Question of Ethics: A Conversation on Courts and Ethics
March 4th, 2026

Courts stand at a crossroads between tradition andnecessity. On the one hand, we are guardians of legal boundaries, carefully distinguishing who may practice law and what constitutes legal advice. On the other hand, we are confronted with an undeniable reality: in many locationsaround our country, people with legal problems never reach the courthouse door, often because:

Distance

They live miles away from the courthouse or even any legal help

Affordability

They cannot afford to get the legal help they need

 Recognition

They do not even see their problem as “legal” or the courthouse as a place that can help.

 As unmet legal needs grow, our community is asking courtsto do more, to do things differently, with fewer resources, and with fewer assumptions about how justice is accessed. These questions invite us to wrestle with uncomfortable issues. If non-attorney legal advocates are helping close critical legal gaps in selected areas around the country, is the currentlimitation on giving legal advice (Canon 1.7) still appropriate? Conversely, do some areas of law require stricter boundaries to protect the public?

Can we continue to rely on courthouse-centered models, ormust courts extend their presence into the community in more sustained and meaningful ways? And as front-line staff increasingly become the first, and sometimes the only point of contact, how do we responsibly navigate that thin line between providing helpful information and giving permissible legal advice?

Finally, this discussion challenges us to think about thefuture of the court’s workforce itself. Expanding non-attorney legal advisors raises questions not only about service delivery, but about professional identity, training, liability, and career development within the courts.

Are we prepared to redefine roles, invest in training newskills, and accept a more flexible vision of how we as court leaders serve the public? The answers to these questions may shape not just access to justice, but the very role of courts in the communities we serve.

In this episode, we examine the expanding roles of non-attorney advocacy and community-based services. We look at the evolving role of court staff to meet people where they are. We ask the question can we reimagine access to justice?

 Today’s Panel

Maggie Humm Executive Director of the Alaska Legal Services Corporation in Anchorage.

Sarah Carver Co-director of the Alaska Legal Services Corporation’s Community Justice Workers Resource Center.

Creadell Webb Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District Court, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

Liz Rambo Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court, in Eugene, Oregon 

Access the episode by going to the NACM website podcast link: ⁠https://www.nacmnet.org/podcasts⁠

Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to: ⁠[email protected]

Join the Question of Ethics Conversation held after the Subcommittee meetings every fourth Thursday of the month at 2:00 pm ET.

Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

February 17th, 2026

Alaska has quietly become a brave path-finder incourt-based artificial intelligence. Last month, the state released the Alaska Virtual Assistant (AVA), an AI chatbot designed to help court users navigate the probate court system. The path to launch, however, was anything but smooth.Delays piled up, expectations collided with reality, and media coverage has been more skeptical than supportive. So, what actually happened behind the scenes?

This month, we sit down with Alaska’s court leaders to explore their bold new initiative, AVA, an innovative tool designed to help court users navigate the complexities of probate. We look beyond the headlines to examine what Alaskalearned from launching AI in the courts, the challenges they encountered, and the lessons every court should consider before embarking on a similar journey.

Today’s Moderator

 Roger Rand, Technology Manager, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon, Current Vice President, National Association for Court Management.

Today’s Panel

 Jeannie Sato, Director of Access to Justice Services, Alaska State Court System,

Aubrie Souza, Principal Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts,

Tom Martin, Founder and CEO of the legal technology & artificial intelligence firm LawDroid

Access the episode by going to the NACM website podcast link: https://www.nacmnet.org/podcasts

Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to: [email protected]

Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode ReleaseDate: January 20th, 2026

Workplace mediation is rapidly becoming an accepted management tool across the U.S. Organizations facing rising conflict, legal exposure, and employee burnout are increasingly turning to mediation to resolve disputes and restore working relationships.

 In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received more than 88,000 new discrimination and retaliation charges, a 9 percent increase from the prior year. At the same time, analysts project that the workplace mediation and conflict-resolution market will grow by more than 7 percent annually through 2030. These trends point to a simple reality: workplace conflict is increasing, and organizations are searching for better ways to manage it.

 The modern workplace itself is driving this change. Hybrid work, remote teams, generational turnover, and a more diverse workforce are creating new kinds of misunderstandings and tensions, many of which do not fit neatly into traditional HR investigations or disciplinary systems. Mediation offers a different model: one that emphasizes dialogue, accountability, and problem-solving rather than blame and punishment.

 Several forces are fueling the growth of workplace mediation. Employers are placing greater emphasis on employee well-being and mental health. They are alsorecognizing that mediation is typically faster, less expensive, and less disruptive than formal complaints, litigation, or turnover. At the same time, technology has made mediation more accessible, allowing parties to meet virtually and resolve disputes before they escalate.

 Yet mediation is not a cure-all. It requires both parties to engage in good faith. Some conflicts—particularly those involving serious misconduct or power imbalances—may not be appropriate for mediation. And when mediation is poorlydesigned or inadequately facilitated, it can do more harm than good.

 This month, we are taking a closer look at workplace mediation. Is resolving disputes through trained, neutral facilitators more effective than the traditional tools organizations rely on? And, most importantly for ouraudience, can this model be adapted to work inside the courts themselves?

Today’s Moderator:

 Erika Schmid Judicial Clerk Supervisor at the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon

 Today’s Panel:

 Teshrie (Tess) Kalicharan ADR Director for the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in Orlando, Florida

Beth Moss Human Resources Director for the Alaska Court System,

Jamie Giani founder of Third Branch Solutions in Wesley Chapel, Florida

 Become Part of the Conversation

Submit your comments and questions to: [email protected] Please take a moment to share this episode on your Facebook or LinkedIn pages. The more people we bring into this dialogue, the stronger our collective understanding of courts and court administration becomes.

Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Series, December 16th, 2025, Episode

There are strong arguments favoring the selection of court managers based on objective merit-focused criteria criteria. While there is little desire to expand the “merit system” to themanagerial level, hiring and promotion decisions rooted in proven competence and performance can certainly strengthen both leadership quality and institutional integrity. Yet just beneath the surface lies a dilemma courts have wrestled with for decades: what exactly counts as “merit,” and how objective can we really be in a system shaped by politics, personalities, and pressure?

 Is managerial hiring grounded on objective criteria even possible in our court system? Can the administrative machinery ever be fully insulated from the political milieu in which courts operate? This tension creates a shadow over the ideal of purely merit-based hiring, as political alignments and institutional loyalties can sometimes weigh as heavily as managerial skill.

 Selection based on objective criteria prioritizes quantifiable results, efficiency, budgeting, and project outcomes, yet this focus risks pushing aside intangibles such as empathy, fairness, and cultural awareness. So the question becomes: can we measure what truly matters, or are we only measuring only what is immediately measurable?

 Are Merit-Based Decisions Possible?

Consider these six commonly used criteria:

Effective Communication and Interpersonal Competence Determining if a candidate can effectively communicate and demonstrate interpersonal competence is one of the more objective criteria, however, an interview might have to choose between interpersonal competence and say legal, or court operational knowledge.       Leading Teams and Analyzing Problems

Leading court teams and analyzing complex problems are vital in court administration, but with few objectivemeasures, an interview panel might favor the candidate who tells the more compelling story.  

Education, Certifications, & Professional Development

Degrees and certifications, which show one’s continuing professional development might be the most objectively measured criteria.

Knowledge of the Law, Court Operations, or Technology

Legal, technical, or operational expertise is easier to objectively assess, however candidates outside the court system are at a huge disadvantage compared to internalcandidates.

 Fresh Thinking and Innovation

Demonstrations of fresh thinking and innovation in an area outside the courts can be challenging for an interview panel to assess how a candidate might perform in a court environment.

 ·        Loyalty to the Court          

Loyalty to the Court can be highly subjective and might not even be discussed during the hiring process.

This month, we are exploring merit selection. Can truly objective, measurable criteria be applied when choosing court management leaders, or is the ideal of merit always just slightly out of reach?

 Today’s Panel

 Beth Urban Deputy State Court Administrator for the Unified Judicial System in Pierre, South Dakota

Whitney Blighton Senior Management Analyst for Superior Court, in Vancouver, Washington

Zennell Brown Fairness & Accountability Administrator for the Michigan State Court Administrative Office

Erica Payne-Santiago Deputy Court Administrator and Jury Commissioner for the Prince George’s County Circuit Court in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.

Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to [email protected]

 Please take a moment to share this episode on your Facebook or LinkedIn pages. The more people we bring into this dialogue, the stronger our collective understanding of courts and court administration becomes.

A Question of Ethics: A Conversation on Courts and Ethics
November 20th, 2025

Across America, many communities are in what scholars call “legal deserts,” areas with few, if any, available attorneys to meet the legal needs of local citizens. Rural towns and poorurban neighborhoods often lack affordable access to lawyers, leaving residents without practical guidance for solving their legal problems. This shortage frustrates individuals seeking justice, and undermines confidence in the justice system itself.  It widens the gap between those who can afford representation and those who cannot.

 To help bridge this gap, a few states (for example, Utah, Alaska, and now Oregon), are experimenting with using non-attorney legal advocates. These are trained professionals, often known as Community Justice Workers, who work under the guidance of a practicing attorney. Others, in Arizona for example, are called Certified Community Legal Advocates. They are untethered from a practicing lawyer.

 These non-attorney advocates can assist people in certain specific legal areas including:

·        family law

·        landlord-tenant disputes

·        employment issues

·        government benefits

·        domestic violence, or

·        debt collection defense.

 These advocates work within the limitations prohibiting non-lawyers from offering what is defined as “legal advice,” a boundary carefully guarded by the laws governing the unauthorized practice of law. This prohibition is also codifiedin NACM’s Model Code of Conduct for Court Professionals. Canon 1.7 states, “A court professional is responsive to inquiries regarding standard court procedures but does not give legal advice unless required as part of one’s official position.”

While these restrictions safeguard the public from unqualified guidance, they also constrain non-lawyers from fully helping individuals through complex legal processes. These restrictions raise difficult questions about the balance between consumer protection and access to justice.

 In this episode we are talking about communities that are “legal deserts,” where residents lack access to affordable legal help. Some states are experimenting with non-attorney legal advocates to bridge this gap. Is this a model for thefuture?

 Today’s Panel

Maggie Humm Executive Director of the Alaska Legal Services Corporation in Anchorage.

Sarah Carver Co-director of the Alaska Legal Services Corporation’s Community Justice Workers Resource Center.

Creadell Webb Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District Court, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

Liz Rambo Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court, in Eugene, Oregon 

Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast November 18, 2025, Episode

Mentorship isn’t just a nice-to-have, it’s a game-changer. It bridges the gap between experience and ambition, turning goals of “someday” into measurable progress today.

 A great mentor can:
• Share hard-won wisdom and real-world perspective
• Help navigate tough choices with clarity and confidence
• Accelerate growth by shortening the learning curve
• Boost self-assurance and professional presence
• Steer a mentee away from common pitfalls before they happen.

 But mentorship goes far beyond building skills. It helpsprofessionals feel seen, supported, and valued,  part of a larger purpose and community. In the workplace, a mentor can decode unwritten rules, clarify expectations, and open doors to meaningful opportunities. For emerging professionals, it’s often the spark that ignites a sense of possibility, revealing paths they never knew existed.

Organizations that invest in mentoring don’t just growtalent, they grow loyalty, collaboration, and a culture of continuous learning. Mentorship builds bridges that strengthen teams, connect generations, and prepare leaders for what’s next.

Of course, every mentorship comes with challenges. Findingthe right match takes intention. Mentors must learn to adapt to different personalities and learning styles. Mentees, too, may hesitate, unsure how much to ask or share. And without clear boundaries or trust, even well-meaning advice can miss the mark.

This month, we’re taking a closer look at mentorship: whatworks, what doesn’t, and how to make it better. NACM’s long-standing mentorship program has connected professionals across the country for years. How has it shaped careers? And what should mentorship look like in a rapidly changingworld?

Join us as we explore how great mentoring turns potentialinto performance, and experience into impact.

Today’s Panel

Tina Mattison Deputy Court Administrator, Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts, Tucson, Arizona

Stacey Fields Court Administrator, Municipal Court, City of Crestwood, Missouri

Samantha Wallis Deputy Trial Court Administrator, First Judicial District, Coeur D’Alene, Idaho

Daniel Alejandro Meza Rincon Deputy Juvenile Court Administrator, State of Utah, Salt Lake City

Become part of the Conversation. Send in your comments and questions to ⁠⁠⁠[email protected]⁠⁠

#mentorship

#leadership

#access to justice

#court administration

September 16th, 2025,  Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Employee disengagement is a critical national issue, one that quietly undermines productivity, economic growth, and workplace culture across the United States. According to a2024 Gallup Corporation report:

·      Only 33% of Employees are Actively Engaged in Their Work

·      50% are Not Engaged They are going through the motions without energy or passion.

·        17% are Actively Disengaged. They are, in somecases, sabotaging the efforts of their colleagues.

 These statistics paint a sobering portrait of a workforce in quiet crisis, where a majority of employees are not fully invested in their work. Gallup estimates the cost ofthis disengagement to the U.S. economy at over $1.9 trillion annually lost in productivity, absenteeism, turnover, and diminished performance.

 Managers point to employee shortcomings:

Failure to Own Their Performance and Growth Many employees stop seeking challenges, feedback, or development. They become content to drift rather than drive.

Lack of Effort to Connect with Their Job A weakened work ethic shows in a reluctance to go beyond the minimum or take full ownership of assignments.

Misaligned Career Choices Some employees acceptroles that don’t match their long-term goals and instead of course-correcting, allow dissatisfaction to quietly fester.

 Employees, in turn, point to leadership:

Lack of Clear Job Expectations Unclear responsibilities and vague performance standards create a fog of uncertainty,eroding confidence and consistency.

Limited Opportunities for Growth When training,mentorship, and development are absent, ambition fades and potential withers.    Not Feeling Cared About as a Person When empathy ismissing, employees may feel invisible.

Poor communication Both sides agree that communication is broken; each sees the other as responsible. Employees remain silent, withdrawn, and sometimes morose. Leaders misread the silence as apathy, not alienation.

 What emerges is a workplace marked by quiet tensions and mutual disillusionment. Whether through micromanagement or complete detachment, the absence of meaningful feedback and recognition is deeply demoralizing. Can this be turned around before the silence becomes permanent?

 Today’s Moderator

Erika Schmid Judicial Clerk Supervisor at Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland

 Today’s Panel

Elaina Cano Court Administrator, City Court, Surprise, Arizona

Teshrie Kalicharan Alternative Dispute ResolutionDirector, 9th Judicial Circuit Court in Orlando, Florida

Samantha Wallis Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur D’Alene, Idaho

Become part of the Conversation. Send in your comments and questions to ⁠⁠[email protected]⁠#employee engagement

#non-attorney legal advocates

#access to justice

#court administration

August 19, 2025, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

Many contend that tensions between larger general jurisdiction courts and smaller limited jurisdiction courts stem from disparities in resources, staffing, and technology.  Urban courts, with their towering caseloads, high-stakes criminal prosecutions, sprawling civil disputes, and complexlitigation, tend to attract greater funding, the best technology, and top-tier legal talent.

In contrast, smaller suburban and rural courts, quietly manage everyday justice with limited staff and sometimesoutdated systems.  They can find themselves on the margins of statewide judicial planning. Urban courts are often the first to adopt new tools such as AI-assisted litigant self-help, virtual hearings, and real-time language translation. Smaller courts often watch from a distance, struggling with connectivity issues and budget constraints. Is this gap just technological or is it cultural? What works in a bustling city courthouse may falter in a courthouse where everyone knows each other’s names.

 Moderator

Kristie Collier

Court Administrator, Maricopa County Justice Courts, Phoenix, Arizona

 Today’s Panel

Melinda BrooksSpecialized Dockets Manager, Franklin County Municipal Court, Columbus, Ohio

Timothy Ezell

Chief Operations Officer, Fulton County Clerk of Superior & Magistrate Courts, Atlanta, Georgia

Courtney JacksonCourt Administrator, Municipal Court, Decatur, Georgia 

Become part of the Conversation. Send in your comments and questions to ⁠[email protected]#Accesstojustice

#Proceduralfairness

#Public trustandconfidence #Transparencyinthecourts

July 15th, 2025, Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode

One of the major challenges facing state trial courts today is the disturbing lack of accurate national statistical data. Beneath the surface of our justice system lies a troubling truth: we often don’t know, we can’t know, what’s really happening.How many cases do our courts handle? What kinds? How efficiently? Without reliable data, we are left to make educated guesses in the dark. This absence of clarity is not accidental, it is the result of a decentralized system ofjustice.

Some of the results include:

Lack of Uniform Court Coding
What one court calls a “hearing,” another might call a “conference.” These differences seem small, but they add up to a patchwork of mismatched codes, formats, and definitions across jurisdictions.

Limited Data Transparency and Public Access
Even when data exists, it is often locked behind arcane systems, hard to find, and harder to interpret.

Hurdles with Data Sharing
Disconnected technologies, legacy systems, and inconsistent standards create silos of information making collaboration truly a challenge.

Inability to Measure Performance and Outcomes
Without standardized metrics, we can't track how long cases take, how they’re resolved, or whether justice is truly being served. It’s like trying to navigate with a map that constantly changes shape.

 Addressing this challenge is the National Open Court Data Standards project (NODS). It is a collaborative effort led by the National Center for State Courts, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the Joint Technology Committee.By creating shared standards for collecting, sharing, and interpreting court data, NODS shines a light in the shadows, allowing courts to operate with greater transparency, efficiency, and consistency.

This month, we are looking at the National Open Court Data Standards project. We explore how this effort will transform access to court data for researchers, policymakers, the media, and the public.

 Today’s Panel:

 The Honorable W. Brent Powell, Judge on the MissouriSupreme Court.

T.J. BeMent, Court Administrator for the 10th Judicial District Court in Athens, Georgia

Laura Ritenour, Caseflow Management Specialist for the Administrative Office of the Courts, Phoenix, Arizona

Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to [email protected]

Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode June 17, 2025

Civil case filings per capita have been declining nationally for decades. John Greacen and Alan Carlson explained this in their book, What Is Happening to State Trial Court Civil Filings?  The absolute number of civil filings in state courts has increased somewhat, however overall filings have not kept pace with population growth and have been in a long-term decline.

 Meanwhile, the National Center for State Courts' annual State of the State Courts poll reported that public trust and confidence in the state courts rose in 2024 to 63%. However, this figure has stagnated between 60% and 64% over the past four years.

 These troubling numbers raise some important questions:

 How are people resolving their disputes?

How are people now resolving their disputes? Are they, in fact, resolving them at all? One thing is certain: more and more, people are not turning to the courts, the traditional venue for peacefully settling conflict.

What can we do about this trend?

What can we do about this trend? How can we encourage the public to once again rely on America’s courts to address their issues?

 This month, we explore how Arizona is tackling the challenge of Access to Justice. Arizona's Supreme Court’s Access to Justice Committee has been working to rebuild public trustand encourage people to return to the courts as a reliable resource for resolving their disputes.

 Today's Panel

The Honorable Samuel A. Thumma, Judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals

Mr. Kip Anderson, Court Administrator for the Mohave County Superior Court in Kingman Arizona,

Dr. Kevin Ruegg, Chief Executive Officer for the Arizona Bar Foundation

Judge Thumma is Chair of the Arizona Access to Justice Committee; both Dr. Ruegg and Kip Anderson aremembers of that committee.

 Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to [email protected]