‘00 in Brief (listed chronologically) Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Commerce Report of the Case Program begins operation. Program will Administrative Office of handle all new business Pennsylvania Supreme Court litigation 2000 Philadelphia Court of Com- mon Pleas is recognized by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges for its efforts to expedite adoptions for children removed from their homes. Accelerated Adoption Review Court seeks to condense multiple hearings months apart into one hearing UJS’s efforts to computerize Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania’s courts Chief Justice John P. Flaherty moves forward as Common Justice Stephen A. Zappala Pleas project gets Justice Ralph J. Cappy underway. Phase one of the project will be to Justice Ronald D. Castille computerize criminal Justice Russell M. Nigro courts Justice Sandra Schultz Newman Justice Thomas G. Saylor Zygmont A. Pines, Esq. is appointed Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, succeeding Nancy M. Sobolevitch, who had retired at the end of 1999 after 13 years of service Act 105 of 2000 is passed, add- ing 19 judgeships to the Courts of Common Pleas over the next three years Law passed to allow judges to work through the end of the calendar year in which they turn 70. As this change requires a constitutional amendment, question will be placed on the primary ballot in May 2001. Currently, the Pennsylvania Constitution requires that judges retire upon reaching age 70. Zygmont A. Pines, Esq. Court Administrator of Pennsylvania ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS Philadelphia Office Harrisburg Office 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 5001 Louise Drive Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 adopts a new Code of Civility to (215) 560-6300 (717) 795-2000 reinforce the longstanding prac- tices of civility and courtesy On the Internet: www.courts.state.pa.us Preface To: The Honorable Chief Justice of Pennsylvania and Honorable from the Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and to the Citizens of the Commonwealth Court I am pleased to present this Report of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts for 2000. Our goal is to provide a general reference document that reflects the hard work and dedicated service Administrator of the Administrative Office and the boards and committees of the Supreme Court. Within this report we have attempted to outline the array of programs and services that provide the framework of our effective judicial system. This report also serves to highlight noteworthy accomplishments in the administration of justice that took place during what was both a very busy and productive year. The judiciary continued to move in the direction of improving service, access and the administration of justice for all Pennsylvanians in 2000. Among the year’s highlights was the successful and efficient transition of 175 senior county court administrative staff into state service -- a move that became effective on January 1, 2000, according to guidelines established in legislation passed during the previous year by the General Assembly. Various human resource and organizational issues were occasioned by the transfer of these staff over the course of the year. Another noteworthy event was the Supreme Court’s creation -- also with funding provided by the General Assembly -- of a committee to study the subjects of race, ethnicity and gender as they arise within Pennsylvania’s courts. The judiciary also continued to make strides in statewide court automation to help manage its diverse and substantial caseloads. Of particular significance was the successful implementation in December 2000 of the Pennsylvania Appellate Court Case Management System (PACMS) for the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts. v The ultimate goal in automating Pennsylvania’s judicial system remains a fully integrated case and financial management system at all court levels to effectively perform judicial record keeping, collect fines, fees and costs and provide a timely and accurate statewide court case data link. Other automation accomplishments during the year included first phase implementation of the Administrative Support Application Project in August 2000. The system replaced an outdated accounting/ payroll/human resources computer network with one that is able to Preface serve the judiciary’s existing and projected computerization needs. The year also marked the starting point for efforts to upgrade from the the District Justice System to Criminal Justice Network or JNET standards and needs. The effort underscores the judiciary’s interest in developing and implementing modern technology for use both independently and as an integral part of the executive branch’s JNET Court initiative. Allowing Philadelphia Municipal Court civil cases to be filed Administrator, electronically over the Internet for the first time was another example of how the state court system improved service and accessibility through automation during the year. The move made the claims continued process easier for citizens and their attorneys while providing an alternative to a largely manual system that generated tons of cumbersome paperwork into the municipal court system each year. In 2000 the Supreme Court adopted a new Code of Civility to underscore the importance of courtroom conduct in resolving cases and upholding the dignity of the legal profession. I was honored to be named Court Administrator of Pennsylvania on a permanent basis toward the end of the year after having served as acting state court administrator since January 2000. The judiciary takes great pride in demonstrating through this report to you the challenges and changes faced by the courts and how they are being met through our efforts to provide effective service, access and justice for all Pennsylvanians. Sincerely, ZYGMONT A. PINES Acting Court Administrator of Pennsylvania vi Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System Supreme Court Court of Judicial Council Judicial Discipline Court Administrator Minor Judiciary of Pennsylvania Judicial Education Board (AOPC) Conduct Board Cmte for Penna Lawyers Continuing Disciplinary Rules Board of Law Proposed Standard Fund for IOLTA Board Legal Education Board of the Committees Jury Instructions Examiners Client Security Board Supreme Court Commonwealth Court Superior Court Courts of Common Pleas Philadelphia Pittsburgh District Philadelphia Traffic Court Magistrates Justices Municipal Court A Brief History P ennsylvania’s judiciary began as a disparate collection of courts, of the some inherited from the reign of the Duke of York and some estab- ished by William Penn. They were mostly local, mostly part time, and mostly under control of the governor. All of them were run by non- Courts of lawyers. And although the Provincial Appellate Court was established in 1684, no court could be called the court of final appeal. Final appeals had to be taken to England. Pennsylvania Several attempts were made in the early years of the eigh- teenth century to establish a court of final appeal in Pennsylvania and to further improve and unify the colony’s judicial system, but because the crown had final veto power over all colonial legislation, these attempts proved futile. Finally, in 1727 the crown sanctioned a bill that had been passed five years earlier. The Judiciary Act of 1722 was the colony’s first judicial bill with far-reaching impact. It established the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, providing for a chief justice and two justices who would sit twice yearly in Philadelphia and ride the circuit at other times; and it created the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Bucks and Chester Counties. The court system in Pennsylvania did not change again until the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. By establishing the Courts of Sessions, Courts of Common Pleas and Orphans’ Courts in each county, the constitution allowed Pennsylvania to see the beginning of a statewide framework for the development of its judicial system. A new constitution in 1790 encouraged further development in the Commonwealth’s judicial system by grouping counties into judicial districts and placing president judges at the heads of the districts’ Common Pleas Courts. This was meant to ease the Supreme Court’s rapidly increasing workload. Constitutional changes in 1838 and 1874 and a constitutional amendment in 1850 effected changes in the 5 A BRIEF HISTORY OF PENNSYLVANIA’S COURTS Evolution of Pennsylvania’s Judicial System Judicial system of local magistrates and an appellate court exist in Pennsylvania's early 1682 Provincial Court established (future Pennsyl- settlements 1684 vania Supreme Court) Judiciary Act of 1722 renames Provincial Court the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, allowing for 1722 one chief justice and two associate justices Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 establishes Courts of Sessions, Common Pleas Courts and Constitution of 1790 groups counties into 1776 Orphans' Courts in each county; sets tenure at judicial districts, with president judges to 1790 seven years for Supreme Court justices head the Common Pleas Courts Constitution of 1838 fixes tenure for justices 1838 of the Supreme Court at 15 years Constitutional amendment makes the entire judiciary elective 1850 Constitution of 1874 designates method for the popular election of judges, increases number 1874 of Supreme Court justices from five to seven and increases justices' tenure to 21 years Superior Court is created to ease burdens of 1895 the Supreme Court Constitution of