LA Courts mull court closures to serve public with kiosks, storefronts

The Los Angeles Superior Courts' first county-wide survey, released Thursday, shows support for a plan to close some of its 36 courthouses in favor of digital kiosks, mobile units and storefronts, some manned by judges, to provide services more easily and at less cost.

A new website, informational videos and allowing the public to conduct more business online are among the plans.

While the survey showed majorities approve of the courts' work overall, responses have inspired the leadership's determination to provide more service options and information, for example, explaining to the public why details about judicial deliberations are limited.

The survey reviewed areas of improvement that the court can take to elevate its perception among Los Angeles County residents, including views on fairness, efficiency and transparency.

"It's important to highlight the fact that 64% of respondents view the court in a very positive light, more than any other government entity locally and even statewide," Presiding Judge Sergio C. Tapia II said in an interview. "We do see some mixed signals where the confidence isn't high" in responses from different age, race and economic status groups, he said. "But that is a trend we see nationwide."

"We didn't do this just to pat ourselves on the back," said Executive Officer/Clerk of Court David W. Slayton in the joint interview with Tapia. He said the survey results show "how can we improve our focus on communities that might have less trust in the court."

Source: Los Angeles County Superior Court/GBAO Strategies

The survey highlights areas where some county residents see the court as less responsive and where innovations could make customer service better, he said.

The survey showed 61% of residents "support the concept of permanently closing many existing courthouses and bringing court personnel and services into local communities. ... Support is unusually consistent across traditional demographic and ideological lines."

Noting that most of the county's courthouses are more than 50 years old, the court's leaders "are considering a new approach to save money and provide better services by meeting people where they live," stated the survey question.

There is no number yet for how many courthouses would close, when or where. But Tapia is on the Judicial Council's Court Facilities Advisory Committee and said he's received support for exploring these actions.

"The reaction has been positive when you have the largest trial court in the U.S. willing to look at a new model of service to save money," he said.

"What we've been looking at and talking about for the last couple of years is facilities in disrepair, many seismically at risk," Slayton said. "Part of the challenge is the way funds are allocated. Three courthouses per year are funded for repairs. If we continue on that path, it would take 160 years to repair all of them." He said 19 courthouses are already past the 50-year usefulness limit.

The survey showed that 43% of residents say it makes no difference to them if courthouses were designed by a prominent architect or had other significant historical value. Some 33% said historic value makes them hesitant to support shutting down courthouses, while 16% said that would make them more likely to support it.

"We're looking at where we can best invest our resources," Tapia said, "how we can best meet the needs for access to justice in an age where" people seek services remotely. So, the goal is "fewer courthouses but expanding services into community justice centers. ... We want to be accountable to the public. These are public resources, and we are ensuring we do our level best to use them in a responsible way."

While the survey showed the majority of respondents who have had first-hand experience with the court were satisfied with the court's processes, only 40% rated it as "transparent and accountable to the public" and believed it provides "equal justice to all."

"There is confusion about what we can and cannot be transparent about," Tapia said. "The deliberative process, making decisions on specific cases, that's always sacrosanct to being a judge. ... On how we spend our dollars, how we are allocating our resources, we can always do a better job of being more transparent."

Slayton said, "A real intentional effort of the court over the last couple of years is to increase transparency."

One example is the Pre-Arraignment Release Protocol, where any member of the public can go online day by day to see data on the program that allows people accused of certain designated non-violent crimes to be freed without paying bail. Information on who is released and why is not available.

"Judges don't issue orders stating the reasons why, but the public can look, on a more global level, at what type of cases are being released and the risk level," Slayton said.

More data is also being added to the eviction diversion dashboard. The survey said a majority of respondents favor this program and the no-cash bail policy.

The survey showing that a majority of respondents have doubts about fairness is part of national and historical trends, Tapia said, "when you look at the data, the division and differences of race, socio-economic status and even age.

"With older populations the trust is much higher. This is nothing new," he continued. "I do believe the message we are getting from this is we need to do better, we need to be more accountable." These responses are going to cause him and his colleagues to reflect on how they conduct their courtrooms and "render their decisions with this in mind, use this to improve perceptions. ... If we want to remain relevant as the third branch of government to safeguard democracy, we [need to] always do better."

The report said, "The polling results encompass feedback of 1,000 Los Angeles County residents taken from Feb. 13 to Feb. 24, 2025, via landline telephone, cell phone and text-to-web with a margin of eror of +/- 3.1%."