In Brief: Operations and Initiatives
In this Section
This page provides an overview of the Judicial Council’s guiding principles and major efforts shaping the administration of justice in California. From governance and education to criminal justice reform, access initiatives, infrastructure, and technology, this section highlights how the council has advanced consistency, fairness, and innovation across the judicial branch during its first 100 years.
- Guiding Principles
- Education and Outreach
- Criminal Justice
- Diversity and Inclusion
- Jury System Improvements
- Facilities Infrastructure
- Language Access
- Self-Represented Litigants
- Technology
Guiding Principles
Authority for the governance and structure of the Judicial Council of California as well as its initiatives and programs emanates from the state Constitution, article VI, section 6 ; the California Rules of Court ; the council’s governance policies ; and its strategic plan .
The Chief Justice chairs the Judicial Council and appoints one other Supreme Court justice, three justices from the Courts of Appeal, 10 trial court judges, two nonvoting court administrators, and “any other nonvoting members as determined by the voting membership of the council.” Four members are appointed by the State Bar, and two by the Legislature. Each year, about a third of the members rotate off. Members volunteer their services. The Administrative Director serves as the council’s secretary.
A core constitutional function of the council is adopting rules for court administration, practice, and procedure that are not inconsistent with statute. The California Rules of Court were originally created by the Legislature, and in 1940 Chief Justice Phil Gibson convinced that body to allow the Judicial Council to create appellate rules of court. Changes to the structure of the court system at the turn of the 20th century made it imperative that there be more consistency in the court system. Suggestions for rules can be made by anyone. Council advisory committees thoroughly vet proposals, and develop and circulate for comment proposed rules before presenting them to the council. In his book, The Quest for Justice, former Chief Justice Ronald M. George pointed out that he convinced the Legislature in some cases to pass a bill directing the council to make court rules in areas where the Legislature couldn’t agree on specifics. “When [the Legislature] had difficulty coming up with a precise solution, they could pass a bill directing the Judicial Council to adopt rules on [a] subject,” he wrote. “This would provide a more meaningful input through the Judicial Council's fact-gathering process for fine-tuning rules that would approach the problem with judicial expertise.”
Education & Outreach
Education for branchwide professional excellence for judges and court personnel is one of the Judicial Council’s strategic goals for the judicial branch, supported by California Rules of Court, rule 10.451. Training and continuing education for judges was carried out first by the California Judges Association (CJA) and then in 1973 by the Center for Judicial Education and Research, now the Center for Judicial Education and Resources (CJER), a joint entity created by the CJA and the Judicial Council during the tenure of Chief Justice Donald R. Wright. In 1993, CJER became an office of the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council provides a comprehensive program of educational services that supports continuing professional development for 2,400 justices, judges, subordinate judicial officers, and approximately 18,000 court personnel throughout the state, including convening the annual Bernard E. Witkin Judicial College and the ongoing New Judge Orientation program for new judicial officers.
In 1999, the Judicial Council approved standard 10.5 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration, which states that “participation in community outreach activities should be considered an official judicial function to promote public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice.” Educating and informing the public about the role of the judicial branch became more urgent at the beginning of the 21st century when attacks on the judiciary escalated. In response, Chief Justice George created the Commission for Impartial Courts, which was charged with studying and providing recommendations to the Judicial Council on ways to strengthen our court system, increase public trust and confidence in the judiciary, and ensure judicial impartiality and accountability for the benefit of all Californians.
One of the commission’s members was then Associate Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye of the Courts of Appeal, who after becoming Chief Justice in 2011 sponsored the Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative to foster a connection between the state judicial branch and K–12 public schools. Then Associate Justice Patricia Guerrero was also part of that initiative and, like her predecessor, has continued to champion outreach since her appointment as Chief Justice in 2023.
The civic learning initiative, supported by Judicial Council staff, is one of many ways in which the courts and the council continually strive to educate the public about the role of the judiciary in a democratic system of government. Other examples include broadcasting and recording the council’s public meetings, the newsroom on the California Courts website, juror education, and the Chief Justice’s annual State of the Judiciary address.
Criminal Justice
In 2009, the council created its Criminal Justice Services office to help facilitate and interface with justice partners on state initiatives dealing with criminal justice reforms and access to justice issues. Key programs include the pretrial diversion program , Ability-to-Pay (MyCitations ) Project, and collaborative justice courts .
In the pretrial diversion program, the council distributes funding to the courts and provides resources to judicial officers to make informed decisions about releasing defendants before they are tried. Unlike the previous system of cash bail that was entirely based on the defendants’ ability to pay money in order to be released, those decisions can now also be based on public safety considerations (likelihood to commit new crimes) and likelihood of returning to court. Pretrial release and detention primarily based on cash bail are slowly being replaced with safer and fairer alternatives. California is leading and experiencing reforms driven by best practices, but also by pilot projects, court decisions, and legislation.
Traffic fines can be very expensive and become a significant burden for people who are already struggling financially. The Ability-to-Pay (MyCitations ) Project provides an online, user-friendly way for individuals to look up traffic tickets and request reductions in fines based on their income level and ability to pay the tickets. Traffic fines can be very expensive and become a significant financial burden. Before this project, court users would need to come to court to request such a reduction. This can be a hardship for lower-income individuals that may need to secure childcare and transportation or take time off work. Qualified users of the My Citationtool have their fine reduced by an average of 61 percent.
Collaborative justice courts—also known as problem-solving courts—combine judicial supervision with rehabilitation services that focus on recovery to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism. There are more than 400 collaborative justice courts in the state. Examples of collaborative justice courts include drug courts, DUI courts, homeless courts, mental health courts, reentry courts, veterans courts, and courts where the defendant may be a minor or where the child's welfare is at issue.
Diversity & Inclusion
The commitment to diversity and ending discrimination in the court system has been a core objective of the Judicial Council for decades and is incorporated in the very first goal of its strategic plan: Access, Fairness, Diversity, and Inclusion.
This commitment is made real only by taking an honest look at the system itself. In 1987 Chief Justice Rose Bird established a committee to study gender bias in the courts. The committee indeed found gender bias throughout the court system and submitted its report soon after Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas took office, and he followed through with its recommendations. Chief Justice Lucas created another commission on the future of California courts, which, among other recommendations, pushed for diversity of the bench and bar.
Chief Justices George, Cantil-Sakauye, and Guerrero have followed through with this commitment by their appointments, the creation of advisory committees, and by speaking out in their roles as chairs of the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council created a toolkit, Pathways to Judicial Diversity, with suggestions for judicial outreach and mentoring. Data shows that diversity on the bench has steadily increased in the last 20 years.
Since adoption of the strategic plan by the Judicial Council in 1992, and in all subsequent iterations, the goal of access, fairness, and diversity has served as an anchor in guiding the branch’s strategic priorities. In 2022, the Judicial Council voted to elevate this focus by adding specific language on “inclusion” to Goal I and emphasizing inclusion within the context of other goals in the plan. These amendments aimed to make explicit the branch’s commitment to leveraging diversity to foster an inclusive court system in which all individuals are—and feel—respected and engaged, and their contributions are valued.
Jury System Improvements
Making jury service more convenient was a Judicial Council–backed reform that began with Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, when he appointed the Blue Ribbon Commission on Jury System Improvement. The commission issued its recommendations in 1996, a month into Chief Justice Ronald M. George’s tenure. At the time, most courts required potential jurors to come to court in person and be on call for two weeks. Chief Justice George used the commission’s report to successfully lobby for legislation requiring the “one day or one trial” mode of jury selection. If not chosen for a jury panel after one day of service at the courthouse, a juror’s service is done for at least one year. If selected, the juror’s service is considered completed for at least a year.
Now, approximately 10 million people a year are summoned for jury service and over 70 percent of prospective jurors who arrive in person complete their service in one day.
Another reform stemming from the same commission took another eight years to complete: plain language jury instructions in civil and criminal trials. Chief Justice George cited an example of what the change meant. In a former instruction on how to evaluate the credibility of a witness who claims not to remember a material event, he said, jurors were told, “Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is not uncommon.” The new, plain-language instruction says, “People often forget things or make mistakes in what they remember.”
Facilities Infrastructure
When the state judicial branch took over responsibility for court facilities in 2002, many counties had delayed maintenance on the courthouses and a number needed replacement altogether. Between 2002 and 2025, the council’s construction program completed 35 new courthouse projects. Another 18 projects are underway and in various stages, with four new courthouses expected to be completed in 2026.
Through its facilities program , the council manages almost 20 million square feet in roughly 430 facilities around the state, including courthouses, parking lots, and other types of properties. It oversees some 1,700 facility modification projects annually and manages approximately 370 leases.
The severe budget cutbacks to the judicial branch prompted the establishment of the council’s Court Facilities Advisory Committee and Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee to facilitate program oversight, including making recommendations for construction projects, modifications, maintenance, cost reductions, and sustainability. The judicial branch has already achieved either gold or silver Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification by the U.S. Green Building Council for 21 courthouses across the state and has seven more certifications in progress.
Language Access
More than 200 languages and dialects are spoken in California, and 44 percent of the state’s residents speak a non-English language at home. The top 10 most interpreted languages in California’s superior courts are Spanish (88 percent), followed by Mandarin, Vietnamese, American Sign Language, Punjabi, Cantonese, Arabic, Korean, Russian, and Armenian (Eastern).
In 1998, the Judicial Council created a court interpreters program to ensure access to the courts for persons with limited-English proficiency or those who are deaf or hard-of-hearing by developing programs and practices that enhance the quality of interpretation and increase the availability of qualified interpreters in the courts.
In 2015, the council adopted the Strategic Plan for Language Access in the California Courts and has acted on the plan’s recommendations to promote a consistent statewide approach to ensuring language access throughout the courts.
The Judicial Council program oversees recruitment, testing, and credentialing of court interpreters statewide, and requirements for continuing education and professional conduct of court interpreters. The program also partners with courts to develop language access tools and resources and advance other initiatives such as best practices for video remote interpreting and translations.
Self-Represented Litigants
Millions of Californians who go to court without lawyers—largely because they cannot afford one—rely on self-represented litigant resources sponsored by the Judicial Council. These are individuals who are unfamiliar with court procedures and forms, as well as with their rights and obligations, which leaves them disadvantaged in court. Under a rule of court , the Judicial Council has made access to the courts for self-represented litigants one of its top priorities.
After the Family Law Facilitator Act was passed in 1996, the council became responsible for administering the Family Law Facilitator Program, supported by state and federal funds. Shortly after, a Family Law Information Center pilot project was established and three pilot centers were created. Stemming from this effort, today all superior courts have self-help services.
In addition to onsite self-help centers at courthouses, more than 7 million visitors access the Judicial Council’s online Self-Help Guide each year. The guide, which is accessible in multiple languages, helps users navigate a broad range of civil and criminal matters, including traffic, housing, family, small claims, record expungement, and victims’ rights and restitution. These resources are available in 10 languages.
Technology
Technology offers critical judicial branch tools for court operations, supporting the adjudicative process and expanding access to justice for Californians.
By 2001, when all 58 California trial courts had voted to unify their municipal and superior court operations, courts were mostly operating with paper records and files to process and manage cases. A concerted statewide focus on technology initiatives to modernize court operations facilitated significant improvements. As the pace of advancements accelerated, the need to support Californians’ desire to be online when they wanted to access services and to further modernize court operations to support those who were in line led to the creation of the Judicial Council Technology Committee in 2011. The committee would oversee the council’s policies on technology and, with advisory committees, the courts, and justice partners, work on the comprehensive and collaborative Court Technology Governance and Strategic Plan , first approved in 2014.
This approach proved particularly effective in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic when the council enabled courts to quickly pivot to remote court proceedings. Using technology in this way proved to be so successful that it is now an integral part of the state court system. According to the most recent Judicial Council report to the Legislature , more than 90 percent of participants in remote proceedings had an overall positive experience. Remote proceedings have been especially welcomed by vulnerable parties, such as victims of domestic violence or elder abuse, who face less anxiety in a remote proceeding as compared to having to appear in court with an alleged perpetrator. The branch continues to work on a Hybrid Courtroom Initiative to ensure secure, reliable, and equitable remote participation in court proceedings.
Judicial branch innovations have resulted in the digitization of legacy records, the use of e-filing platforms, and the analysis of data to enhance public access to services, reduce costs, and improve modern case management systems. The branch also provides access to digital tools and services, including the MyCitations Ability-to-Pay tool, the Online Trial by Declaration platform, and chatbots enabling Californians to access legal help and receive virtual assistance regardless of income, language, or location. Strengthening cybersecurity and digital resilience across the branch to ensure that courts remain prepared, secure, and ready to serve the public in a digital age remains an ongoing priority.
The council is also poised to address the next significant challenge on the technology front: the promise and threat of artificial intelligence (AI). In 2024, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero launched a task force to oversee the development of policy recommendations to the Judicial Council on the use of AI in the judicial branch. “Generative AI brings great promise, but our guiding principle should be safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process,” she said at the time. “That means it will be essential for the branch to assess what protections are necessary as we begin to use this technology.” In 2025, the task force presented its first report to the Judicial Council and unveiled a model AI policy for use by the courts. The next area of focus for the council is the use of AI in the submission and handling of evidence in court.