We have learned several important lessons from these unifications. Perhaps the most important is that they work. When local communities are given the responsibility and authority to cooperatively work on solving local docket problems, everyone_especially the users of the court system_benefits. The key element to court reorganization is flexibility. We do not need a ''one size fits all'' statutory court structure. Such rigid structure interferes with the ability of Michigan's various counties to address their ever-changing local needs. Arbitrary and inflexible rules of jurisdiction and venue demand that certain courts and judges have far more to do than they can possibly and reasonably handle, while others may be underutilized. Every county must develop its own solution, taking into consideration their local needs, as well as local facilities, personalities and resources. Total trial court unification (the merger of the probate, circuit and district courts) can provide this needed flexibility. By establishing one trial court, the court's chief judge can assign and reassign judges to address the changing docket needs. The ultimate benefit falls upon the citizens of the state as the courts allocate judges to meet the local judicial needs in a more prompt and efficient manner. The Supreme Court's report recognizes that trial court unification works. Chief Justice James H. Brickley, in his report to the people entitled ''Justice in Michigan, A Program for Reforming the Judicial Branch of Government,'' states on page 3:

''For several years, the Supreme Court has been conducting pilot projects that test partial unification of certain court services or administrative functions....These projects have proven that with increased cooperation among the courts of a county, administrative structures can be streamlined and savings in nonjudicial operations can be realized. Even more importantly, services to the citizens can be improved through greater flexibility and responsiveness to community needs.'' (Emphasis added).

There are presently throughout the state district, circuit and probate court judges with the time and desire to assist their brethren, but who lack the authority to do so because of present court structure limitations. When given the flexibility to allocate these state paid resources (judges), without the restrictions of artificial boundaries, they were able to successfully fill the judicial needs of their communities rapidly and efficiently. They are the best argument for providing flexibility via total trial court unification. By way of example consider the following:

Success in Kent County

Judge Patrick C. Bowler [(616) 456-3099] told the House Judiciary Committee that the circuit judges initially did not want district judges to take felony pleas, but now they are happy to see them do pleas, sentencings and trials (both bench and jury) in felony cases.

Court staff coordinates the filing of all district and circuit matters in one office thus saving time, trouble and expense for taxpayers, litigants, attorneys and the public. The out-county court location is to be used for filing pleadings for all the courts providing a greater convenience and cost savings to the citizen user.

Success in Marquette County

Judge James Collins [(906) 228-1554] reported to the House Judiciary Committee that a new computer system is being developed. Case information can be shared by the circuit, probate and district judges, prosecutors, probation departments and the sheriff's department. They are working on ''family identifiers,'' so problem families will come to their attention even though the cases are handled in different courts.

This cooperation is particularly important because both 96th District Court judges have worked open assignments as ''visiting circuit court judges'' for the past ten-and-one-half years. They have been assigned divorce cases, criminal cases, boundary disputes, etc. They have also issued temporary restraining orders and personal protection orders when the two circuit court judges were not available.

In addition to the blanket assignment, both district court judges accept felony pleas at the time of the preliminary examination. If the plea is ''not guilty,'' they set a scheduling conference with the circuit judge who will conduct the trial. If the plea is ''guilty,'' they schedule a sentencing date for the circuit judge. This ability to take pleas and schedule matters for the circuit court reduces the amount of time defendants spend in jail prior to trial, accelerates the criminal docket, and helps keep taxpayer funded court appointed attorney fees down.

Success in Washtenaw County Judge Timothy P. Connors, Chief Judge of the 15th District Court in Ann Arbor [(313) 994-2660], reported the success of the Washtenaw County Unified Trial Court Pilot Program to the House Judiciary Committee. The district, probate and circuit judges propose a single trial court unified both judicially and administratively. Under the pilot model, cases would be assigned to four divisions: criminal, civil, family court, and appellate. Stated goals of the project are to maximize the use of existing judicial resources, reduce costs for court and justice system participants, and improve public access to the courts.

In Phase I, functions currently performed by several courts on felony criminal cases were consolidated and merged. Specifically the trial courts in Washtenaw were cross assigned to enable district court judges to perform the work of circuit court judges. This unification permitted the district court judges to handle the felony case from beginning to end. Washtenaw district judges are now presiding over pre-trial conferences and trials previously delegated only to circuit court judges. In addition these district court judges are taking pleas from those defendants who choose not to go to trial and sentencing those who have either pled or were found guilty.

The end result of this unification was:

~ A reduction in the average age of a felony case (from filing to disposition) from 96 days to 53 days;

~ The cost to the taxpayers for the housing of the accused while the case was pending was also reduced by 43 days times the per diem cost of housing;

~ The elimination of the administrative redundancy of recreating the file;

~ The elimination of the need to re-arraign the accused, thereby freeing up court time at the circuit court to address other matters;

~ The sheriff did not have to bring the accused back to the court for a half dozen appearances;

~ Jail space was freed up to be used for the housing of misdemeanants sentenced to jail as the bed was no longer required for the housing of a person accused of a felony;

~ Parties accused of a felony that were ultimately found not guilty spent an average of 43 days less in jail while awaiting the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.

Arbitrary and inflexible rules of jurisdiction and venue demand that certain courts and judges have far more to do than they can possibly and reasonably handle, while others may be underutilized.

In the more recently implemented Phase II, an equal distribution of civil cases among district and circuit judges resulted in fewer delays, earlier active judicial involvement, and trial date certainty. Secondly, an equal distribution of divorce cases among the probate and circuit courts will assist the development of a family court. Finally, the reinstatement of a night court handled by all judges and magistrates will improve public access to the courts.

Washtenaw County has demonstrated that flexibility and cooperation among the members of the bench can succeed. Flexibility is the key, because next year's priority cases may well be totally different. As the backlog in major civil and divorce cases is handled, the new priority may be domestic violence or drugs or felonies or drunk driving. With a flexible system, they'll be ready to handle local needs.

Success in Monroe County

Judge Paul E. Braunlich of the 1st District Court [(313) 243-7035], during a vacancy created on the probate court, presided over one-half of the probate court docket for over 21_2 years, while still handling his assigned district court docket. The other half of the probate court docket was handled by a circuit court judge. Judge Braunlich also served on an as-needed basis as a circuit court judge, and he reports that all of the district court judges take felony pleas.

Success in Alcona, Oscoda and Ogemaw Counties

In the Supreme Court's pilot program involving the counties of Alcona, Oscoda and Ogemaw, District Court Judge Paul T. Dwyer [(517) 724-5313] serves all three counties. A good portion of the judge's day could be spent making the drive between the three courthouses. This caused difficulties in scheduling preliminary exams, which by law must be held within 14 days. The circuit court judges were already burdened with their mandated jurisdictions. On the other hand, the three probate court judges had time to assist. By cross-assigning the probate court judges to the district court, each probate court judge was authorized to handle the preliminary exams arising in their county. Merely combining the probate and circuit courts, as proposed by some, would not have addressed the total judicial needs of these three counties.

Success in Calhoun County

District Court Judge John R. Holmes [(616) 969-6703] in Battle Creek reports a successful implementation of a Supreme Court pilot program for court unification. A judicial council comprised of the chief judges of the circuit, probate and district courts meets regularly to identify where cooperation can benefit the courts, and then implements the procedures. Currently all the courts use a combined jury pool and are working toward a combined computer program to greater facilitate unification. The district court judges also take felony pleas. There has been some cross assignment work resulting in district court judges performing circuit court work. Perhaps of greater interest is the unification, on an individual case basis, of matters that were before both the probate (such as an intervention by the juvenile court in a neglect matter) and the district court (such as a charge of domestic violence).

Success in Jackson County and all over the place

District Judge James M. Justin [(517) 788-4260] has served as a circuit judge in Hillsdale, Wayne, Ingham, Jackson, Livingston, Ottawa and Van Buren Counties and as a recorder's court judge.

Success in Chippewa County District Judge Michael W. MacDonald [(906) 635-7024] has served as circuit court judge taking felony pleas and handling matters in which the circuit court judge has been disqualified to hear the case.

Success in Ingham County

District Judges Richard D. Ball [(517) 336-8694] and David L. Jordan [(517) 351-7024] have served as probate court judges on an as-needed basis to hear involuntary commitment proceedings.

Success in Lapeer County

Judge Laura Barnard [(810) 667-0308] addressed the House Judiciary Committee regarding the felony plea procedures utilized by her for the past two years in the 71A District Court. This procedure was developed with the approval of the prosecutors, defense bar and circuit court bench. By administrative order, Judge Barnard sits in her district courtroom as a visiting circuit judge for the purpose of taking the felony pleas, and thus streamlines the processing of uncontested felony matters from arraignment to sentencing. This procedure results in the savings of substantial time and court appearances for the police, the witnesses, the defendants, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and the circuit court judges.

Success in Luce and Mackinac Counties

District Judge Steven Ford [(906) 293-5531] reports of the success of ''assist with docket'' cross assignments. These assignments enable a judge to act in the same capacity and with the same authority as the judge to which he or she has been assigned to assist. In that capacity, he has served as a circuit and probate court judge. Perhaps more importantly, these cross assignments demonstrate why not involving the district courts in the unification could result in hardships for some of the counties of this state. Judge Ford's district consists of the counties of Luce and Mackinac. The geographical boundaries of the probate court are the same. The circuit courts are not. Each county is served by a different circuit judge, but that is not the only county they serve. He provides two examples of how his ability to serve as a circuit and probate court judge comes into use, and he assures us that hardly a day goes by without him handling a matter pursuant to his cross assignment.

Probate_in a petition for adoption, if the natural father consents, the statute mandates that the consent must be put on the record within seven days. Because Judge Ford was present and available at the courthouse on that day while the probate judge was on the bench elsewhere in his district, he handled the matter.

Circuit_when an abused spouse was seeking a PPO (personal protection order) to prevent her spouse from further beating or harassing her, she needed it right away. As the circuit court judge was not available, the quick and efficient entry of the order was hindered. Judge Ford stepped in and handled the matter.

Success in Midland and Isabella Counties

District Court Judge James E. Wilson [(517) 832-6705] and Isabella Circuit Court Judge Paul Chamberlain report that Judge Wilson's five-year assignment to the Isabella Circuit Court has been extremely helpful in handling the caseload. This is a prime example of cooperation not only between the district and circuit court, but also across geographical boundaries arbitrarily established by the statute.

Success in Muskegon County

Chief District Judge Fredric Grimm [(616) 724-6349] of the 60th District Court in Muskegon advises that all the district court judges are cross assigned to take felony pleas if the defendant or his or her attorney so request. Consequently, the first appearance of these defendants before a circuit court judge is for purposes of sentencing, thereby eliminating the need to re-arraign and pretry the defendant.

The plea taking also reduced the time formerly required to handle said defendants by two months. This should be considered in light of its effect on the county jail, which is overcrowded because it is currently housing persons charged with felonies. This results in no space at the inn for misdemeanants sentenced to jail. These misdemeanants are often released early to accommodate the housing of persons accused of felonies. The time saved from the filing of the charges to the sentencing of the felon to the state's prisons results in more beds in the local jail being available to house convicted misdemeanants.

Success in Oakland County

District Judges Edward Avadenka [(810) 433-9331], James R. McCann [(313) 464-8227], Carl F. Ingraham [(810) 644-0348] and Robert W. Carr [(810) 666-4301] have served as the visiting circuit court drug judges handling every part of the drug docket from arraignment through trial and sentencing. Success in Otsego County District Court Judge Patricia A. Morse [(517) 732-8105] reports that she has been cross assigned to both the probate and circuit courts to serve on an as-needed basis. She served in the probate court on an emergency basis when the elected judge was unavailable due to illness. She also believes the circuit and probate courts could make greater use of her availability if they shared a common administrator. The present program requires the coordination of the judge's schedules by two or more administrators.

Success in Wayne County

At the district court level, a judicial resources program has been developed for district court judges throughout the county to assist each other. This was done in recognition of the inflexible geographic jurisdictions arbitrarily created by statute that prohibited one district court judge from assisting another. A comparison was made to identify courts needing additional judicial resources, and courts able to provide judicial resources. All of the district court judges are cross assigned to assist all other district courts. Judges with available time may assist courts burdened by an excessive caseload.

35th District Court Judge James Garber [(313) 665-3791] was renowned for helping courts needing assistance with docket reduction. During his career he sat as a visiting judge in the Wayne County Circuit, 36th District and Recorder's Courts. In 1986-87 Judge Garber participated as a visiting judge in the 3rd Circuit Court's Caseload Reduction Program. Essentially every case over 30 months old was assigned to him, and he spent almost every afternoon for 15 months helping to reduce the caseload. Many trial court judges (circuit, district and probate) are ready, willing and able to lend assistance to better serve the needs of the state's citizens.

For several years he served as a full-time visiting judge to Detroit's Recorder's Court. During these times, he would spend up to four months a year as a recorder's court judge, while his district court seat was filled by a retired district court judge. One of these occasions arose due to the death of a sitting judge. Judge Garber handled the deceased judge's docket until it was filled by appointment, a period of approximately 90 days. Judge Garber's experiences demonstrate the advantages of having the ability to reallocate the state's judicial resources.

District Court Judge Mary M. Waterstone, 36th District Court [(313) 965-8729], was assigned to the 3rd Circuit Court from June 25, 1993 through December 16, 1993 to assist with a specific Elliott-Larsen civil case inappropriately remanded to the 36th District Court. She also tried and sentenced a defendant in three drug cases.

District Judge Glenn C. Valasco, 27th District Court, 2nd Division [(313) 281-4204] handled a full circuit court docket one week each month for six months, just a few years ago.

District Judge Gail McKnight, 18th District Court [(313) 595-8720] sat one day a month for over a year as a Wayne County Circuit judge handling out county arraignments, felony pleas and felony sentencings. She also sat as a circuit court judge as part of District Judge James Garber's civil reduction project for the Wayne Circuit Court.

Success in the Court of Claims

The Court of Claims was created to hear suits involving the State of Michigan as the defendant. The 30th Circuit Court judges and other judges assigned by the state court administrator serve as the judges of the Court of Claims. Recently District Judge John B. Collins of the 14-B Judicial District serving Ypsilanti was assigned to serve as a Court of Claims judge in Stevens v U of M, a complex and time-consuming matter.

THESE FEW EXAMPLES PROVE THE POINT

Are these all of the examples available? Absolutely not. The examples provided are just a sampling, but they represent real and practical answers to many of the current judicial system's problems, and demonstrate that the need is statewide. Most importantly, they demonstrate the need for flexibility, as each example addressed the existing needs of the courts involved at the time the assistance was provided.

What did we learn by all of these full or partial trial court unification experiments? Five things have become clear from the ten years of experiments, temporary assignments, special orders, and pilot programs:

1. They work! When the participating judges set aside their individual reasons for opposition and cooperate all of our citizens, taxpayers and court users alike, benefit.

2. No model or structure will work in every county of the state. The statute adopted by the Legislature must provide the flexibility for each county to be creative in implementing solutions to the varied demands made upon their judicial systems.

3. Judicial needs will vary. Today's plan is designed to solve today's problem. Tomorrow will bring new challenges to the justice system's structure, and these challenges cannot be forecasted. The law is ever changing, and the judicial structure must have the flexibility to adjust to accommodate the needs of the citizens.

4. Each county and district has a different mix of cases, geography, court facilities, staffing and judges. Each county also has different demands on its judicial resources requiring different solutions. The unified trial court is not a chaotic, confused environment. On the contrary, it is a streamlining of the court structure designed to eliminate duplication and provide continuity.

By establishing one trial court, the court's chief judge can assign and reassign judges to address the changing docket needs.

5. There is nothing to be gained by two more years of experimentation. Further testing will only confirm what we know today. Further delay impedes those counties ready to implement unification and become more cost effective, while better serving their citizens.

What is evident from these examples is that trial court unification already works and satisfies the ever changing needs of the trial court users. Many trial court judges (circuit, district and probate) are ready, willing and able to lend assistance to better serve the needs of the state's citizens. Several legislators are at this moment re-drafting the proposed legislation for court reorganization to seize this opportunity to implement a reorganization of the courts and to adopt a structure that will promote flexibility to address local needs, speed justice, simplify the court structure, provide easier access to justice for the citizens of this state, create a stable and equitable source of funding, effectively utilize judicial and staff resources and improve the overall performance of the judicial system. Total trial court unification will achieve these goals. Ronald W. Lowe graduated from Hillsdale College in 1978 and Thomas M. Cooley Law School in 1982. He was elected 35th District Court Judge in 1994. When he is not on the bench, he enjoys storytelling and regularly makes use of this talent to educate young and old alike about the law.