As the state Legislature in New York considers a major overhaul of the state's complex trial court structure, New York Attorney General Letitia James made a surprise recommendation that lawmakers also take a look at consolidating, changing and investing in the operations of town and village jurists.

The suggestion was a curveball thrown by the Attorney General's Office on Thursday during a public hearing in Albany on a separate proposal to consolidate the state's other trial courts.

Jill Faber, deputy attorney general for regional affairs, testified that the Attorney General's Office would also support legislation that would allow defendants facing criminal charges in a town and village court to transfer their case to another court with an attorney on the bench.

That's because, in New York, town and village justices don't have to be attorneys. They undergo training from the state Office of Court Administration regularly on legal matters, but don't have to hold a law degree to be elected to such a position.

Judges selected to serve on any of the state's other local trial courts, like county court or the state Supreme Court, have to be an attorney. Town and village justices are the only exception.

"Just as criminal defendants have a constitutional right to be represented by an attorney, we strongly believe that due process also requires the right to go before an attorney judge when a case involves criminal charges," Faber said.

That was one result from months of research conducted by the Attorney General's Office through its 13 regional offices on town and village courts in New York state, Faber said.

Attorneys within the New York Attorney General's Office spoke to stakeholders from around the state, like public defenders and legal services groups, on the challenges they've faced while representing litigants in local town and village courts.

What they found, Faber said, was a string of inefficiencies among those courts that have the potential to make it more difficult for individuals to seek justice.

What would help solve that problem, Faber said, is pooling resources into a smaller number of those courts, rather than dividing funds—and jurisdiction—among municipalities. Consolidating the state's 1,200 town and village courts would streamline operations, she said.

"In many parts of the state, numerous individual justice courts exist only a few miles, in some cases only a few blocks, from each other, resulting in geographic and jurisdictional overlap, and facility and funding inefficiencies," Faber said.

"There's no need for all these overlapping courts to remain in existence in order for justice to be provided on a local basis," Faber continued.

Faber didn't say how many town and village courts the state would be left with under their proposal, but stressed that it would make court proceedings at the local level more efficient—and better leverage taxpayer money.

"Overlapping justice courts create enormous burdens on taxpayer-funded resources on the local, county and state levels," Faber said. "The result is many individual courts lack the resources required to perform basic functions crucial to dispensing justice."

Under the plan, attorneys stretched across a large area wouldn't have to travel to as many town and village courts to represent their clients. Because those courts would be consolidated, they could handle more cases in one location, she said.

Courts could also, presumably, pool more funding to upgrade facilities and infrastructure beyond what's seen in some of the state's smallest courts now.

Faber said the Attorney General's Office found that many of those courts lack the technology and infrastructure that's already in place, and available, at the state's other courts. That can disenfranchise some litigants and defendants, even if they appeal a decision, she said.

"It's critical that justice courts be required to maintain minimum standards with respect to court facilities," Faber said. "Simply put, the lack of resources and adequate facilities in many justice courts prevents justice from being served."

She said the Attorney General's Office would recommend that all town and village courts in New York state be equipped with more technology and staffing to meet the needs of all litigants or defendants who may end up there.

Those upgrades would include separate rooms for attorneys to meet with their clients, or for victims of a crime to be separated from an alleged perpetrator. Translation and interpreter services should also be available at those courts, she said.

Faber also said every town and village court in New York should have a recording device operational for all proceedings. That way, there would be an official record of what happened that defendants could use on appeal.

"All courts should be equipped with a recording device that works," Faber said. "Without a record of a proceeding, the right to appeal is largely meaningless."

Faber said the Attorney General's Office did not yet have an opinion on the separate court consolidation plan that was the subject of Thursday's hearing.

That proposal was detailed in September by Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, the state's top judge, who is seeking to consolidate many of the state's trial courts into just a handful of unified tiers. That way, judges can address more matters than what they're currently allowed.

It would have to be done through an amendment to the state constitution, meaning state lawmakers would have to support it and send it to voters for final approval. If approved, it would be fully implemented in 2027.

READ MORE: