I am pleased to join Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks and Presiding Justices Rolando T. Acosta, Alan D. Scheinkman, Elizabeth A. Garry and Gerald J. Whalen—the senior leaders of our Judiciary—in addressing the most important issue for the future of our justice system: amending Article VI of the New York State Constitution to simplify our inefficient, outdated trial court structure.

The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) was formed in 1876 with the express mission of eliminating inefficiencies and abuses in our courts. Since that time, NYSBA has been our steadfast partner in fostering the fair and efficient administration of justice. Our historic partnership has only grown stronger in the last four years under the Excellence Initiative. During that time, thanks to the hard work and commitment of judges, court staff and the Bar, we have made significant progress to improve the courts' productivity and operational efficiency, as evidenced by dramatic reductions in case backlogs all across the state.  And now that we have begun institutionalizing early presumptive ADR into our civil case management processes statewide, we expect to make additional progress toward our shared imperative of providing fair, timely and affordable justice to the millions of people we serve.

Though we take pride in these recent improvements, we have been frustrated in our long-term ability to achieve organizational excellence by the reality that our judges, court staff and the practicing bar operate within the most inefficient, outdated trial court structure in the nation. Last modified in 1962, our current organizational structure has changed little since the 19th century. It is a confusing conglomeration of 11 separate trial courts with varying jurisdictions, procedures and cultures. The fragmented nature of our organization prevents us from quickly and efficiently moving resources where they are most needed and contributes directly to the most stubborn case backlogs and delays. In terms of serving the public, the inefficiencies inherent in this antiquated structure lead to more court appearances, higher legal fees, more lost work days, more childcare and transportation expenses and more stress and frustration for everyone. The system also harms families by requiring them to pursue related legal issues in multiple courts in front of different judges, each of whom has only the partial ability to see the full picture of their case.

The success of the Excellence Initiative has opened our eyes to how much more we could do to improve the quality and efficiency of justice in New York if only we could streamline our court structure. It has impelled us to propose an amendment to the State Constitution to simplify our confusing patchwork of 11 different trial courts and create a modern three-tier trial court structure consisting of:

(1) a Statewide Supreme Court into which the Court of Claims, County Court, Family Court and Surrogate's Court will be merged;

(2) a Statewide Municipal Court replacing the New York City Civil and Criminal Courts, Nassau and Suffolk District Courts and 61 upstate City Courts; and

(3) the Justice Courts, which will not be affected by the proposal.

As my colleagues have made clear in their respective columns, our proposal would be enormously beneficial for litigants, lawyers and the public on many different levels.

• It will improve court efficiency and access to justice by reducing court appearances and litigation delay and expense.
• It will ensure that litigants, particularly families, will be able to have their multiple legal issues addressed by one judge in one court.
• It will make it easier for the Legislature to establish a badly needed fifth appellate department to address the reality that the Appellate Division, Second Department, has grown to encompass half of our state's population and to dispose of more appeals than the other three Departments combined.
• It will eliminate the obsolete constitutional cap on the number of Supreme Court Justices and enable the Legislature to create sufficient judgeships to handle the enormous size and complexity of our modern caseloads.
• It will ensure that there is a resident elected Supreme Court Justice in every county of the state. Many upstate counties have not had a resident elected Justice in decades.
• And it will improve judicial diversity on the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, especially upstate, by virtue of merging county-level courts into a consolidated Supreme Court and adding more minority and women jurists to the pool eligible for appointment to the Appellate Division.

We are encouraged by the unprecedented and growing coalition of over 100 organizations from across the state who support our proposal, including bar associations, the business community, good government groups, legal service organizations and victims' rights groups. We are grateful to the representatives of these organizations who testified recently at joint public hearings in New York City and Albany held by the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees. Several legal service providers and a domestic violence survivor described how victims of abuse, and families and children in crisis, have been consistently revictimized by the confusion and delays created by our system's jurisdictional and procedural barriers. Other providers pointed out how reducing the number of court appearances for litigants who come to our courts seeking justice will increase access to justice in underserved and rural communities and free up our public interest and private attorneys to handle more cases.

We appreciate the steadfast support of NYSBA, and its outstanding President, Hank Greenberg, who emphasized how our proposed constitutional amendment will lead to more efficient resolution of cases with fewer court appearances and less expense throughout the entire justice system. President Greenberg described how critical this is for poor and vulnerable litigants and families who must deal with a justice system that is confusing, inefficient, expensive and inhumane. As he pointed out, "The burdens placed on real people by our current system are intolerable."

All 25 of our Administrative Judges across the state are unified in support of court simplification. These are the leaders and managers of our local courts who uniquely recognize from their daily management and accountability perspectives that our current structure makes poor use of the courts' limited resources and does not serve the public well.

The few groups opposed to court simplification come from within the justice system—a minority of judges concerned about losing their status and prerogatives; union leaders worried about job losses; and judges and lawyers confused about the impact of our proposal on judicial diversity. We have gone out of our way to avoid harm to any group. We have adopted a "merger-in-place" approach to preserve the status quo with respect to the sensitive question of how different judges are selected, because court simplification has nothing to do with politics or matters of judicial selection. And, as we have publicly stated, we do not intend to reduce our workforce. There will be no lost jobs as a result of court simplification. To the contrary, we need more employees than we have now to increase our efficiency and our capacity to better serve others.

Finally, nothing is more important to us than promoting judicial diversity. Public trust and confidence in the courts depends on our having a judiciary and nonjudicial workforce that reflects New York's rich ethnic and cultural diversity. We are proud to have the most diverse judicial leadership team in our history, with 10 of our 15 downstate Administrative Judges coming from minority and LGBTQ communities. The bottom line is that we must not be deterred by the self-interest and parochial interests of the few. Our court system does not exist for the convenience of judges; rather, our goal and mission as public servants is to run an excellent justice system for the benefit of the people we are pledged to serve.

As we move forward, we want to emphasize that nothing is set in stone. We are open to any and all constructive suggestions from the Bar, Bench and stakeholder communities that will make our proposal better and increase the likelihood of success. Achieving an amendment of our State Constitution will require passage by separately elected legislatures in 2020 and 2021, followed by voter approval at the polls in November 2021.

New Yorkers rightly deserve and expect a modern court system organized and designed to resolve disputes fairly, promptly and cost-effectively—a system that promotes access to justice for all. The time has come to correct the systemic inefficiencies, delays and duplication that have long frustrated judges, lawyers and the millions who rely on our courts for justice. The single most impactful step we can take to improve the administration of justice is to amend our Constitution to reform our court system and simplify its organizational structure. The time has come to take that historic step. The leadership of the Judiciary is united in our determination to do so, and we are excited and heartened once again to have the New York State Bar Association on our side.