COVID-19 and Courts: An Exploration of the Impacts of the Pandemic on Case Processing and Operations

The COVID-19 pandemic instantly changed the day-to-day practices of the criminal justice system. The court system, traditionally reliant on face-to-face interaction, had to quickly alter operations to decrease the virus' spread while remaining functional as an integral role in the criminal justice system. The current exploratory study examines the response strategies U.S. court systems implemented, impacts on case processing, case backlogs, and additional consequences endured due to the pandemic. Using responses from self-report surveys of court staff (e.g., judges, clerks), results indicated that courts prioritized the types of cases heard and implemented multiple mitigation strategies that were deemed effective, some of which may be sustainable post-pandemic. Despite an increase in virtual jury trials and hearings, many courts saw a surge in backlogged cases and complications in assembling juries. The overall findings may inform judiciary policy and practice concerning short and long-term pandemic outcomes on court processing and future pandemic preparedness.

ZOOMING OUR WAY OUT OF THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE

The effects of the pandemic have shed light on the evolution of technology in the legal space, including the use of technology in videoconferencing proceedings and facilitating court procedures. Despite the benefits associated with technology, the rapid adoption of videoconferencing proceedings in courts may have unprecedented impacts on the relevance and practicality of the forum non conveniens doctrine. Additionally, the drastically different approaches that federal courts have taken in response to the disproportionate geographic effects of the pandemic may give way to forum shopping. Plaintiffs may be more incentivized to bring their cases to forums that allow for videoconferencing proceedings as a strategic way to circumvent a defendant's potential forum non conveniens argument in a motion to dismiss. This Note argues that videoconferencing technology allows courts to effectively transcend the restrictions of geography while mitigating arguments about the relative convenience of different forums. Creating more uniform rules for videoconferencing proceedings will ensure easier predictability and uniformity in the forum non conveniens analysis. Specifically, this Note recommends that Congress and the courts mandate standardized technological videoconferencing requirements and adopt the original understanding of the forum non conveniens doctrine for lower courts to more explicitly consider the benefits of technology when making a forum non conveniens determination.

How the Judiciary Has Driven Systemic Innovation During the Pandemic

In 1998, the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA)8 urged member state courts throughout the United States to join a national effort to exchange data and integrate information systems in ways that would improve case management.9 COSCA issued a position paper on information sharing in 2002,10 followed by joint resolutions adopted by the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ)11 and COSCA that called for public access to electronic court records and removal of Social Security numbers from court records.12 In 2004, COSCA joined with the National Association for Court Management (NACM)13 to issue a policy statement for court acceptance of information technology.14 It established a "nine part agenda" that emphasized serving the court's business needs, stressed the importance of effective implementation, and addressed security and privacy issues.15 A series of incremental resolutions followed over several years, including one from the CCJ entitled "The Emergence of E-Everything. The Landscape of Civil Litigation determined that nonfamily civil litigation in state courts "takes too long and costs too much," which undermined access to justice.18 Court dockets were dominated by "lowervalue contract and small claims" cases that rarely were adjudicated on the merits.19 Courts were using outdated automated case management systems, and they were giving self-represented parties (involved in 76% of cases) and lawyers too much control over the pace of litigation.20 The Landscape of Civil Litigation lamented the decline in funding for court systems and observed that courts were expected to dispense more justice using fewer resources.21 B.The Call to Action in Civil Cases One year later, the NCSC published its influential Call to Action: Achieving Civil Justice for All22 That report built upon the Landscape of Civil Litigation and criticized the "cost, delay, and unpredictability of civil litigation" under existing court processes.23 It recommended that courts update differentiated case management processes to assign cases to three "pathways," which it designated as "Streamlined," "Complex," and "General. "31 States should design courthouses that incorporate emerging changes in technology.32 Six months before the CCJ and COSCA endorsed the Call to Action, the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates approved the ABA Model Regulatory Objectives for the Provision of Legal Services (Model Regulatory Objectives).33 The Model Regulatory Objectives were drafted by the ABA's Commission on the Future of Legal Services not long before it released its innovative and controversial 2016 Report on the Future of Legal Services in the United States 24 The Model Regulatory Objectives provided guidelines for state courts to regulate nontraditional legal services providers, and discouraged blanket exclusions of nonlawyers based on unauthorized practice of law rules.35 The CCJ agreed, and resolved that state courts should consider broadening their regulatory frameworks to nonlawyers who provide legal services.36 Expanding the regulatory framework would give courts greater flexibility to implement the Call to Action21 In 2011, the NCSC advised state courts on how to automate court processes so that information technology could help assign cases to one of the three pathways.38 Pathway assignments should be data-driven and involve less human discretion. The NCSC joined in partnership with the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS)41 and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ)42 to launch the Family Justice Initiative (FJI).43 The FJI would operate in collaboration with the CCJ and COSCA to build upon the research contained in the Landscape of Civil Litigation and the policy directives in the Call to Action 44 While the FJI was ramping up its operations, the NCSC issued a 2017 white paper that examined existing case management systems in family courts throughout the United States, titled Triage Protocols for Divorce and Child Custody Cases.45 The white paper noted "tension between what should ideally be done, what courts can afford to do, and what litigants want," and that courts may need to "identify[] 'good enough' solutions" that are more feasible due to resource limitations.46 "As long as budget constraints exist, a court that provides more services to one case is essentially reducing services in another case, so some sense of cost/benefit is definitely helpful in making these kinds of service and process tradeoffs. .

Trinidad and Tobago and money laundering control: a country committed to strengthening the link

PurposeIn 2008, the author wrote on the Concept of "Money Laundering Control: The Missing Link in Trinidad and Tobago. Now, approximately two years after that seminal assessment, the author has re-assessed the domestic anti-money laundering (AML) framework, with particular reference to the controls in place to address money laundering (ML) and the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. This paper aims to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the newly implemented regime and considers whether it meets international standards.Design/methodology/approachThis analysis embraces a pluralist approach. Within this assessment, a case study method is used with contextual qualitative analysis. Empirical data is analyzed and causal connections are linked to the analysis.FindingsThis research highlights catalytic change and creativity in addressing deficiencies within the AML architecture in Trinidad and Tobago. Upon analysis, it is pellucid that a radically altered criminal justice landscape has emerged and a more aggressive and targeted approach to address ML and the confiscation of the proceeds of crime is apparent. The result is a shift in paradigm with tangible outcomes to suggest that the strategies have borne fruit and that the twin island Republic is indeed committed to strengthening the link.Research limitations/implicationsFindings are limited to Trinidad and Tobago and to the period ended April 2020.Originality/valueAs a country with a medium to high ML risk, the possible negative socio-economic effects of ML cannot be underscored. Disruption of ML and the confiscation of the proceeds of crime are, therefore, imperative. This paper considers the progress made in addressing these pertinent issues and assists in assessing the effects of the reformation efforts undertaken by Trinidad and Tobago.

The Impact of Service and Leadership

ABA Commission Report After a series of meetings of key figures in Georgia's legal community in 1988, in February 1989, the Supreme Court of Georgia created the Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism (CJCPGA), the first entity of this kind in the world created by a high court to address legal professionalism. The framework for CJCPGA appears to draw on the work of the American Bar Association's (ABA) 1986 report entitled In the Spirit of Public Service: A Blueprint for the Rekindling of Lawyer Professionalism (ABA Report). On December 31, 1999, Judge Hugh Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia signed a Consent Order and Final Judgment that settled an action seeking sanctions against E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company for alleged litigation misconduct in earlier product liability cases. According to the Consent Order, the monies were to be devoted "to fostering and teaching professionalism and ethics in the practice of law."

FREE EXERCISE PARTISANSHIP

This Article presents new data demonstrating that, in contrast to earlier periods, recent judicial decision-making in free exercise cases tracks political affiliation to a significant degree. The trend toward increased free exercise partisanship is starkly manifested by free exercise cases borne out of the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of federal court decisions pertaining to free exercise challenges to prohibitions of religious gatherings during the pandemic reveals that 0% of Democratic-appointed judges sided with religious plaintiffs, the majority (66%) of Republican-appointed judges sided with religious plaintiffs, and 82% of Trump-appointed judges sided with religious plaintiffs. But while religious challenges to COVID-19 lockdown orders have thrown free exercise partisanship into sharp relief, the trend of increased partisanship in free exercise jurisprudence actually predates the onset of the pandemic. This Article makes several contributions. One is empirical: it offers an original dataset that tracks every free exercise case from 2016 (the endpoint of previous surveys of free exercise cases) until 2021. Another is historical: it tells the story of how free exercise became politically controversial. A third is doctrinal: it reveals the deep ambiguity at the heart of free exercise doctrine, which this Article argues has enabled the rise in free exercise partisanship. A final one is jurisprudential: it shows the relationship between doctrinal clarity and partisanship, which has implications for constitutional law writ large.

Adapting a STEM Robotics Program to the Covid-19 Pandemic - a validation of the proposal presented at ISEC in 2021

In late 2020 the hosts of the IEEE Robot Challenge, a STEaM project requiring close teamwork among high school and middle school students, realized that it would not be able to comply with the COVID-19 restrictions that would likely be in place in early 2021. The project, originally developed by the IEEE Baltimore Section for the Baltimore Museum of Industry (BMI) as part of their Maryland Engineering Challenges program (MEC), would need to be modified significantly, yet it had to maintain a high level of teamwork (now likely to be on-line), and a comparable level of 'challenge' to the earlier in-person version generally held at the BMI. The 3 phases of the Challenge event as well as the robots themselves, would need to be re-designed, and there would be little time for mistakes or rework, as all details of the project would need to perform correctly the first (and possibly only) time they would be used. With the assistance of a group of Systems Engineers, all steps were analyzed and evaluated for their effectiveness and reliability, and on May 25, 2021, the Challenge was held using Zoom as the controlling system. The methodology that we planned to employ was outlined in a paper with this name that was presented at the 2021 ISEC conference [1]. The purpose of this 2022 paper is to measure and evaluate the success of the systems engineering studies and how they could be applied to other projects. Unexpectedly, Covid 19 is still with us, so the Virtual Challenge will again be offered for the April 23, 2022 event, though an 'in-person' Challenge will also be available on another day. © 2022 IEEE.

FEDERAL DETENTION AND "WILD FACTS" DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Whether to detain or release a defendant in a federal criminal case can be among the most challenging decisions federal judges face. Detention hearings present courts with a wide variety of factual circumstances surrounding defendants and their personal histories, their charged offenses, the evidence against them, the ways in which their detention or release might bear upon the community's safety, and the likelihood that they will appear in court. At least that much is the black letter law. But as the novel coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2 raced through the US in the winter and spring of 2020, touching off widespread infections of the disease labeled COVID-19, a new challenge arose with respect to federal arrestees and defendants already in detention. Citing the threat of COVID-19 infection, many defense attorneys began aggressively pushing for release of their clients. Here, Fuentes offers a framework for considering defendants' arguments for release based on the COVID-19 pandemic.

EXPANDING JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO GRANT COMPASSIONATE RELEASE DURING COVID-19

In the 1980s, Congress introduced compassionate release to counteract the increased rigidity of our federal sentencing system. This mechanism allowed courts, through a motion filed by the Bureau of Prison's director, to reduce a prisoner's sentence if "extraordinary and compelling" circumstances warrant such a reduction. However, because the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) seldom brought these motions, few people were released early via compassionate release. At the same time, public discourse and concerns regarding mass incarceration have continued to grow, causing lawmakers to revisit and revise compassionate release through the First Step Act of 2018 to ensure that this mechanism's potential is fully realized.

To reach sustainable justice with Millennials: example of Ukraine 1

Sustainable development became an essential part of our world since we realized the fragility and limits of our system, dangerous of resource exhaustion, and insistently looking for the way to stabilyze our life and life of our descendents, to restrict risks of collapses. Last years' catastrophes - the pandemic of COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, both are still existed, show us undoubtedly that we have to be more careful using our resources and develop our relations in economics and politics. In this article authors made an attempt to reconsider the approaches to understanding judiciary in Ukraine, using the new coordinates - generation born since 1980 till 1996 so called Millennials (generation Y), dictating new requests to life, and, in our opinion, to justice and judiciary development. Analysis of the impact of Millennials (generation Y) on the development of the judicial system is a complex process for a number of reasons. First, the lack of formal information about the age of the parties makes it impossible to substantiate the conclusions with empirical data. Secondly, despite some generalized traits, the characteristics of Millennials differ depending on the region and country of origin, which determines their economic, social, political, and cultural differences A striking example of this are the ex-Soviet Union's states. In majority of these countries, Millennials have become the first generation sufficiently aware of their rights, the legal ways to protect them and the role of the court as an effective tool for such protection. Their formation was accompanied by the changes in ideology, political regime and economic instability. In this article authors argue how Millennials change the judiciary in the ex-Soviet society, taking into account the specifics of the latter. The study suggests two interrelated aspects: the impact of Millennials on the development of the court as consumers of judicial services;the impact of Millennials, who come to work in the judicial system, as judges. The article substantiates the necessity of modernization of the courts, which is associated with the high technology of this generation and its vital need for information, as well as their consumerization aimed to create more sustainability justice and to answer the request of Millennials by changes of goals, by limits of expenses and by introducing the culture of peaceful and strong institutions in judiciary.

La pandémie de COVID-19, le prisonnier et le juge: Étude des recours exercés par les personnes incarcérées en France pendant la crise sanitaire

Cet article porte sur une analyse des recours exercés par les personnes détenues en établissement pénitentiaire en France visant à contester leurs conditions de détention pendant la crise sanitaire. Grâce à un accès à la base de données Ariane archives du Conseil d'État, 117 décisions rendues par les tribunaux administratifs, les cours administratives d'appel et le Conseil d'État ont pu être recueillies. L'analyse de ces décisions met en évidence la faible concrétisation du droit à la santé des personnes détenues pendant la crise sanitaire, ainsi que les lacunes du contrôle juridictionnel exercé, le juge administratif ne prononçant quasiment jamais de mesures pour contrôler effectivement les conditions de détention, et s'en tenant aux allégations de l'administration. Ces constats viennent conforter les deux hypothèses retenues : la gestion de la COVID-19 en prison est paradigmatique des contradictions inhérentes au droit à la santé en milieu carcéral d'une part, et son contrôle révèle une hiérarchisation entre individus selon leur statut d'autre part.Alternate :This article concerns the complaints brought forth in France during the COVID-19 pandemic by certain prisoners seeking to challenge the conditions of their imprisonment. With direct access to the administrative decision databases, a full analysis of the complaints lodged by prisoners before the administrative courts reveals two key aspects : poor protection of the right to health of prisoners, and the weakness of the judicial control exercised by administrative judges. This socio-legal inquiry supports two hypotheses : that COVID-19 pandemic governance reveals the contradictions inherent to the right to health in prisons, and that the control of contagion underpins a hierarchy between individuals with regard to their legal statuses.Alternate :Este artículo presenta un análisis de los recursos interpuestos por las personas detenidas en los establecimientos penitenciarios de Francia encaminados a impugnar sus condiciones de detención durante la crisis sanitaria. Gracias al acceso a la base de datos Ariane, archivos del Consejo de Estado, se recogieron 117 decisiones dictadas por tribunales administrativos, tribunales administrativos de apelación y por el Consejo de Estado. El análisis de estas decisiones pone de manifiesto la escasa concretización del derecho a la salud de los detenidos durante la crisis sanitaria así como las lagunas del control jurisdiccional ejercido, ya que el juez administrativo casi nunca adopta medidas para controlar efectivamente las condiciones de detención y se limita a atenerse a las alegaciones de la administración. Estos resultados apoyan las dos hipótesis : la gestión de la Covid-19 en la cárcel es paradigmática de las contradicciones inherentes al derecho a la salud en las prisiones, y su control revela una jerarquía entre los individuos según su estatus.

Black Families Overlooked, Misunderstood, and Underserved in the Family Courts

Studies show that even people consciously committed to equality may still hold unconscious stereotypes that influence their actions.1 The courts' technological pivot during the COVID-19 pandemic has made access to justice available at our fingertips.2 Attorneys and parties can dial into hearings using a web-based conferencing platform like Zoom, arguably making participating in court proceedings easier.3 However, what happens when the parties face challenges such as lack of broadband access, lack of devices to access web-based conference platforms, or lack of computer knowledge to access hearings, among a host of other problems? [...]mediation is a way to preserve positive relationships and garner adherence to parenting time agreements, which leads to a better wellbeing for the children involved. "10 State and local court administrators can "[p]rovide education on implicit bias that includes judicial facilitators/presenters, examples of implicit bias across other professions, and exercises" to personalize training sessions.11 In addition, administrators can "[p]rovide routine diversity training that emphasizes multiculturalism and encourage court leaders to promote" the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.12 To further assist the bench with addressing implicit bias, administrators can develop guidelines or protocols "for decision makers to check and correct for implicit bias (e.g., taking the other person's perspective, imagining the person is from a non-stigmatized social group, thinking of counter stereotypic thoughts in the presence of an individual from a minority social group). "20 Like courts in Massachusetts and New York, other court systems could request an independent commission to analyze administrative data from state agencies regarding racial disparities and submit a report of its findings as well as proposed strategies for improvement.21 "Courts exist to do justice, to guarantee liberty, to enhance social order, to resolve disputes, to maintain rule of law, to provide for equal protection, and to ensure due process of law.

Features of regulatory regulation of state financing of maintenance of jury trial in Ukraine

The article analyses the peculiarities of legal regulation of state funding of jury trial maintenance in Ukraine. It has been established that public funding of the judicial system in Ukraine is currently extremely limited, which is a consequence of the economic crisis in Ukraine due to the temporary annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, permanent military clashes in the east of Ukraine and the global pandemic coronavirus. Moreover, in economically developed countries, the level of state funding of the judicial system directly depends on the economic potential of the state and its stability in the global economic market. Therefore, it is necessary for Ukraine, first of all, to move towards improving its position within the global economic market and overcoming all manifestations of economic crisis. It has been established that jury trial is one of the key institutions of judicial power, the judiciary and have proved the urgency of further improvement of jury trial mechanisms, but only in the criminal proceedings, because in case of their adoption by the Supreme Council of Ukraine, jury trials will not have any legitimacy in civil proceedings. On the basis of the cited statistical data it was established that the monetary compensation for jury trial in Ukraine is minimal in comparison to the USA, Canada or France. The UK, on the contrary, does not provide for monetary compensation of jurors in its legislation;only travel and per diem compensation exist. The high level of jury monetary compensation depends first of all on the social and economic development of the country. Concludingly, the legislator's actions of the recent years are directed at the classical jury trial model, which exists in many countries of the world, with an appropriate level of financial assistance and an appropriate level of logistical support. © 2022 Seventh Sense Research Group®.

Introduction: 2021 Daniel H. Wagner Prize for Excellence in the Practice of Advanced Analytics and Operations Research

The judges for the 2021 Daniel H. Wagner Prize for Excellence in the Practice of Advanced Analytics and Operations Research selected the five finalist papers featured in this special issue of the INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics. The prestigious Wagner Prize-awarded for achievement in implemented operations research, management science, and advanced analytics-emphasizes the quality and originality of mathematical models along with clarity of written and oral exposition. This year's winning application describes the design and deployment of Eva, the Greek COVID-19 testing system used as Greece was opening up for tourism in 2020. The remaining four papers describe the stochastic modeling and mixed-integer programming system used to optimize the Atlanta police patrol zones for better police balance and reduced response time to emergency calls;Lyft's new priority dispatch system, which solves the ride-sharing productivity paradox whereby increases in efficiency do not benefit the drivers;the application of advanced analytics to assist local and federal law enforcement organizations in their efforts to disrupt sex-trafficking networks;and the development of a new after-sales service concept, which increases chip availability for ASML's customers.

Public Access to Online Hearings

The shift to online hearings in many jurisdictions generated new avenues for public access but also raised concerns for the privacy and security of individuals, and for the administration of justice. [...]the conditions for accessing those hearings should reflect the different concerns that arise at the trial and appellate levels. [...]courts should strive to harmonize their approach to make it easier for members of the public to navigate the justice system. [...]the second aspect of the open court principle is the presumptive accessibility of court information, including court records as well as hearing schedules, procedures, and decisions, also called "information transparency.

ACTUAL ISSUES OF REMOTE COURT HEARINGS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

The aim of the e-Justice strategy is to improve the implementation of the right to justice, cooperation between judicial authorities and the effectiveness of justice itself. Much attention has been paid to the computerization of court proceedings. Remote court hearings were recognized and described in the legal acts of the European Union and Lithuania already at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century. However, this approach has not been widely used due to technical problems and insufficient regulation. The Covid-19 pandemic affected all life and the economy. In order to preserve the human right to justice, not to interrupt the work of courts, remote court hearings were held. It has been found that in administrative justice, especially when organizing the work of quasi-judicial structures, such hearings can be applied almost without problems. Therefore, the organization of remote meetings in administrative courts and quasi-judicial organizations was continued during the non-quarantine year, depending on the wishes of the participants in the proceedings. However, the widespread use of teleconferencing and videoconferencing in the work of courts has identified the need to improve Lithuania's legal framework. The article analyses the peculiarities of remote administrative procedure and legal regulation.

Antideference: COVID, Climate, and the Rise of the Major Questions Canon

Introduction Over roughly the last two decades, it has become increasingly clear that a majority on the Supreme Court aims to reduce the power and reach of the administrative state in the American constitutional order.1 Most observers of this trend have focused on two potential changes in doctrine: an end to the practice of deferring to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes (i.e., Chevron deference)2 and a revival of the principle that some Congressional delegations of power to agencies are so broad as to violate the Constitution (i.e., nondelegation).3 These two judicial forbearance doctrines have remained stable pillars of the administrative state for decades. Chevron remains good law (albeit severely weakened at the Supreme Court level),5 and the nondelegation doctrine’s slumber was narrowly preserved in 2019’s Gundy v. United States.6 But in two recent cases striking down agency actions related to the COVID-19 pandemic—a CDC eviction moratorium7 and an OSHA vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers8 —the Court made an equally significant but almost completely unheralded anti-administrative doctrinal change. In 2022 the Court will again consider the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in West Virginia v. EPA,23 a case I and others have highlighted as a potential vehicle for further erosion of Chevron or reinvigoration of the non-delegation doctrine. 24 Armed with the major questions canon, neither is necessary for the Court to impose its veto on the administrative state. Deference’s foundation is implied delegation—the assumption31 that Congress intends for agencies to fill statutory gaps.32 Just two years after Chevron, then-Judge Stephen Breyer suggested that this assumption should be discarded in “major” cases.33 A decade later, the Court would adopt this principle (though Breyer himself would not).34 In MCI, Justice Scalia rejected a change in telecommunications rate policy by the FCC, denying deference to the agency in part because the regulation was, he claimed, a “radical or fundamental change” to the statutory scheme.35 The case augured a doctrinal change but did not explicitly announce one;it can be interpreted as a straightforward Chevron case, with the agency’s interpretation simply deemed “unreasonable.”

Court composition and its invariability as elements of a court established by the law during Covid-19 pandemic: lessons from Poland

Background: The article discusses systemic and processual changes in provisions referring to the panels of judges in Poland. The statutory regulation adequate during the COVID-19 epidemic contains regulations whereby a single-judge panel is proper in the first and second instance. At the same time, the principle of invariability and stability of the courts' panel was exterminated. However, in case of Poland the protection of the dependent court, established with an extreme breach of law is protected by administrative and political decisions on shaping the court composition. Methods: dogmatic legal analysis. The subject of the dogmatic legal analysis is the content of the law and its interpretations found in the jurisprudence and views of the doctrine. Results and Conclusions: The court 'shaped' in such a way guarantees the expected 'judgment'. There are fears that these standards of the highest judiciary bodies in Poland may spread among other courts which are managed by the presidents appointed by Justice Minister - General Prosecutor. Judges appointed in an illegal way will, by way of political decisions, be in particular court composition, and then talking about court independence will be completely untrue. Let's hope that COVID-19 pandemic will end soon. It is then necessary to make sure that all the restrictions on the right of recourse to court, introduced as a pretext to combat the pandemic, will be removed. Otherwise, the pandemic of lawlessness will stay with us much longer than Covid.

Peer Mentor-Coaching in the Massachusetts Trial Court

INNOVATIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR JUDGES The Massachusetts Trial Court's judicial mentoring program is called J2J, for judge-to-judge. Later, when we resumed jury trials, I held Zoom meetings for my new judge mentees to prepare them to manage the heavy caseload and provided a forum for nuanced analysis and discussion of complex jury management issues to compensate for their lack of traditional courtroom experience due to the pandemic. - New judge mentee History of the J2J Program The J2J Program began in 2009 when the Massachusetts Trial Court sought a formal and structured means of professional development for judges identified as struggling in a particular area. Working with an outside consultant5 and the director of judicial education in the Trial Court's Judicial Institute,6 a core group of judges initiated and developed an innovative program of peer mentor-coaching support for judges likely to benefit from focused, collaborative work with a trained colleague.7 While mentor-coach/mentee work proved beneficial to the judges involved in this context, the resource was not widely publicized or sought after, and it was considered remedial and rather stigmatizing in nature.

CURRENT PROBLEMS OF THE IMPACT OF GENDER EQUALITY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN UKRAINE

The main purpose of the article was to study the gender equality principles in the Ukrainian justice system. This paper covered the main mechanisms of the state of modern international legal regulations on the impact of gender equality in the administration of justice. The main issues arising upon the implementation of gender equality issues in the justice system of Ukraine were identified. It was suggested that new mechanisms of further improvement of the corresponding law enforcement practice. It was concluded that particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, the recognition of gender equality in Ukraine as a key aspect of sustainable development requires the introduction of a gender integration policy in all areas, including in the justice system, where it is necessary to recognise gender aspects upon delivering justice. © 2022 Asociacion Mexicana de Maestros de Ingles MEXTESOL A.C. All rights reserved.