“The most powerful leadership tool you have is your own personal example.” - John Wooden
Have you ever attended an overcrowded school? Shared a small cubicle at the office? Crowded space is a reality faced by many organizations, including courts. Judges and court managers responsible for controlling space occupancy and expenditures have a range of remedies at their disposal. For example, with advances in technology, courthouse space reduction has been accomplished by shrinking the size of libraries and file rooms. However, the largest quantity of space in many courthouses is associated with the judges — the courtrooms and chambers. Any effort to achieve courthouse space savings may need to address these judicial spaces as well during the courthouse planning process.
Our company recently encountered an innovative example of judicial chambers space reduction. An appellate court in a large metropolitan area faced a space crunch. Four judges were eligible to move into a semi-retirement (or “senior”) status around the same time, meaning these judges could maintain their chambers space with a reduced caseload, and would be replaced by four new, full-time judges who would each require new chambers space.
The appellate court’s headquarters location occupies the five uppermost floors of a high-rise building. The remainder of the building was fully occupied, meaning the court was essentially “landlocked” with no expansion space to construct chambers for the new judges. Several options were considered, ranging from leasing nearby space, to relocating the appellate court in its entirety to a prospective new courthouse. However, budget restrictions were imposed around the same time, rendering any space expansion untenable under the new budget rules. Faced with this dilemma, the court got creative.
According to the court executive responsible for space projects, “Knowing that we were still faced with a shortage of chambers, we had to plan for four new judges on our own.” The plans focused on chambers spaces allocated for “non-resident” judges, meaning those judges stationed in other cities outside the headquarters locale who must periodically travel to the headquarters to preside over appellate proceedings.
As such, each non-resident judge requires temporary chambers space at the headquarters for a few days to a week at a time. The space must accommodate not only the judge, but also the judge’s law clerks and administrative support staff. Traditionally, this appellate court and its counterparts with comparable jurisdiction provide a separate, dedicated space for each non-resident judge, containing the judge’s office, a reception area, and separate law clerks’ area.
Typical Judge's Chambers Layout
To resolve the chambers shortage, the court converted three existing chambers into non-resident chambers suites, each designed to house four non-resident judges and staff. The open office layout of the new non-resident suites represented a clear departure from traditional chambers space and left each judge with a considerably smaller personal office than he or she might otherwise occupy.
Shared Judges' Chambers Layout
Although shrinking offices and removing walls can create organizational resistance, the court executive noted that the judges were informed that the project would help the court avoid having to house some judges in leased space outside the main courthouse and that these new chambers would save millions of dollars. The project was unanimously approved by the judges. While the court previously used nine chambers to house non-resident judges, it now uses three chambers to house the same number of judges.
Several of the old non-resident chambers spaces were renovated to provide new resident chambers to house the court’s new judges. The two-phase project cost $1.5 million; the alternative outside the courthouse would have cost $6 million to acquire new space and construct the new chambers. Thus, the court’s creative solution saved about $4.5 million in construction costs, plus another $250,000 annually in foregone rent payments.
Certainly the space and cost savings were critical at a time of tight budgets. This project is one of several recent examples of courts using innovative approaches to circumvent space expansion and to maximize the use of existing facilities.
Perhaps equally important is the example the project sets from an organizational standpoint. One common objection to open office space transitions is that most staff undergo a radical change to their workspaces while leadership is seemingly less affected. The court executive reflected that the project was the first of its type among courts with comparable jurisdiction and that “…[it] was very high-profile since it involved judges and chambers staff sharing space.”
New Shared Chambers
Both the judges and their law clerks enjoy the modern space and find it efficient and conducive to collaboration. Perhaps the quality of the new space — and not just the quantity of space saved — will be the lasting contribution of this chambers project.