Justice in Jeopardy - A Lawyer’s Special Obligation
By John Cary
The theme of this issue of the Bar Bulletin--Justice in Jeopardy--highlights a central problem for justice in Washington. We are honored to have Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Judge Deb-orah Fleck, co- chairs of the Board of Judicial Administration, describe the crisis in justice funding, a program for fundamental reform, and the initial legislative successes.
For myself, I believe that the Justice in Jeopardy program is such an important issue that I have written ten columns on the topic. Previous columns have focused on the following problems:
- The need to reform the justice funding system to balance state and local government responsibilities (the state presently pays only 11 percent of the bill).
- The need to close a $200 million gap in funding trial courts, public defense and civil legal aid.
- The need to reform the administration of public defense programs and to enforce standards for case loads and representation.
- The need to strengthen civil legal aid programs so that they reach more than 15 percent of those who need assistance.
In this column, I want to turn from describing the problems to focus on us--the legal profession. We have a special obligation and a vital role to play to assure adequate funding for justice.
If lawyers don’t speak out in support of measures to fund justice, who will? Over the years, surveys have repeatedly shown the public to have a strong but abstract support for the courts. But public support rests deep in the background. The public has little knowledge of the courts and no knowledge that trial courts rely on an antiquated and precarious system of county funding. Without a calamity, justice funding will not come to the fore in the public’s attention. Thus, it falls to lawyers--who believe in the rule of law, who know that a vital, competent, independent court is fundamental to our society--to carry the burden of justice funding reform.
To be sure, lawyers will not carry the burden by themselves. The article by Chief Justice Alexander and Judge Fleck shows the depth of commitment and strength of leadership from the bench. Judges speak from their personal knowledge and have great credibility with legislators. Yet, the bench needs the bar’s participation. For a fundamental rebalancing of state and local funding responsibility and a commitment to close a $200 million gap, there must be significant political support. Judges are limited in the extent to which they can take part in politics. Lawyers are not so limited.
Despite budget cuts over the last six years, we have been spared an obvious calamity--closed courts, moratoriums on cases, painful delays--but make no mistake, there have been real cuts in programs, real pain, and real deterioration in the court system. I fear something as dangerous as an obvious calamity --an insidious cycle of incrementally lower performance and incrementally lowered expectations. Down the slippery slope we slide, making adjustments to an increasingly underfunded court and getting used to less and less. The system degrades almost imperceptibly. But at some point, the foundation of respect and confidence on which it is based will disappear. Unless we act to modernize the funding system and close the funding gap, we will find that the guarantor of a free and democratic society has eroded away.
As lawyers, we have a special obligation to the justice system. Our responsibility is not merely to preserve and defend the status quo--but also to seek reform when needed.
Reform involves supporting the measures that Chief Justice Alexander and Judge Fleck describe. It also involves supporting measures brought before future legislative sessions to carry out the program envisioned in the Justice in Jeopardy report.
Reform, however, means more than just supporting spending measures. It means dealing with the elephant in the front room--raising the money needed to close the funding gap.
Where will the money come from? It is not at all clear that justice will receive adequate funding from Washington’s existing tax system. What has to date been a slow-motion debate over the tax system is likely to move off the back burner during the next few years. Lawyers should not, and cannot, sit on the sidelines during the debate. We have a duty not only to call for increased spending for justice but also a duty to help find the revenues to pay for it.
Thus, I conclude my series of columns on Justice in Jeopardy with an appeal to King County lawyers, first, to support now and in the future the Justice in Jeopardy program for reforming justice funding and, second, to take part-- individually and through your professional associations--in the debate over tax reform so the needs of justice funding will be heard. n
John Cary is KCBA president. He can be reached at caryj@att.net.
