prisoner transportation, and mail delivery could be affected by quarantines or sickness. In such a case, only certain parts of a COOP might be activated, such as telework capabilities.

A solid COOP coordinates with representatives from other justice-system sectors such as the district attorney and public defender offices, bar associations, probation, and corrections. It addresses areas in which these agencies intersect with the court. Additionally, the planning process involves agents of law enforcement, emergency agencies, and other government agencies (e.g., public health) involved in coordinating community emergency preparedness.

Influential court leaders are crucial in setting the tone for effective emergency management. For local courts, that means the presiding or chief judge should emphasize the importance of emergency planning. The chief judge should spearhead the participation of other judges and court personnel by designating staff and other resources to the planning process. In the post-9/11 period, for instance, New York’s Court of Appeals’ Chief Judge Judith Kaye and Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman’s inspirational court leadership united representatives from all of the court community to work together to reopen the courts.[5] Similarly, at the request of Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that court held an emergency-planning workshop to better prepare for the safety of those working and visiting the building.[6] Of course court managers, clerks, and staff, also play important influential roles. They are the most versed in the details of operations and logistics, so effective execution of the plan depends on their continuous cooperation and directorship.

Cultivating leadership for when a disaster is actually in the process of unfolding is also essential. A COOP  pre-designates a line of successors and specifies the scope of their authority so that leadership continues when key decision-makers are unable to lead.

Communication is also key when a disaster hits. There are three basic elements to communications planning: technology, procedures, and security. First, it is imperative to provide essential personnel with backup communications appliances, such as cellular phones and handheld radios. Second, the plan needs to set forth procedures for which information will be communicated, to whom, and by what method. For example, who is responsible for notifying both internally and externally the public about court closings and openings, telework protocols, alternative work sites, and the like. After being notified by the courts, attorneys can notify litigants of schedule and location changes in their cases. Jurors and potential jurors should be notified whether their service will be required, and when and where they should go. Similarly, witnesses should be updated on the status of the courts.

Finally, routine systems of data backup are necessary. This includes backing up computer systems to off-site locations in the event that computers at the primary work site are damaged or inaccessible. The plan should also devise redundant systems of evidence documentation and storage. After Katrina, many cases were delayed or had to be dismissed because of the absence of witnesses or evidence lost in the chaos. Evidence in as many as 3,000 criminal cases pending before the court system was lost, and many witnesses and victims left the city and did not return.[7]

In the same way that pre-disaster planning examines priorities, post-disaster response activities should concentrate on urgent matters—such as life safety, fair treatment of prisoners and detainees, and communication with the court’s constituency—before addressing important matters. It is up to each court to identify and relate these urgent priorities before a disaster strikes. Moreover, a court should prioritize its essential functions. Priority is based on a combination of any statutory time requirements, importance to the court’s mission during a disaster, and the period of time the court could operate without performing that function. Prioritization of the essential functions should be based on the staff essential to performing them, needs, and available resources.

To reduce post-disaster backlogs and, more importantly, to preserve fundamental human rights, it is crucial to triage cases, and to handle postponements on a case-by-case basis. Plans, policies and protocols should be put in place for relocating prisoners and releasing suspects. During Katrina, for example, insufficient planning resulted in many suspects being released because they had been held for too long without charges filed against them.

An alternative site should take into consideration not only spaces for chambers and hearings, but also work space for displaced lawyers and other court related staff, who will need access to computers, phones, and meeting rooms. Some incidents, such as natural disasters, may cover a vast area. It is advised, therefore, to designate alternate worksites at a lengthy distance from the regular work sites to assure the court continues functioning. Additionally, the alternative site can function as a central hub to reunify dislocated members of the bar and their families, restore files and records, and reconnect clients with counsel.

As noted by the National Center for State Courts, “The ability of courts to perform their statutory mandates and ensure access to justice and the protection of liberties is particularly crucial when society’s traditional standards of operation are in disarray.”[8] Worldwide, courts in disaster areas face extensive challenges. Disasters like 9/11 and the Chi Chi earthquake remind us that catastrophic disasters, which are disasters that seriously overburden a community’s resources to recover, can disrupt the courts for several days or even months. Planning for disasters of such magnitude is a form of mitigation, and can greatly decrease the disruption. In the United States, judges are becoming increasingly more engaged with matters concerning the court’s security, emergency preparedness, and continuity planning. This trend should be mirrored worldwide.

It is said in the emergency management community that the best time to implement mitigation plans is post disaster, when communities are forced to engage because of the disaster’s impact and because of fear. Do not to wait for that day. Take a leadership position in your court. Review and revise your court’s current plan if there is one, or create a plan and practice it. Make your court more resilient and better prepared to uphold justice throughout any crisis.