As some of you may recall, last year I used this space to address access to justice in rural communities. This year, I wish to share an update, with focus upon the related and ongoing effort to implement a court simplification plan—an issue that has been discussed for decades, which will hopefully progress into action now.

Last summer, New York State Bar Association President Henry Greenberg created the Task Force on Rural Justice to study the state of rural law practice in New York State and recommend reforms to support rural practitioners and improve access to justice in rural communities. New York State Bar Association, Press Release: New York State Bar Association to Examine the State of Rural Law Practice in New York (July 2, 2019). This Task Force is co-chaired by my Third Department colleague, the Honorable Stan Pritzker, and Taier Perlman, Esq., a past leader of the Albany Law School Government Law Center's Rural Law Initiative, now serving as a staff attorney with Legal Services of the Hudson Valley. The Task Force set out to study troubling trends in rural law practice and make recommendations to address a mounting crisis, as identified in a survey and report made by the Government Law Center (GLC). The survey had revealed that many rural attorneys feel overwhelmed by the volume of cases they are asked to handle, encounter financial stress due to some clients' inability to pay their fees in full, experience pressure to provide representation in a wide variety of practice areas and courts, feel professionally isolated, and face difficulty in finding specialists for referrals when they are not prepared to handle a particular type of matter. See Taier Perlman, Albany Law School Government Law Center Report: Rural Law Practice in New York State (April 2019). However, along with the challenges of rural practice, the attorneys surveyed also shared their deep appreciation for the gratifying nature of practicing law in a small community, and the quality of life they enjoy in a rural setting.

The Task Force has been working diligently and strategically in exploring this dense and multi-faceted issue. A presentation will be made this week to the House of Delegates, reporting on its progress. Meanwhile, as we await those findings and recommendations, our Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and the Office of Court Administration have renewed the call for court simplification measures sought by generation after generation of court administrators. Of course, the challenges and concerns of rural practitioners are complex, and implicate systemic obstacles outside the purview of the court system (such as inadequate transportation services and spotty access to communication technology), as well as court-related issues that fall beyond the scope of the current proposal. However, I expect and believe that court simplification will ameliorate some of the challenges rural attorneys currently encounter.

The Fall 2019 issue of NYSBA's State Bar News included discussions with rural lawyers about the challenges they face in representing their communities. See Joan Fucillo, A Look at the Lives of Five Rural NY Lawyers, 61 NY St Bar News [Issue 3] 6, 6 (Fall 2019). Among the many concerns discussed, two attorneys explained that they had stopped taking on contested divorces due to the travel time necessary to appear in the nearest Supreme Court. We know that rural law practice can be exceptionally time-consuming due to sprawling geographic distances between law offices, clients and courthouses. As beautiful as it is to travel on our rural roads—and it is—those distances can be daunting. If the proposed reforms are adopted, rural attorneys will be better able to handle matters more locally; the proposed reforms aim to allow counsel to represent clients more comprehensively, with more proceedings held before one local judge. Currently, some of the respondents to the GLC survey explained that because some counties lack a judge assigned to Supreme Court matters, attorneys and clients must travel up to three hours to the nearest location where such matters are heard. Court simplification will result in a greater number of judges empowered to hear those cases, which could drastically reduce travel times for litigants and allow attorneys to spend more time doing work for their clients, and less time in transit.

Court simplification may also create other cascading benefits for rural attorneys and residents. Nearly half of the respondents in the GLC survey believed that more legal services organizations are necessary to provide representation to indigent clients. As the survey noted, this issue is complex, and some of those who cannot afford to pay for necessary legal representation do not meet the income requirements for government-funded legal aid services. However, it certainly bears noting that court simplification is favored by many legal service providers throughout the state. See, e.g., Fund for Modern Courts, "Simplify the Courts!" Coalition, Coalition Members. Leaders of such organizations have expressed their expectation that the Chief Judge's proposal will make courts more equitable and allow attorneys to better represent their clients.

Many advantages of court reform will benefit New Yorkers statewide—not just rural attorneys and litigants. For instance, individuals involved in family law cases will no longer have to appear in multiple courts before multiple judges to resolve different aspects of the same matter. And plaintiffs pursuing claims against the state and a private party will be able to litigate those issues in one case, rather than in two separate courts.

We have seen the confusion resulting from some such matters in our Third Department. For instance, in 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed a determination of our court that had allowed apportionment of a jury verdict, where the underlying circumstances required dual lawsuits in both Supreme Court and the Court of Claims. See Artibee v. Home Place, 28 N.Y.3d 739, 750-51 (2017). This case arose from a claim by a driver who suffered injury when their car was struck by a tree, located on private property, which fell onto the adjoining state highway. The driver commenced two lawsuits in separate courts, as required, against the property owner and the state. When the private defendant sought a jury charge regarding apportionment, Supreme Court had to choose between allowing the defendant an apportionment charge in a matter where the other party was constitutionally barred from appearing to defend itself, or denying the defendant an opportunity to prove that it should only be severally—rather than jointly—liable for plaintiff's damages. In a partial dissent from the decision allowing apportionment, my colleague Justice John Egan Jr. specifically noted that this case "illustrate[d] an archaic aspect of our state court system and [was] fodder for those who advocate for a single, Supreme Court level trial court" Artibee v. Home Place, 132 A.D.3d 96, 100 (2015) (Egan Jr., J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The solution to the dilemma as ultimately set forth by the Court of Appeals was to allow the defendant to bring a subsequent claim for contribution in the Court of Claims. Although this case was unusual, it does illustrate the complexity that can arise in our current system.

Our judges and nonjudicial staff are amply equipped to handle these sorts of nuances and complications. Nonetheless, it remains beyond dispute that certain structural improvements could not only simplify the work of judges and lawyers, but also make our courts more accessible, user-friendly and affordable for the people we serve. As Presiding Justice of the Third Department, and a member of the Administrative Board of the Courts, I am heartened that our court leadership is working in good faith to enhance our justice system, through this initiative and other efforts undertaken to streamline our courts and improve access to justice. And as a judge who hails from one of the many uniquely beautiful—but sometimes uniquely challenging—rural regions of our state, I am grateful for the opportunity to help ensure that the administration of our justice system is informed by perspectives from residents and practitioners in communities throughout New York state.