Recently Ive had the opportunity to attend two interesting forums, one titled "Public Trust and Confidence in the Judiciary," sponsored by the Supreme Court of Missouri, the other called "Judicial Independence, Fair and Unfair Criticism of Judges," organized by the American Judicature Society. Both sought to answer much the same underlying questions ­ Whats wrong with the judicial system?," "What can be done to improve it?," and "Why doesnt the public understand?"

As one might expect, the most interesting perspective in both conferences came not from lawyers and judges, but from the representatives of other groups--social services, business and the media. Lay participants in the judicial system complained of high-handed treatment by the courts--not just by judges, but often by court and clerk personnel. Jurors felt herded about like cattle, and complained of substandard facilities, little information, and a "stipend" that did not cover even parking, much less lunch. Media representatives were frustrated by the lack of guidance they received from lawyers, judges, and court personnel. As one reporter put it: "Dont refuse to comment or provide information on a matter, and then complain that we got it all wrong!"

Everyone believed the judiciary must be independent, unbiased and fair. But they also believed judges must ultimately be accountable for their actions. There is an undeniable tension between judicial independence and accountability. Although electing judges can ensure accountability, elections--which are held in most Missouri counties--can compromise independence. Judicial candidates must raise money, and when most of this money comes from lawyers, the appearance of impropriety is likely. A Justice Commission set up in the State of Kansas has just recommended that all judges in that state be appointed because of these very concerns. Even retention elections can become highly politicized, as they have recently in Nebraska and Tennessee.

Complicating all of this is the reality that judges often cannot defend themselves. Along with the undeniable power and authority of their black robes, judges also assume figurative handcuffs. The Code of Judicial Conduct forbids active campaigning or even response to criticism. Judges are thus easy targets for groups with a single-issue focus, or those who choose deliberate distortion as a political tool. Many partisans would actually prefer a judiciary that is biased (but in their favor). This short-sighted approach of course overlooks the fact that other partisans may succeed in installing judges biased in the "other" direction. The quality most needed in any judge is the ability --indeed the courage -- to handle the pressures of public opinion so as to ensure the primacy of the rule of law and justice over the fluctuating fads or politics of the moment.

What is the answer? Well, of course, there are many. If courts and court personnel adopted a "customer-service" attitude, if courthouses were welcoming and easy to understand, if jurors were well-treated and adequately compensated for their service, public understanding would improve. More public education about the role of the judiciary would help. Judges could be more open and visible to the public, whether in the courthouse or at speaking engagements around their communities. Courts in general could build good working relationships with local media (the Missouri Press-Bar Commission is a good model). And the organized bar, both state and local, can be vigilant in defending the judiciary when it is unjustly criticized. The Missouri Institute for Justice, a public-interest group active in adopting the Missouri non-partisan court plan n the 1940s, is gearing up again to respond if unfair attacks on Missouris justice system occur. In all their efforts, of course, we must remember that ours is a society in which speech must not only be tolerated but encouraged.

"Access to justice" has been a watchword of the 1990s, and it means many things. To me it means that courts must become more accessible to the people they serve. They must become more open to the media to ensure public understanding. Judges must take a higher profile in their communities, so that citizens can hear them and speak to them. And the bar must speak too, to promote, defend and improve our unique system. The more access and understanding people have regarding our system of justice, the more the cause of judicial independence will be furthered, and the more public trust and confidence in Missouris outstanding judiciary will be assured.