Towards a Unified Court System: A Comparison Between New York State Courts and Chinese Courts

• Author: Jonathan Lippman
• Pages: 2-23

2 TSINGHUA CHINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 8:01

TOWARDS A UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM: A COMPARISON

BETWEEN NEW YORK STATE COURTS AND CHINESE

COURTS

Jonathan Lippman

Abstract

In recent times, China’s leadership announced a series of legal reforms to modernize the

judicial system and to increase public confidence in the rule o f law. The action occurred in

response to increasing frustration over the lack of judicial independence, the lack of confidence

in judicial leadership, and the unsystematic organization of the courts. In looking back on New

York’s history of court reform and my own experience as a court administrator for many

decades, I argue that New York’s experience with reorganizing and strengthening the judiciary

and the justice system can provide some illumination and lessons learned to Chinese court

reformers. In embracing a unified court system separate from local governmental and outside

influences and strengthening and supporting the judiciary, New York entered the modern era,

and the New York experience can impart some useful instruction to China as it undergoes a

similar transformation.

I. INTRODUCTION

In April 2014, I was fortunate to meet with the President of the

Supreme People’s Court of China, President ZHOU Qiang. We

discussed many issues and concerns that we had in common including

judicial independence, transparency in the courts, and the rule of law.

Though there are vast differences between our two court systems, we

both recognized that our goals were aligned in ultimately seeking fair

judicial proceedings and courts for our citizens. My goal in authoring

this article is to provide the example of New York’s experience in

transitioning to a Unified Court System and our endeavors at court

reform in hopes that it will be helpful to President ZHOU and court

reformers in China as China’s courts undergo its five-year reform plan.

While Chinese law has thousands of years of history, the current

iteration of the Chinese judicial system is relatively new and in its

formative stages. From New York’s vantage point, there is great

untapped potential in the Chinese judicial system, and I look forward

to seeing the reforms to come.

II. NEW YORK’S UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM

New York’s courts of the 21st century fall under what we call a

“Unified Court System.”1 However, this was not always the case. In

the last 120 years, New York’s highly structured court network has

1 As will be explained further in this Article, New York’s current court system has evolved from a

collection of local, isolated courts to a statewide court system that has a unitary budget (financed by the

state) and is overseen by the Office of Court Administration (with the exception of Town and Village

Courts). Therefore, our court system is considered unified and not an amalgam of separate tribunals.

2015] NEW YORK STATE COURTS AND CHINESE COURTS 3

evolved in order to sustain an effective and economical judiciary while

assuring the fair and equal administration of justice throughout the

state of New York.

A. A Brief History – New York’s Transition to a Unified Court

System

New York’s courts began with the adoption of the state’s first

constitution in 1777, with a small number of judges appointed by a

central authority.2 Judges set the rules of legal practice before the

courts, and there was no formal appellate court system. As the state

grew in the 19th century, there was a need for a larger judiciary. At

the 1846 Constitutional Convention, New York increased the number

of judges and set up a system of judicial districts based on

geographical location within the state. The Convention also produced

a two-tiered appellate court system consisting of intermediate

appellate courts and the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court of

appellate jurisdiction. The Constitution determined that judges would

be popularly elected for fixed terms of office.

By 1894, there was overwhelming public demand for reform as the

public saw the courts as inefficient, wasteful, and insufficient to meet

the demands of litigants.3 Another Constitutional Convention was

formed, and a judiciary committee was appointed to recommend

changes to Article VI of the New York State Constitution.4 The

judiciary committee was concerned with the efficient use of judicial

resources as well as the need for greater public confidence in the

judiciary system itself.5 Under the old system, the caseload for the

appellate courts continued to increase because parties did not respect

the decisions of the lower courts.6 The Court of Appeals’ docket was

hopelessly clogged with cases of little consequence because the

Legislature had created so many different grounds for appeal to the

state’s highest court.7 The existing appellate courts in smaller districts

had some of the same judges who sat in the trial courts, which led to

some situations where a judge acted as an appellate judge in an appeal

of his own decision as a trial judge. 8 As a result of the judiciary

committee’s recommendations, the Appellate Division of the Supreme

2 Judges were appointed by the governor or by the Council of Appointment which consisted of the

governor and senators from around the state.

3 COMMITTEE ON THE CENTENNIAL, APPELLATE DIVISION – FIRST DEPARTMENT, APPELLATE

DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT: 1896-

1996 2 (1996), available at http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/legal-history-new-

york/documents/History_Appellate-First-1896-1996.pdf.

4 Id.

5 Id. at 3.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.