstad, North Ralph J. Erickstad, North Dakota Dakota, Chairman-elect William H. D. Fones, Tennessee Howard C. Ryan, Illinois, First Joe R. Greenhill, Texas Vice-chairman C. C. Torbert, Jr., Alabama Vacancy, Second Vice-chairman Vacancy, Past Chairman 1980-81 Robert J. Sheran, Minnesota, Edward E Hennessey, Chairman Massachussetts (term expires Albert W. Barney, Vermont, 1984) Vice-chairman Theordore R. Newman, Jr., Lawrence H. Cooke, New York, District of Columbia (term Second Vice-chairman expires 1983) Charles R. Donaldson, Idaho, W. Ward Reynoldson, Iowa Deputy Chairman (term expires 1983) Arthur J. England, Jr., Florida Alfred G. Schroeder, Kansas Ralph J. Erickstad, North Dakota (term expires 1983) Joe R. Greenhill, Texas 48 CCl HISTORY

C. C. Torbert, Jr., Alabama 1985086 Edward F. Hennessey, (term expires 1984) Massachusetts, President Robert E Utter, Washington Robert C. Murphy, Maryland, (term expires 1983) President-elect C. C. Torbert, Jr., Alabama, 1983-84 Ralph J. Erickstad, North Dakota, First Vice-president President James M. Dolliver, Washington, W. Ward Reynoldson, Iowa, Second Vice-president President-elect W. Ward Reynoldson, Iowa, Edward E Hennessey, Immediate Past-President Massachusetts, First Vice- Harry L. Carrico, Virginia (term President expires 1987) Edmond W. Burke, Alaska, Gordon R. Hall, Utah (term Second Vice-president expires 1986) Lawrence H. Cooke, New York, Nathan S. Heffernan, Immediate Past President Wisconsin (term expires 1987) Frank D. Celebrezze, Ohio Harold N. Hill, Jr., Georgia Robert C. Murphy, Maryland (term expires 1986) Theodore R. Newman, Jr., (resigned April 1, 1986) District of Columbia Edwin J. Peterson, Oregon (term Neville Patterson, Mississippi expires 1987) C. C. Torbert, Jr., Alabama Robert E Utter, Washington Robert E Utter, Washington (term expires 1986)

1984-85 W. Ward Reynoldson, Iowa, 1986-87 Robert C. Murphy, Maryland, President President Edward E Hennessey, C. C. Torbert, Jr., Alabama, Massachusetts, President-elect President-elect Robert C. Murphy, Maryland, Gordon R. Hall, Utah, First First Vice-president Vice-president William R. Federici, New J. 8.Ness, South Carolina, Mexico, Second Vice-president Second Vice-president Ralph J. Erickstad, North Dakota, Edward F. Hennessey, Immediate Past President Massachusetts, Immediate Past Frank D. Celebrezze, Ohio (term President expires 1985) Harry L. Carrico, Virginia (term Neville Patterson, Mississippi expires 1987) (term expires 1985) John A. Dixon, Jr., Louisiana C. C. Torbert, Jr., Alabama (term expires 1988) (term expires 1985) Richard M. Givan, Indiana Robert E Utter, Washington (term expires 1987) (term expires 1985) (resigned March 1987) Gordon R. Hall, Utah (term Nathan S. Heffernan, expires 1986) Wisconsin (term expires 1987) Harold N. Hill, Jr., Georgia Norman M. Krivosha, Nebraska (term expires 1986) (term expires 1988) (resigned July 31, 1987) Edwin J. Peterson, Oregon (term expires 1987) 49

1987-88 C. C. Torbert, Jr., Alabama, 1989-90 Harry L. Carrico, Virginia, President President Gordon R. Hall, Utah, President- Vincent L. McKusick, Maine, elect President-elect Harry L. Carrico, Virginia, First Robert N. C. Nix, Jr., Vice-President Pennsylvania, First Vice- Parker Lee McDonald, Florida, President Second Vice-president Rudolph Hargrave, Oklahoma, Robert C. Murphy, Maryland, Second Vice-president Immediate Past President Gordon R. Hall, Utah, Douglas K. Amdahl, Minnesota Immediate Past President (term expires 1988) William C. Hastings, Nebraska John A. Dixon, Jr., Louisiana (term expires 199 1 ) (term expires 1988) Nathan S. Heffernan, Wisconsin Vincent L. McKusick, Maine (term expires 1990) (term expires 1989) Ellen Ash Peters, Connecticut Robert N. C. Nix, Jr., (term expires 1991) Pennsylvania (term expires Edwin J. Peterson, Oregon (term 1989) expires 1990) Ellen Ash Peters, Connecticut Robert E Stephens, Kentucky (term expires 1989) (term expires 1990) Robert E Stephens, Kentucky Jean A. Turnage, Montana (term (term expires 1988) expires 199 1 )

1988-89 Gordon R. Hall, Utah, President 1990-91 Vincent L. McKusick, Maine, Harry L. Carrico, Virginia, President President-elect Robert N. C. Nix, Jr., Vincent L. McKusick, Maine, Pennsylvania, President-elect First Vice-president Robert E Stephens, Kentucky, Vernon R. Pearson, Washington, First Vice-president Second Vice-president Leander J. Shaw, Florida, Second C. C. Torbert, Jr., Alabama, Vice-president (replaced Immediate Past President Keith Callow, Washington, (resigned as chief justice January 1, 1991) January 16, 1989) Harry L. Carrico, Virginia, Nathan S. Heffernan, Wisconsin Immediate Past President (term expires 1989) James G. Exum, Jr., North Thomas 0. Marshall, Georgia Carolina (term expires 1992) (term expires 1989) William C. Hastings, Nebraska Robert N. C. Nix, Jr., (term expires 1991) Pennsylvania (term expires Malcolm M. Lucas, California 1989) (term expires 1992) Ellen Ash Peters, Connecticut Ellen Ash Peters, Connecticut (term expires 1989) (term expires 1991) Edwin J. Peterson, Oregon (term Edwin J. Peterson, Oregon (term expires 1990) expires 1991 ) Robert E Stephens, Kentucky Jean A. Turnage, Montana (term (term expires 1990) expires 199 1) 50 CCJ HISTORY

1991092 Robert N. C. Nix, Jr., Nathan S. Heffernan, Wisconsin Pennsylvania, President (term expires 199.3) Robert E Stephens, Kentucky, Malcolm M. Lucas, California President-elect (term expires 1993) Jean A. Turnage, Montana, First Arthur A. McGiverin, Iowa Vice-president (rerm expires 1993) Walter Urbigkit, Wyoming, Lyle Reid, Tennessee (term Second Vice-president expires 1993; filling Vincent L. McKusick, Maine, unexpired term of Immediate Past President Sol Wachtler) (retired February 1992) Andrew D. Christie, Delaware (term expires 1992) James G. Exum, Jr., North Carolina (term expires 1992) Malcolm M. Lucas, California (term expires 1992) Arthur A. McGiverin, Iowa (term expires 1993) Ellen Ash Peters, Connecticut (term expires 1993) Sol Wachtler, New York (resigned November 1992) Thomas J. Moyer, Ohio (term expires 1992) (replaced Andrew D. Christie, of Delaware)

1992093 Robert E Stephens, Kentucky, President Jean A. Tumage, Montana, President-elect Ellen Ash Peters, Connecticut, First Vice-president Benjamin K. Miller, Illinois, Second Vice-president Robert N. C. Nix, Jr., Pennsylvania, Immediate Past President David A. Brock, New Hampshire (term expires 1994) Harold G. Clarke, Georgia (term expires 1994) Appendix D Conference of Chief Justice Meeting Dates and Locations, 1949 to 1993

1949 1st Annual Meeting, September 3-4, St. Louis, Missouri

Chairman: Hon. Laurance M. Hyde Chief Justice of Missouri

1950 2nd Annual Meeting, September 15- 17, Richmond and Williamsburg, Virginia, September 18-19, Washington, D.C. - Joint meetings with JAD of ABA

Chairman: Hon. Laurance M. Hyde Chief Justice of Missouri

195 1 3rd Annual Meeting, September 13-16, Roosevelt Hotel, New York, New York

Chairman: Hon. Edward W. Hudgins Chief Justice of Virginia

1952 4th Annual Meeting, September 11-14, Hotel Mark Hopkins, San Francisco, California-September 16 -Joint session with JAD of ABA

Chairman: Hon. John T. Loughran Chief Judge of New York

1953 5th Annual Meeting, August 20-23, Statler Hotel, Boston, Massachusetts, September 24-27 -Joint meeting with JAD of ABA

Chairman: Hon. John E. Hickman Chief Justice of Texas

1954 6th Annual Meeting, August 12-15, Blackstone Hotel, Chicago, Illinois -Joint meeting with JAD of ABA

Chairman: Hon. Arthur T. Vanderbilt Chief Justice of New Jersey

1955 7th Annual Meeting, August 17-20, Warwick Hotel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - Joint meeting with JAD section of ABA

Chairman: Hon. Carl V. Weygandt Chief Justice of Ohio

51 52 CCJ HISTORY

1956 8th Annual Meeting, August 22-25, Statler Hilton, Dallas, Texas

Chairman: Hon. William H. Duckworth Chief Justice of Georgia

1957 9th Annual Meeting, July 9-14, Hotel Commodore, New York, New York

Chairman: Hon. Edmund W. Flynn Chief Justice of Rhode Island

1958 10th Annual Meeting, August 19-24, Huntington-Sheraton Hotel, Pasadena, California

Chairman: Hon. John R. Dethmers Chief Justice of Michigan

1959 11th Annual Meeting, August 18-23, Eden Roc Hotel, Miami Beach, Florida Chairman: Hon. Albert Conway Chief Justice of New York

1960 12th Annual Meeting, August 23-28, Sheraton-Belvedere Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland

Chairman: Hon. Harvey McGehee Chief Justice of Mississippi

1961 13th Annual Meeting, August 1-5, Chase-Park Plaza Hotels, St. Louis, Missouri

Chairman: Hon. John E. Martin Chief Justice of Wisconsin

1962 14th Annual Meeting, August 1-4, Hotel Mark Hopkins, San Francisco, California

Chairman: Hon. Raymond S. Wilkins Chief Justice of Massachusetts

1963 15th Annual Meeting, August 7-10, Sheraton-Blackstone Hotel, Chicago, Illinois

Chairman: Hon. J. Ed Livingston Chief Justice of Alabama 53

1964 16th Annual Meeting, August 5-9, Roosevelt Hotel, New York, New York

Chairman: Hon. Frank R. Kenison Chief Justice of New Hampshire

1965 17th Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Deauville Hotel, Miami Beach, Florida

Chairman: Hon. William M. McAllister Chief Justice of Oregon

1966 18th Annual Meeting, August 3-6, Sheraton-Mt. Royal Hotel, Montreal, Canada

Chairman: Hon. Theodore G. Garfield Chief Justice of Iowa

1967 19th Annual Meeting, August 3-6, Hawaiian Village Hotel, Honolulu, Hawaii

Chairman: Hon. Carleton Harris Chief Justice of Arkansas

1968 20th Annual Meeting, July 31-August 3, Warwick Hotel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Chairman: Hon. Robert B. Williamson Chief Justice of Maine

1969 21st Annual Meeting, August 6-9, Statler Hilton Hotel, Dallas, Texas

Chairman: Hon. Roger J. Traynor Chief Justice of California

1970 22nd Annual Meeting, August 5-8, Sheraton-Jefferson Hotel, St. Louis, Missouri

Chairman: Hon. Oscar R. Knutson Chief Justice of Minnesota

1971 23rd Annual Meeting, June 30-July 2, Sheraton-Fort Sumter Hotel, Charleston, South Carolina

Chairman: Hon. Robert W. Calvert Chief Justice of Texas 54 CCJ HISTORY

1972 24th Annual Meeting, August 9-12, Washington Plaza Hotel, Seattle, Washington

Chairman: Hon. lames S. Holden Chief Justice of Vermont

1973 25th Annual Meeting, August 1-4, Neil House Motor Hotel, Columbus, Ohio

Chairman: Hon. William S. Richardson Chief Justice of Hawaii

1974 26th Annual Meeting, August 12-16, Princess Kaiulani Hotel, Honolulu, Hawaii

Chairman: Hon. Edward E. Pringle Chief justice of Colorado

1975 27th Annual Meeting, August 4-7, The Homestead, Hot Springs, Virginia

Chairman: Hon. joseph R. Moss Chief Justice of South Carolina

1976 28th Annual Meeting, August 11-14, Bellevue Stratford Hotel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Chairman: Hon. Charles S. House Chief Justice of Connecticut

1977 29th Annual Meeting, July 3 1-August 3, Sheraton Riu Hotel, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Chairman: Hon. C. William O’Neill Chief Justice of Ohio

1978 1st Midyear Meeting, February 8-10, New Orleans, Louisiana

Chairman: Hon. Howell T. Heflin Chief Justice of Alabama

30th Annual Meeting, July 30-August 7, Radisson Hotel, Burlington, Vermont

Chairman: Hon. Howell T. Heflin Chief Justice of Alabama 55

1979 2nd Midyear Meeting, February 11-13, Atlanta, Georgia

Chairman: Hon. James Duke Cameron Chief Justice of Arizona

3 1st Annual Meeting, August 5-8, Little America Hotel, Flagstaff, Arizona

Chairman: Hon. James Duke Cameron Chief Justice of Arizona

1980 3rd Midyear Meeting, January 30-February 1, Hyatt Regency, Chicago, 1II ino is

Chairman: Hon. Lawrence W. 1’Anson Chief Justice of Virginia

32nd Annual Meeting, July 24-28, Sheraton Hotel, Anchorage Alaska

Chairman: Hon. Lawrence W. 1’Anson Chief Justice of Virginia

1981 4th Midyear Meeting, February 4-5, Hyatt Regency, Houston, Texas

Chairman: Hon. Robert J. Sheran Chief Justice of Minnesota

33rd Annual Meeting, August 2-5, Boa Raton Hotel and Club, Boca Raton, Florida

Chairman: Hon. Robert J. Sheran Chief Justice of Minnesota

1982 5th Midyear Meeting, January 28-30, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia

Chairman: Hon. Albert W. Barney Chief Justice of Vermont

34th Annual Meeting, September 15-18, Jackson Lake Lodge, Jackson Hole, Wyoming

Chairman: Hon. Albert W. Barney Chief Justice of Vermont

1983 6th Midyear Meeting, January 30-February 1, Birmingham Hyatt House, Birmingham, Alabama 56 CCJ HISTORY

Chairman: Hon. Lawrence H. Cooke Chief Judge of New York

35th Annual Meeting, July 24-27, DeSoto Hilton, Savannah, Georgia Chairman: Hon. Lawrence H. Cooke Chief Judge of New York

1984 7th Midyear Meeting, February 4-8, The Royal Orleans, New Orleans. Louisiana

Host: Hon. John A. Dixon, Jr. Chief Justice of Louisiana

President: Hon. Ralph J. Erickstad Chief Justice of North Dakota

36th Annual Meeting, July 29-August 2, Lodge of the Four Seasons, Lake Otark, Missouri

Host: Hon. Albert Rendlen Chief Justice of Missouri

President: Hon. Ralph J. Erickstad Chief Justice of North Dakota

1985 8th Midyear Meeting, February 10-14, Williamsburg Hospitality House, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia

Hosts: Hon. Harry L. Carrico Chief Justice of Virginia Edward B. McConnell President, National Center for State Courts

President: Hon. W. Ward Reynoldson Chief Justice of Iowa

37th Annual Meeting, August 4-8, Marriott Griffin Gate, Lexington, Kentucky

Host: Hon. Robert E Stephens Chief Justice of Kentucky

President: Hon. W. Ward Reynoldson Chief Justice of Iowa

I 57

1986 9th Midyear Meeting, February 1-5, Hyatt Regency Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland

Host: Hon. Robert C. Murphy Chief J udge of Maryland

President: Hon. Edward F. Hennessey Chief Justice of Massachusetts

38th Annual Meeting, August 3-7, Red Lion Inn, Omaha, Nebraska

Host: Hon. Norman M. Krivosha Chief Justice of Nebraska

President: Hon. Edward E Hennessey Chief Justice of Massachusetts

1987 10th Midyear Meeting, February 1-5, Salishan Lodge, Gleneden Beach, Oregon

Host: Hon. Edwin J. Peterson Chief Justice of Oregon

President: Hon. Robert C. Murphy Chief Judge of Maryland

39th Annual Meeting, August 2-6, Howard Johnson’s Motel, Rapid City, South Dakota

Host: Hon. George W. Wuest Chief Justice of South Dakota

President: Hon. Robert C. Murphy Chief J udge of Maryland

1988 1 lth Midyear Meeting, January 24.28, Williamsburg Lodge, Williamsburg, Virginia

Hosts: Hon. Harry L. Carrico Chief Justice of Virginia Edward B. McConnell President, National Center for State Courts

President: Hon. C. C. Torbert, Jr. Chief Justice of Alabama 58 CCI HISTORY

40th Annual Meeting, July 31-August 4, Samoset Resort, Rockport, Maine

Host: Hon. Vincent L. McKusick Chief Justice of Maine

President: Hon. C. C. Torbert, Jr. Chief Justice of Alabama

1989 12th Midyear Meeting, January 22-26, Walt Disney World, Club Lake Villas and Conference Center, Lake Buena Vista, Florida Host: Hon. Raymond Ehrlich Chief Justice of Florida

President: Hon. Gordon R. Hall Chief Justice of Utah

41st Annual Meeting, July 30-August 3, Caesars Tahoe Resort, Lake Tahoe, Nevada

Host: Hon. Cliff Young Chief Justice of Nevada

President: Hon. Gordon R. Hall Chief Justice of Utah

1990 13th Midyear Meeting, January 28-February 1, Sands Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Host: Hon. Victor M. Pons, Jr. Chief Justice of Puerto Rico

President: Hon. Harry L. Carrico Chief Justice of Virginia

42nd Annual Meeting, August 12-16, Sagamore Resort, Lake George at Bolton Landing, New York

Host: Hon. Sol Wachtler Chief Judge of New York

President: Hon. Harry L. Carrico Chief Justice of Virginia

1991 14th Midyear Meeting, January 27-3 1, Registry Resort, Scottsdale, Arizona 59

Host: Hon. Frank X. Gordon, Jr* Chief Justice of Arizona

President: Hon. Vincent L. McKusick Chief Justice of Maine

43rd Annual Meeting, August 4-8, Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Host: Hon. Robert N. C. Nix, Jr. Chief Justice of Pennsylvania

President: Hon. Vincent L. McKusick Chief Justice of Maine

1992 15th Midyear Meeting, January 26-30, Ramada Renaissance Hotel, Jackson, Mississippi

Host: Hon. Roy Noble Lee Chief Justice of Mississippi

President: Hon. Robert N. C. Nix, Jr. Chief Justice of Pennsylvania

44th Annual Meeting, July 19-23, Embassy Suites Hotel, Maui, Hawaii

Host: Hon. Herman Lum Chief Justice of Hawaii

President: Hon. Robert N. C. Nix, Jr. Chief Justice of Pennsylvania

1993 16th Midyear Meeting, January 24-28, Williamsburg Lodge, Williamsburg, Virginia

Hosts: Hon. Harry L. Carrico Chief Justice of Virginia Larry L. Sipes President, National Center for State Courts

President: Hon. Robert E Stephens Chief Justice of Kentucky

45th Annual Meeting, August 1-5 The Inn at Semiahmoo, Blaine, Washington Appendix E Topics Discussed at Annual and Midyear Meetings of the Conference of Chief stices, 1950 to 1993

1950 2nd Annual Meeting, September 15- Methods of Reducing the Volume of 17, Richmond and Williamsburg, Published Opinions and Reports Virginia The Courts and Their Relation to Legal Aid in Criminal Cases Appellate Court Methods Administrative Methods September 16 - Joint session with the Cornpensation and Retirement ]AD section of the ABA Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Rules of Practice The Improvement of he Administration of Selection and Tenure Justice State J&iul Conferences Cooperation with Laymen Trafi Courts and Justice of the Peace September 18-19, Washington, D.C. - Courts Joint meetings with JAD section of the ABA 1953 5th Annual Meeting, August 20-23, Boston, Massachusetts An Administrator for State Courts The Juror in the Jury Room Creation and Function ofJdciul Workshop on Probation Councils and Conferences Moot Court Judges Report of Committee on Habeas Corpus Judicial Selection,Tenure, 1951 3rd Annual Meeting, September 13-16, Compensation , and Re tiremen t New York, New York Precrd Conferences and Summary Judgments Improving AppeUuw Practices and Simplifyingthe Rules of Procedure September 24-27 .Joint meeting with Problems of the Courts of Inferior JAD section of the ABA jurisdiction, Including Trafic Courts Judicial Conferences and Their Uses The Law and Socd Work Operational Problems of the Courts of Trafi Court Problems Lust Resort The Layman Advises the Court: A Growing Movement September 17-19 -Joint sessions with the ]AD section of the ABA 1954 6th Annual Meeting, August 12-15, Chicago, Illinois 1952 4th Annual Meeting, September 11-14, San Francisco, California Mechanics of Operating AppeUute Courts [two sessions) Problems in Connection with Habeas Adoption of Federal Civil and criminal Corpus Proceedings in Criminal Cases Rules, and Uniform Rules of Evidence The Administration oflustice in Trufic Problems of Admissions to the Bar Cases

60 61

The Administration of a State Judicial Griffin w. Illinois - Implications of the System Decision for Scute Procedure and Antecedents and Implications of the Joint meeting with the JAD section of Session the ABA Improving Communications Between theludicral and Legislative Branches of Court Room Publicity and Amendments to State Government Canon 35 Official and Public Support of Traffic Compensation and Retirement Plans for Courts the ludiciary Proposed Amendments to the Federal The Need for Uniform Jdcial Interprem- Rules of Procedure tion of Uniform Legislation Jury Instructions Current Developments with Regard to Committee on Cooperation with Laymen Habeas Corpus Promoting the Minimum SundArds of Effective Means of Cooperation with the Judicral Administration Through State Work of the ludicial Section of the Committees Americun Bar Association

1955 7th Annual Meeting, August 17-20, 1958 10th Annual Meeting, August 19-24, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Pasadena, Cal ifom ia

Techniques of Writing Opinions Federal-State Relationships as Affected by The Use and Abuse of Dissenting Judicd Decisions Opinions The Law of Atomic Energy State judicial Conferences The Law Gowerning the Right to Use Means of Attacking the Ewer-increasing water Workload Cooperation Between the National Legal Aid Association and the Conference of Joint meetings with the JAD section of Chief Justices the ABA Zmprowing the Appellate Process Judicial Councils and Conferences State Committees and the Promotion of The Internal Operation of Courts ofht Minimum Smndurds of Judrcial Resort Administration The Trafi Court Program of the Predin Stace Courts American Bar Association Committee on Cooperation with Laymen Trafi Court Program 1959 1 lth Annual Meeting, August 18-23, Miami Beach, Florida 1956 8th Annual Meeting, August 22-25, Dallas, Texas Work of Appellate Courts Allocation of]urisdiction Between Federal Separation of Powers and State Courts Methods of Filling Jdcial Vacancies ludic& Conferences Problems of Administering a Court of Recent Trends in Water Law Last Resort Muintuining an Independent Judiciary in Case of Nuclear Attack 1957 9th Annual Meeting, July 9-14, New ]AD of ABA York, New York Habeas Corpus Grand Jury Handbook 62 CCJ HISTORY

1960 12th Annual Meeting, August 23-28, Work of the Joint Committee for the Baltimore, Maryland Effective Administration of Justice Recent Developments in Court Writing, Considzration, and Adoption Administration of Opinions Incorporation of Legal Practitioners Judicd Review of Sentences in Criminal Workloads of State Courts of Last Resort Cases Responsibility of the MentaUy IU for 1963 15th Annual Meeting, August 7-10, Criminal Conduct Chicago, I1 I inois Use of Research Services of Various Organizations Allocation of Jurisdiction Between Federal JncreasedJurisd~ctionof State Courts in and State Courts Labor Cases Effective Communication Between the Personnel Problems of Courts and Judiclal and Legislative Branches of State Administrative offices and Development Government of Administrative offices Reapportionment Rules and Practices Relating to Records and Progress in the Trafic Court Program Briefs in Appellate Courts From Arrest to Arraignment - Rights of Court-appointed Expert Medical Witness Arrested Persons to Counsel Some Recent Developments in Conflict of 1961 13th Annual Meeting, August 1-5, St. Laws Louis, Missouri 1964 16th Annual Meeting, August 5-9, New Canons of Judiclal Ethics and Court Room York, New York Decmm Internal Operations of State Courts of Last Recent Developments in Reapportionment Resort Recent Developments in Criminal LAW Conflicts of Jurisdiction Aid to Idgent Defendants Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Uniform Rules of Evidence Appeals from Administrative Agencies The National Defender Project Improvement of the Administrution of Some Aspects of F&dsm Justice Simplifying the Procedure for Taking Model Judiciury Article Appeals Selection and Tenure Use of Sound-recording Systems 1965 17th Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Appeals from Sentences in Criminal Cases Miami Beach, Florida

1962 14th Annual Meeting, August 1-4, San Current Developments in Criminal Laev Francisco, California Report on Proposed Revision of Uniform Post-conviction Procedure Act Governmental and Charitable Immunities Developments in Products LMbility Internal Operating Procedures of Appellate Impressions of Appellate Courts: Their Courts Opinions and Practices Criminal Prosecutions in the State Courts Report on the National Defender Project After Recent Decisions of the Supreme Bail and Precriul Release Procedures Court of the United States Publication of Official Reports of State Courts of Last Resort 63

1966 18th Annual Meeting, August 3-6, Gault-Effect on Adult Criminal e Montreal, Canada Cases and luvenile Court Proceedings Problems of Criminal Law Administra- Trends in the Administration of a State tion-An Austrahn Lawyer’s Judiclal System Impressions in the United States The Modernization of State Court Systems A Governor Views the Courts The Internal Operation of AppeUate Courts The Education of Judxlal Personnel 1969 21st Annual Meeting, August 6-9, Developments in Criminal Law Dallas, Texas Problems of Police interrogation in Light of Escobedo and Oh Court Management for Appellate Courts Cases Recent Developments in the Field of Torts Report on Criminal Law Project of Constitutional Rights of University the American Bar Association Students Report on President's Commission on National Defender Project Law Enforcement and Administra- Violence and the Right to Dissent tion of lustice Report on the National CoUege of State 1970 22nd Annual Meeting, August 5-8, St. Trial Judges Louis, Missouri Report on the National Defender Project Judiclal Ethics 1967 19th Annual Meeting, August 1-4, Structure and Administration of a Unifd Honolulu, Hawaii Court System Stand.urds for the Administrution of Administration of a State judxial Criminallustice System Fair Tnbl - Free Press Improving Procedures for Appellate Idaho’s New Supreme Court Buibng Review A Multi-state Bar Examination The National Court Assistance Act Recent Developments in Criminal Law 197 1 23rd Annual Meeting, June 30-July 2, Criminal lustice and the Rule-making Charleston, South Carolina PWer Report on Criminal Law Project of the Expediting Appellate Review-Some American Bar Associa tion Administrative Techniques Remarks on the Safe Streets and Crime Use of Electronic Reporting Control Act of I967 Equipment Report on Trafic Court Program of the Criteria in Selecting Cares for Amm*n’canBar Association Review Methook Used in Disposing of 1968 20th Annual Meeting, July 31- Minor Cases August 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Heming Cases in Divisions and Use of Court Commissioners Administration of]ustice Reorganizing a Court System The Role of the Solicitor General The North Carolina Experience Problems of Policy in the Restatement The Oklahoma Experience Work of the American Law Institute The lUinois Experience National CoUege of State Trial Judges AgpeUate Review in Criminal Cases Developments in Criminal Law in the Light View from a State Appellate Court of Gideon, Escobedo, Miranda, and View from a Federul Court 64 CCJ HISTORY

View from a State Tnhl Court 1975 27th Annual Meeting, August 4.7, Hot The National Cenm for State Courts and Springs, Virginia the Conference of Chef Justices Rule-making and Allied Powers of the 1972 24th Annual Meeting, August 9-12, Courts Seattle, Washington Rule-making Powers: Background and Overview National Center for State Courts Rule-making and Inherent Powers: Federalism and State Criminal Law A View from the States State Federal jdcial Council in Virginia State Courts and LEAA Law Enforcement Assistance Adminisma- The Federal Rules of Evidence tion and the Courts LENS: A Demonstration ofa Computer- Fiscal Problems of State Court Systems ized Research Technique (Colordo, Illinois, Michigan) The Courts and the Legd Profession: Improving Procedures for Appellate Legal Education and Admission to the Review Bar Directions for Prison Reform 1976 28th Annual Meeting, August 11-14, 1973 25th Annual Meeting, August 1-4, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Columbus. Ohio Discussion of Pedng LEAA Legislation Progress on the American Bar Association’s Discussion of ABA Standards for Criminal Commission on Standards ofJudicial justice Administration Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Unified Court System andlor Recertification Rule-making, Policymaking, and Report from the Conference on the Causes Adminisnu tion of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Court Administrative Services and Adm inis ma tion of Jus tice Finances Implications of the Goldfarb Decision for Records and Information Services State J&iuries and State Bars Other Reports: State-Federal Jdcial Councils 1977 29th Annual Meeting, July 31- Flondu State-Federal Jdcial Council August 3, Minneapolis, Minnesota Activities National Center for State Courts Professional Discipline of Judges and Council of State Governments’ Atwrneys Criminal JUT tice Project jud~cial-LegislativeRelationships Sate-Federal Relations 1974 26th Annual Meeting, August 12-16, Implementation of the Recommendations of Honolulu, Hawaii the Pound Conference Follow-up Tik Force Admission to the Bar Discipline of Lawyers 1978 1st Midyear Meeting: February 8-10, Discipline of Judges New Orleans, Louisiana Developments in Environmental Law Chieflustices and Public Relations State-Federal Relations National College of the State Judiciary Alternatives to Judicd Process-Neighbor- State Judicd Information 65

hood Dispute Resolution Centers, General Expectations of a Court Arbitration as a Fmof Dispute Administrator by a Supreme Court Resolution or Judicial Council Expediting Appeals in Appellate Courts General Expectations of a Supreme Judiciary and the News Medm Court orludicial Council by a Capital Fund Drive for the National Court Administrator Center for State Courts Responsibilities and Restraints on State Supreme Courts or Jud~cialCouncils to 30th Annual Meeting: July 30- Manage the Trial Courts, Given August 7, Burlington, Vermont Constitutional Supervisory Authority To See That Cases Are Disposed Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution? of Promptly Judicd Accountability and Independence Outs& of Appellate Review to See State Courts and Federal Fudng that Judges Follow Statutory und Future of State-Federal Relations Case Law Technology and the Courts Mechanisms Used to Jmplement Court Overview of Technology in the Courts Pokies Applications of Technology in the Courts Using Staff to Implement Court Computeraded Transcription Pokies Judicial Opinion Preparation, Pubkations Consensus Buikhng and Personal and Research Relationships Sta~Judrcial lnfmtion Systems How to Use Outs& Experts Professional Discipline of Attorneys and 1979 2nd Midyear Meeting: February 11-13, Judges Atlanta, Georgia American Bar Association Action Commission to Reduce Court Costs and State-Federal Cooperation: State Delay Certification of Questions and Federal Habeas Corpus 1980 3rd Midyear Meeting: January 30- Finality in Criminal Trials: Use of Unified February 1, Chicago, Illinois Appeals and Other Procedures Qualificutions and Admission to Bar Gannett Company Inc. u. DePasquale Funding of State Courts Recent “Impact” Decisions Televising of JdcdProceedings: 3 1st Annual Meeting: August 5-8, Implications and Role of Technology Flagstaff, Arizona Professional Discipline of Lawyers

Federal Review of State Court Decisions 32nd Annual Meeting: July 24-28, Federal Legislation Anchorage, Alaska Issues in State Court Administration Management Roles of a State Court Jdcral Burnout Administrator and a State Casejbw Management in the Trial Supreme Court or Judicial Council Courts Management Model: Chf Techniques Executive Officer and Board of Information and Monitoring Directors Standark Needed Management Model: ldcial The Role of State Court Council with Court Administrator Administration: What Works? as staff 66 CCJ HISTORY

Proposed New Code of Professional Lawyer Competence Responsibility judicral Competence Survey of State justice Institute Bill and Courts and the Public Related Problems Consrderation of Dangerousness in the Courts and the Pubk Pretrral Release Decision

1981 4th Midyear Meeting: February 4-5, 1983 6th Midyear Meeting: January 30 - Houston, Texas February 1, Birmingham, Alabama

The Current Status of the Relations Defense of Insanity in Criminal Matters Between the State Courts and the Recent Developments in Legal Education Federal Court, Juvenile Delinquency, and Admissions to the Bar and juvenile Courts Almtive Dispute Resolution-Generally Updav of Recent Developments in and Specifically Alternative Methods of Dispute Mandatory Arbitration-The Pennsy lvania Resolution Experience Review of Recent U.S. Supreme Court Health for the judiciary Capital Punishment Decisions Making Litigation Affordable in Middle- 35th Annual Meeting: July 24-27, sized Cases Savannah, Georgia

33rd Annual Meeting: August 2-5, jury Management Boa Raton, Florida Court Facilities Guuklines The Florida Guardian Ad Litem Program Public Communication-Role of the Courts Bar Relations Review of jurisdictional AUocation Between National Joint Project on Appellate State and Federal Courts Handbooks Sentencing Guldelines and Review judiclal Performance Evaluation Enhancing the Competence of Lawyers Reliance on State Constitutions Protracted and Complex Tnbls Impact Decisions

1982 5th Midyear Meeting: January 28-30, 1984 7th Midyear Meeting: February 4-8, Williamsburg, Virginia 1984, New Orleans, Louisiana

Juridction and Relationship of State judicral Methods of Jnterpretation of the Jnwnnediate Appellate Courts and State Law Courts ofhtResort Appellate Courts Proposed Congressional Limitations on The Burger Court: Changes in Criminal Federal Court jurisdiction Over Cases Procedure Involving Federal Constitutional Rights ABA's Section on Legal Education and Review of Policy Positions of the Admissions to the Bar Conference of Chief justices University of Denver Seminar for Jurists judicial Jmmunity and Ldility of judges and judicial Administrators 36th Annual Meeting: July 29- Inherent Powers of the Courts-Special August 2, Lake Ozark, Missouri Emphasis on Court Financing Time Standards for Case Processing 34th Annual Meeting: September 15- Report of the judicial Performance 18, Jackson Hole, Wyoming Evaluation Committee 67

Report of the Coordinating Council on Cost Benefit Analysis and the New Lawyer Competence Supreme Court: The Chicago Law and Mehine: Emerging Problems Connection Global Issues Permanency Planning for Abused and Neglected Children-The Appellate 1985 8th Midyear Meeting: February Court’s Role 10-14, Williamsburg, Virginia Decisions to Forgo Lzfe-sustaining Treatment Role of the Citizen in Court Improvement Expedition Without Affecting Deliberution Discussion of the State Justice Institute Act Courts and the Community Federal hwin State Supreme Courts Recent Impact Decisions of the United 1986 38th Annual Meeting, August 3-7, States Supreme Court in Criminal Cases Omaha, Nebraska Iowa Mock Trial Program Virginia Docent (Court Visitation) Gender Bias in the Courts Program Judicd Ethics The State Supreme Courts and Regulation Bar Admissions: Chrmter and Fitness of the Legal Profession: An Update Judiclal Perfurmunce Evaluations fnmest on Lawyer Trust Accounts Discussion of the fmpact of Pulliam v. 1987 10th Midyear Meeting, February 1-5, Allen Gleneden Beach, Oregon

37th Annual Meeting: August 4-8, ManagementA2ornmunication and 1985, Lexington, Kentucky Motivation Lawyer Competence Managing for Team Productivity: Professionalism Searchingfur the Effectiveness Levers How to Develop, Adopt, and fmplement 1987 39th Annual Meeting, August 2-6, Policy Affecting the Courts, the Bar, and Rapid City, South Dakota the Pubk Define and Describe the Administrative and State Justice Institute Interrelationship Duties of the Chief ExmlRelationships of the State Courts Justice and the Sta~Court Relations with the Me& Adminis trator Relations with the Legislature How to Establish and Maintain Productive Relations with the Public Working Relationships with Legislative Civil Jurishtion Wihn fhnCountry and Executive Branches The Crisis in Tort Law Addressing Recurring Administrative Problems: Nightmures 1988 11th Midyear Meeting, January 24-28, Appellate Delay-How to Expedite Williamsburg, Virginia Appelhce Calendars The Roots of American Constitutionalism 1 5 9th Midyear Meeting, February 1-5, Judicd Administration: Its Relation to Baltimore, Maryland Judiclal Independence The Future of the First Amendment History of the Conference of Chief Judiclal Independence Justices Federalism as a Deoeloping Concept 68 CCJ HISTORY

40th Annual Meeting, July 31- 1990 13th Midyear Meeting, January 28 - August 4, Rockport, Maine February 1, San Juan, Puerto Rim

New Paths to'justice: Alternative Dispute The Federul Courts: I789 , 1989, and Resolution in the State Courts Beyond State Focus on Court-annexed ADR: Bicentennial of the JIuhciary Act of J 789 What Do You Have? What's the State Report of the Federal Courts Study Role? What Works, and What Doesn't Commitree Perspectives on ADR: Wave of the Future Drug Aaihctions and How They Differ or Hoola-hoop? Judicd Selection Unjust Criticism ofJudges The Historical Evolution and Current Canuhn-American Constitutionalism Status ofJudrcial Selection Methods in Acquired Immune Defiiency Syndrome the U.S. (AIDS) Merit Selection Plans Are Like Snow- flakes: No Two Are Identical 1989 12th Midyear Meeting, January 22-26, Enabling Factors and Barriers to Adopting Lake Buena Vista, Florida a Mm't Plan Adapting to a New Reality: The Voting Postconviction Relief and Death Penalty Rights Act and Judulal Elections Procedures Policical Status of Puerto Rico Possible Changes in Postconviction Client Security Funds Relief Matters in Federal Courts and Their Effect on the States 42nd Annual Meeting, August 12-16, What Next, Mr. Chief Justice? 1990, Lake George at Bolton Landing, Precedent-What It Is and What It Is Not; New York When to Kiss It and When to KiU It The United States Constitution and State Update on Evaluation of J&ial Constitutions: How Do They Relate and Performance What Does the Future Hold? Report on Federal Drug Policies Trial Court Performance Standards 41st Annual Meeting, July 30- Habeas Corpus: A Report from the U.S. August 3, Lake Tahoe, Nevada Senate Rule of hw, Fehalism, and Separation Initiatives on Examining Racd and Ethnic of Powers: The U.S.A and the Bias in tk Courts U.S.S.R. Trends in Public Finance Drug lssues Affecting State Judicial Report on the Fifth International AppeUate Systems judges Conference Emerging Technology Issues and Report of the ABA Commission on Implications for State Courts E vu1ua tion of Disciplinary Enforcemen t ABA Code ofJudicd Conduct 1991 14th Midyear Meeting, January 27-31, Federal Courts Study Committee Scottsdale, Arizona Substance Abuse: What It Is and How to Detect It Asbestos Litigation Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in the A Brief Overview of the History of Legal Profession Federal Indian Law and Policy Alcohol and Other Drug Problems Among Pro Bono Programs Youth 69

Arironu Litermy, Education, B Reading Asbestos Litigation Network (LEARN) Planning in the Court Environment Nuts 6' Bolts of the Ofice of Chief Planning: What Is It and Why Is It Justice So Important for Courts Appellate Delay Reduction A Retrospective View of Planning in the Relations with Inmeduu Courts Appellate Courts t7 Trial Courts Cultural Diversity and the Courts CollegdtyIConjkts Amongst Almtive Dispute Resolution Members of the Appellate Court BiomedicdLegal Issues Relations with the Public Through the Medm 1993 16th Midyear Meeting, January 24-28, Relations with Budgetary Authorities Williamsburg, Virginia Conservatorship & Guurhnship Punitive Damages 43rd Annual Meeting, August 4-8, Crisis in State Court Fundzng 1991, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The Nuts and Bolts Problems of Chiefs State Courts and Natiod Policy The BiU of Rights and the First Ways Without Means: Federal Amendment Mandates and State Courts lnterstate Child Support Enforcement Planning for Impact: An Analysis of LegislativelJudiciul Relations: Jud.acial the Welfare Reform Act of I980 Impact Statements Coalition for Change: Prospects for Bndge the Change: The State Courts and Joint Legis&turelJudiciary Judicd Education in the 1990s Advocacy What's Next: The New Congress a 1992 15th Midyear Meeting, January 26-30, and the New Administration 1992, Jackson, Mississippi How Can State Courts be Heard?

Fundzng of the Justice System 45th Annual Meeting, August 1-5, Civil Justice Improvement Blaine, Washington Report of the Commission on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement A Proposal for Joint BenchlBur Action to Complex Litigation and Mass Torts Improve the justice System and the Inherent Responsibilities of the Judiciary Profession Prohibition ofJudges to Comment on Building Public Trust and Conjidmce Social or Political Issues that May Judges in the Classroom-Partnership with Come Before Them Schools Comity: Forging Linkages with the Health Overview of Law-related Education Care System Whyludicd Participation in Law- The Transformation of Public Mend related Education Is Important to Health and Its Impkations for the schools Courts The Jdcial Lesson Plans-How Health Care and the Courts: Where Is Judges Led Games , SmaU Group the Justice? Discussions , and Hypothetical Case studies 44th Annual Meeting, July 19-23, Demonstration of a JhialLesson 1992, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii Plan 70 CCJ HISTORY c

Citizens and Their Courts Citizen Inuoluement in Court Perjhnunce California’s Citizens’ Perspectives The Color oflustice Building a Constituency for the Courts The Image of the Courts Portrayed by the Media Rekxions Between theJ&ud and Legisbtiue Branches The First Rung on the ,!&fer of Justice: Access to Justice Through Access to Legd Infmtion in Court Libraries Lighting a Fire: Where Is the Opinion? Retaining the Best: The Art and Process of Ensuring just Compensation Model Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement

CONFERENCE OF CCT CHIEF TUSTICES