NAPCO membership is open to presiding, chief and leadership judges, court executives and others …
Read more →Save the Date! NAPCO Conference • Wilmington, Delaware • August 16-19, 2026
Read more →There’s nothing fake about it. The legal industry is facing a big problem with deepfakes. Courtrooms are not yet flooded with a tsunami of deepfake evidence, but with this artificial intelligence-generated technology playing with great success on social media and in fraud schemes, it’s only a matter of time before deepfakes regularly drop into the exhibit list.
As litigators begin to incorporate artificial intelligence into their work, some courts are doing the same. A pilot program in Estonia allows litigants in small claims court to submit their disputes to a computer program. Some Brazilian judges regularly use artificial intelligence when drafting decisions. And a virtual judge presides over court proceedings in some parts of China, although human judges make the final decisions. Before American litigators immediately dismiss this trend, or fully embrace it, I offer two benefits and two challenges that this technology may offer to the judiciary.
What happens if the president decides to ignore the Supreme Court? According to constitutional experts, not much. Part of the problem, says Richard Garnett, the Paul J. Schierl professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School, is that courts have always been reliant on the cooperation of the executive branch to enforce their orders and comply with decisions, regardless of whether or it agrees with them.
Join us for this 60-minute webinar. We’ll look at how you as a court leader can use humor with intention, mine your own life for material, and keep it appropriate. Everyone is funny in their own way and can perfect their sense of humor and learn to deploy it more effectively in strategic ways to help strengthen relationships, unlock creativity in others, and boost resilience in difficult times. Research shows people appreciate almost any kind of levity, provided it is not hurtful or offensive. It’s not hard to stay on the right side of that line.
THE PHRASE “checks and balances” does not appear anywhere in the United States constitution; and yet in a manual for Martians on how America governs itself it would be on page one. Those three words are a reminder that the country has an unwritten constitution, which resides in beliefs, behavior and legal precedents, to go alongside its more celebrated written constitution. They describe how the branches of government compete for power—a contest where, the founding fathers wrote, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” The question for the Supreme Court’s new term, which starts October 1, is: how much ambition do the justices have?
Join us for a 75-minute discussion about what high-powered, talented, influential people, both inside and outside the justice system, expect of court leaders when those leaders have limited authority over the persons they are supposed to lead. This online seminar is the fourth installment in NAPCO’s series on research-based leadership advice for trial court leaders.
Read the latest issue of the NAPCO quarterly newsletter, including the annual conference recap, a new purpose statement, and a message from the NAPCO Chair & Executive Director.
