IN RE: IMPLEMENTATION of AMENDMENT 80: ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS PURSUANT to ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NUMBER 14

___ S.W.3d ___

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Delivered June 28, 2001

Per Curiam. Pursuant to our per curiam order dated April 6, 2001, in which this court adopted Administrative Order Number 14, the judicial circuits of the state have submitted administrative plans. In reviewing these plans, it has become apparent that myriad issues are at play, making it impossible to develop a template that will work across the board in every judicial circuit.

Section 6 of Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution provides in pertinent part as follows:

(A) Circuit Courts are established as the trial courts of original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters not otherwise assigned pursuant to this Constitution.

(B) Subject to the superintending control of the Supreme Court, the Judges of a Circuit Court may divide that Circuit Court into subject matter divisions, and any Circuit Judge within the Circuit may sit in any division.

In Administrative Order Number 14, we authorized the division of circuit court into five subject matter divisions: criminal, juvenile, civil, domestic relations, and probate. Now, we must consider how the circuit judges of a circuit "may sit in any division" and adhere to one of Amendment 80's fundamental purposes - the merger of law and equity in which there are not separate law and equity "sides" of the circuit court.

The passage of Amendment 80 on November 7, 2000 was a watershed event inthe history of the Judicial Department of this state.1 Jurisdictional lines that previously forced cases to be divided artificially and litigated separately in different courts have been eliminated. This fundamental change naturally brings with it a whole host of issues, both theoretical and practical, concerning the form and structure of our court system. Examples of such issues include:

How should the benefits of a judge's experience and specialization in a particular subject matter be factored into the assignment and allocation of cases? In that regard, should any consideration be given to the potential for "burnout" among judges who hear the same type of case year after year?

Are juvenile proceedings substantially different from other proceedings, such that they require different treatment?

Because of the state apparatus related to both criminal and juvenile cases, such as the prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers, DHS attorneys and caseworkers, attorneys ad litem, CASA volunteers, intake officers, and so forth, is it necessary or desirable to keep these types of cases segregated in order for the system to operateefficiently?2 If so, should there be a regular rotation system whereby a circuit judge may be assigned to the juvenile or criminal division of circuit court for a specified period of time, at the end of which he or she would be assigned to other cases?

In reviewing the plans submitted by the judicial circuits, we have struggled with these questions and concluded that definitive answers cannot and should not be given at this time. As the judicial system in Arkansas passes from a long history of separate courts of law and equity into this new era of a single, general jurisdiction circuit court, this court recognizes that the transition cannot be accomplished in one giant leap on July 1, 2001; rather, there must be a transitional phase for implementation of the new unified court system contemplated by Amendment 80.

In this vein, of immediate concern are the practical issues related to resources, including facilities, court-related personnel, and judicial experience. Among the twenty-eight judicial circuits, there are single-judge circuits; multi-judge, one county, one courthouse circuits; multi-judge, one county, two courthouse circuits; multi-judge, two county circuits; and multi-judge, multi-county, multi-courthouse circuits. It goes without saying that there are critical staffing issues attendant to any shifting of cases from one court to another. Even if all the theoretical questions were answered, we could not immediately implement the necessary changes because of time and financial constraints. We must allow time for incumbent and newly-elected circuit judges to participate in judicial education programs totrain them in areas of the law with which they are not as familiar since all such judges must become available to try any type of case.

In formulating their administrative plans, the judicial circuits have recognized that the Arkansas Judiciary is in a transitional stage. We have considered this fact in passing judgment on their proposed plans. Identifying these practical problems at the front end will hopefully permit the General Assembly, as well as county quorum courts, to work with us in formulating answers to these issues, including the appropriation of necessary funding. Thus, we believe that a realistic target date for completing implementation of the new unified court system should be July 1, 2003. On that date, we expect all circuit judges to be available to try all "justiciable matters."

After giving due consideration to all of the above, we announce the following decisions with regard to the plans submitted.3

1. We unequivocally approve the plans filed in the 8^th S and 9^th W Judicial Circuits.

2. We approve with some reservations the plans filed in the following Judicial Circuits: 2^nd, 3^rd , 4^th, 5^th, 7^th, 12^th, 14^th , 16^th, 17^th, 18^th E, and 20^th. With one exception, each plan splits out the criminal and juvenile cases. The plan filed by the 7^th Judicial Circuit only splits out the juvenile cases. These plans are acceptable in this transitional period. These circuits should recognize that amendments may become necessary in the future as some of the questions posed above are answered and as resource issues are rectified.

3. The plan of the 8^th N Judicial Circuit is approved, recognizing that unique conflict-of-interest issues among judges and attorneys in essential official positions may require some adjustment in the assignment of cases.

4. We approve the plans submitted by the 21^st and 23^rd Judicial Circuits conditioned upon this court receiving clarification regarding certain provisions contained in those plans. Specifically, with regard to the plan submitted by the 21^st Judicial Circuit, the provision concerning criminal and civil matters states as follows: "The jury cases, both civil and criminal, will be handled 80% by Judge Rogers and 20% by Judge Cottrell." This provision fails to mention any allocation of civil and criminal non-jury cases. We direct the 21^st Judicial Circuit to submit a clarification by August 15, 2001, which confirms that the above-quoted allocation encompasses all civil and criminal cases, whether jury or non-jury. The plan submitted by the 23^rd Judicial Circuit states that there is an "even split of all subject matter between the two divisions of the [circuit]," and indicates that the clerks have a "formula for the split of cases between thedivisions." However, the plan fails to disclose what that formula is. We direct the 23^rd Judicial Circuit to submit a clarification by August 15, 2001, which includes the formula used by the clerks to allocate cases between the divisions.

5. The plan submitted by the 13^th Judicial Circuit cannot be approved because it permits the plaintiff to designate the judge to hear civil cases in that circuit, thereby violating the fundamental principle of random selection of judges. We direct the 13^th Judicial Circuit to revisit the matter and resubmit a plan by August 15, 2001.

6. Plans submitted by the 1^st, 15^th, 19^th W, and 22^nd Judicial Circuits cannot be approved because they each maintain the status quo with respect to equity jurisdiction. Unlike criminal and juvenile cases, we cannot countenance the splitting out of equity as was the practice under the former Judicial Article.4 These circuits are directed to resubmit plans by August 15, 2001, to remedy this problem.

7. The 6^th, 10^th, and 11^th W Judicial Circuits did not submit plans approved by all their respective judges. Pursuant to Administrative Order Number 14,this court hereby adopts the administrative plans set forth below, subject to the same reservations already stated in paragraph No. 2, and appoints the judges designated below to serve as administrative judges for the purpose of implementing these plans.

6^th Judicial Circuit

(1) The plan for case assignment in this judicial circuit, effective January 1, 2002, shall be as follows:

(a) Pulaski County: See Table A

(b) Perry County:

For cases in Perry County, all juvenile matters will be handled by visits from Judges Warren, Gruber, and Branton. Uncontested matters, domestic abuse cases, first appearances, and arraignments may also be set on the juvenile days in Perry County. The remaining matters will be set on jury and non-jury days, with all of the other judges in the 6^th Judicial Circuit staffing these days as they may agree on a rotating basis.

(2) Judge David Bogard will be the administrative judge.

10^th Judicial Circuit

(1) The plan for this judicial circuit, effective January 1, 2002, shall include these elements:

(a) Random and equal assignment of the civil, probate, and domesticrelations cases to the five circuit judges.

(b) Each circuit judge will be assigned one county and will be responsible for the criminal and juvenile cases in that county, with preference given to that judge's home county.

(c) Each circuit judge will allot one day per month to be in a given county on a rotating basis, to handle any routine and uncontested matters.

Adjustments shall be made by the administrative judge to assure that the caseload for the criminal and juvenile divisions are equally apportioned.

(2) Judge Don Glover will be the administrative judge.

11^th W Judicial Circuit

(1) The plan for this judicial circuit, effective January 1, 2002, shall be the plan submitted by the majority of the judges of the 11^th W Judicial Circuit.

(2) Judge Leon Jamison will be the administrative judge.

In this transitional period between July 1, 2001 and July 1, 2003, we are adopting a liberal approach in approving plans. Judges and judicial circuits should be aware that a plan approved this year will not be approved automatically when next submitted. With additional experience, this court will be able to provide more guidance and determine whether additional resources will be available to ease some of the problems arising under the current plans. We recognize that this is an evolving process, and this court solicits the advice and suggestions from all thoseaffected as we work together to implement the new judicial article adopted by the people as Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution.

-----

Table A

Divisio n	Judge	Percentage/Subject/Number of Cases	Approx . Total
1st	Judge Marion Humphrey	21% Criminal (1048) + 7% Civil (360)	1408
2nd	Judge Chris Piazza	13% Criminal (649) + 15% Civil (772)	1421
3rd	Judge John Ward	26% Civil	1359
4th	Judge John Langston	26% Criminal	1319
5th	Judge Willard Proctor	16% Criminal (799) + 12% Civil (618)	1417
6th	Judge David Bogard	11% Criminal (549) + 17% Civil (875)	1424
7th	Judge John Plegge	13% Criminal (649) + 14% Civil (720)	1370
8th	Judge Wiley Branton	33% Juvenile	978
9th	Judge Mary Ann McGowan	11% Domestic (741) + 14% Probate (376) + 100% P.A.C. Court(298)	1415
10th	Judge Joyce Warren	33% Juvenile	978
11th	Judge Rita Gruber	33% Juvenile	979
12th	Judge Alice Gray	14% Domestic (923) + 14 % Probate (376) + 3% Civil (146)	1445
13th	Judge Collins Kilgore	14% Domestic (923) + 14% Probate (376) + 3% Civil (146)	1445
14th	Judge Vann Smith	16% Domestic (1072) + 14 % Probate (376)	1448
15th	Judge Robin Mays	16% Domestic (1072) + 14 % Probate (376)	1448
16th	Judge Ellen Brantley	14% Domestic (923) + 14% Probate (376) + 3% Civil (146)	1446
17th	Judge Mackie Pierce	16% Domestic (1072) + 14% Probate	1448

1 While some may argue that Amendment 80 was intended to stop the needless transfer of cases because of jurisdictional lines drawn between equity and law, we do not read Amendment 80 to be so limited in its scope. Even if we were to accept such a narrow interpretation, the effects of Amendment 80 are, in reality, far reaching. For example, the merger of law and equity removed any barriers to the joinder of legal and equitable claims in a single action. Thus, in actions governed by the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, multiple claims, whether "legal or equitable," may be asserted in a single action. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 18(a) as amended in In Re: Implementation of Amendment 80: Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure, and Inferior Court Rules, 345 Ark. Appx. (May 24, 2001). See also our per curiam order of May 24, 2001, in which we adopted the following amendment to Administrative Order Number 8:

c.[Effective January 1, 2002] Multiple claims. If a complaint asserts multiple claims which involve different subject matter divisions of the circuit court, the cover sheet for that division which is most definitive of the nature of the case should be selected and completed. Attorneys or pro se litigants should be cognizant that claims which are wholly unrelated may be severed and proceeded with separately under Rule 18 (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 With the exception of child support enforcement unit (C.S.E.U.) cases, these concerns are not as pressing with respect to the civil, probate, and domestic relations divisions.

3 The following Judicial Circuits are single-judge circuits, and thus, did not have to submit plans: 9^th E, 11^th E, 18^th W, and 19^th E.

4 These circuits use the following nomenclature to accomplish the equity split: civil-law/civil-equity; civil-non-jury/civil-jury; and a listing of particular types of equity cases.