gress should not be concerned with such a charge. Misbehavior is not an area in which we want to encourage independence on the part of the judiciary. There is no possible basis for a complaint by the judges that a bill of this kind could interfere with their legitimate independence. Mr. FIGINSKI. Would you, gentlemen, agree with Judge Maris who testified some years ago that a judge does not have to be free to misbehave in order to be independent? Mr. VOORHEES. Yes, I would agree. Mr. FIGINSKI. I think, on that note, we should stand in recess until 3 o'clock on Monday. Thank you very much. At that time we will hear from the president of the American Bar Association, Bernard G. Segal. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., a recess was taken until 3 p.m., Monday, April 13, 1970.) JUDICIAL REFORM ACT MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1970 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS IN JUDICIAL MACHINERY Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:35 p.m., in room 6226, New Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph D. Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Tydings and Hart. Also present: M. Albert Figinski, chief counsel; Lee M. Miller, deputy counsel, and George Penry, minority counsel. Senator TYDINGS. The hearings before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery on the Judicial Reform Act will come to order. As we approach the end of a 42-year study, hearings and review on the problem of judicial fitness, it is most appropriate that the subcommittee have as its witness today, Bernard G. Segal, president of the American Bar Association. Mr. Segal was with us on February 15, 1966, the first day that we held hearings on this extremely important subject. At that time he was chairman of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Judicial Selection, Tenure, and Compensation, one of the many milestones in an extraordinary career of professional and public service. Mr. Segal's testimony in 1966 helped to dramatize the need for the study that the subcommittee had initiated and to give it direction. Moreover, he pledged to this subcommittee's study the continuing support of the American Bar Association, and that support has been forthcoming. On February 24, 1970, after detailed study by the American Bar Association Section on Judicial Administration and its Committee on Judicial Selection, Tenure, and Compensation, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association overwhelmingly endorsed the key provisions of the Judicial Reform Act. The ABA endorsement is gratifying and should play a significant role in determining the course that this legislation will take. Senator Hart should be here as soon as he finishes his speech on the floor of the Senate. I am delighted to welcome you again, Mr. Segal, before our subcommittee and express my appreciation not only for the leadership you have given the American Bar Association, but also for the finest help and guidance you have given this subcommittee. since I have been fortunate enough to be its chairman. We will incorporate your statement and a brief biographical sketch in the record at an appropriate point. STATEMENT OF BERNARD G. SEGAL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. SEGAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I believe that one of the factors which persuaded some of the dissenters from pursuing their intended course at the meeting of the House of Delegates was your very persuasive presentation of the merits of the bill. As you have indicated, I had the privilege of appearing before this committee on the first day of the hearings on this critical question. Indeed, appearing before subcommittees of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees has gotten to be somewhat of a habit for me over the years. I have always found these appearances interesting and stimulating and, of course, greatly in the public interest. Today I rather demurred from coming because I felt I would be stating a position which I have given in so many different forms orally and in writing that there would be no way that I would not be repeating what at least you, Mr. Chairman, have heard me say before. On the other hand, I feel a good deal of sentiment about today's hearing. Having been privileged to appear at the first session, I, of course, welcome this opportunity to appear on what I believe is scheduled to be the last session and I hope will be a precursor to very prompt action. Before I proceed to a very brief consideration of the bill S. 1506 as presently drafted, my prior appearance having been on the more general grounds of the need for a bill of this type rather than on the bill itself, I would like to discuss a few of the things that have happened since I last appeared before this subcommittee. First, when I appeared last time I had just finished a tour of many States of the country in my then capacity as president of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Everywhere I found mounting problems of court congestion and delay in litigation, which insofar as the Federal courts were concerned had already become alarming and oppressive, particularly in the metropolitan areas of the country. Everywhere I observed that the enormous demands which were being created by the increasing diversity and complexity of the cases coming before the Federal courts, the large number of protracted cases, the proliferation of cases involving the same issues, often the same parties in different districts, and indeed, different circuits, and the sheer volume of all types of litigation were taxing the endurance and regrettably the performance of even the most qualified of the judges in the Federal system. I said then that only judges of capacity, diligence and good health could hope to cope with these conditions at all. Since then, Mr. Chairman, I have assumed a different presidency and in the past year I have covered 150,000 miles. I am sorry to report that the conditions I observed 42 years ago have not only not improved; they have worsened substantially. The very large efforts that the judges have made through the Judicial Conference, the Federal Judicial Center, and other means, and the lawyers through the organized bar, to improve procedures, and the enactment by the Congress of omnibus judgeship bills and other remedial legislation, have not provided a cure, indeed, they have not as yet provided even substantial relief. This is not the place to explore the causes. Some of them lie deep in the ills of our society generally. Obviously no change can be made in them until there is a very large change in the viewpoint of our Government and of the public at large in the priorities which must govern our society. But insofar as the organization and operation of the courts themselves are concerned, there the American Bar Association does have a very far-reaching set of commitments. I mention just a few. In the massive project, the Minimum Standards of Criminal Justice, the chairmen of which successively have been Chief Judge Lumbard of the Second Circuit, the present Chief Justice of the United States, and now Judge William J. Jameson, former president of the American Bar Association, we are endeavoring to establish standards for criminal justice operations, starting with the police, running through the prosecution and defense, and carrying through to the judges, both trial and appellate. After 5 years that project is almost completed. We have spent well over a million dollars merely in the studies and the formulation of standards. Now, a very distinguished committee headed by retired Justice Tom C. Clark is devoting extensive efforts to implement the standards in the States and in the Federal courts throughout the country. Another of our major projects-I might backtrack for a minute and say that I will address myself to just a few of the projects in this area, Mr. Chairman, which we have instituted since the last annual meeting. Senator TYDINGS. We are very interested in these projects, Mr. Segal. Mr. SEGAL. One of them is the formulation of a new code of standards of judicial conduct to replace the present Canons of Judicial Ethics. There, as you of course know, I was able to persuade then Chief Justice Roger J. Traynor of the Supreme Court of California to take the chairmanship. It is a committee which up to now has had 11 members, and in recent days I have enlarged it to 12. On the committee, we have a member from the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Justice Potter Stewart; judges of the Courts of Appeals; of the United States District Court; and of State Appellate and Trial Courts; and very distinguished lawyers, with one of them-Whitney North Seymour, former ABA president-as vice chairman. That project, Mr. Chairman, is moving on apace. I had the privilege of spending an evening and all day Saturday a couple of weeks ago with the committee. Every member of the committee and of its staff was present. I am sure that on the vital points with which the Senate has been concerned, and especially this subcommittee and you personally, Mr. Chairman, we will have recommendations from the committee within the next 6 weeks to 2 months. There will be public hearings on them no later than at the annual meeting of the American Bar Association in August. I consider this rather a substantial achievement in the time available on large questions, questions such as outside activities of judges, outside income of judges, and filing of reports of the assets of judges. Those questions most certainly will be fully dealt with by recommendations as to what shall be the governing rules hereafter. Our last canons, as you know, were drafted by a committee consisting of the then Chief Justice of the United States, William Howard Taft, two Supreme Court Justices, one from Pennsylvania, one from Maine, and two lawyers. When Justice Sutherland ascended to the Supreme Court he resigned from the committee so that a lawyer successor could be appointed. In a modern framework I felt that so small a committee and one so structured would be inadequate, that today we need to give representation both to Federal and State judges and both to appellate and trial judges. Because of the proliferation of State courts and their varying problems, I have just added to the committee another State trial judge Judge Revelle of the Trial Court of General Jurisdiction of Seattle, Wash., former editor of the Trial Judges Journal of the Section of Judicial Administration of the American Bar Association. I believe that he will add another viewpoint to the committee which the committee welcomes, having unanimously approved my making the appointment. Another project is the Minimum Standards of Judicial Administration. A generation ago Chief Justice Arthur T. Vanderbilt and Chief Judge John Parker of the Fourth Circuit drafted such standards which amply met the needs of that generation. They are inadequate and completely inapplicable to the differing requirements today. Therefore, within the next few days I hope to announce the membership of a task force of distinguished judges, lawyers, court administrators, and others to embark on this project-a much larger one in prospect than the Minimum Standards of Criminal Justice. Indeed, the latter will become a part of the whole project of the Minimum Standards of Judicial Administration. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have established the Institute for Court Administration designed to produce a corps of trained court executives, 20 by December, 60 by a year from December, December 1971, of the type provided for in the Tydings bill which passed the Senate but unfortunately has come out of the House without that provision in it. Senator TYDINGS. You are referring to the amendment we put in the omnibus judgeship bill with respect to the court administrators. Mr. SEGAL. You, of course, know that the House committee took the position that it was in favor of the principles of the court executive provisions of that bill but thought it ought to be separate legislation. I am assured and have every confidence that a bill will very shortly be introduced on that subject and it is my hope and expectation that it will be enacted in the present session of the Congress. Senator TYDINGS. You mean someone from the House is going to introduce a bill? Mr. SEGAL. Yes; I have just come from conferences on that subject and I have every assurance that, the sentiment is such that the prospect is very rapid passage. I recognize the fact that the subject may come up for consideration in conference on the Omnibus Judgeship bill, and Senator TYDINGS. It will come up for consideration in the conference. Mr. SEGAL. Well, obviously I do not intend to play the role of either Senator or Congressman. My interest is as yours is, I know, Mr. Chairman, to get provision for court executives in the courts, that so seriously and gravely need them, at the earliest possible moment. I would not like to see frankly the 20 trained executives that come out of this court in December gobbled up only by the States because the machinery for their use in the Federal courts is not yet available, |