By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

Sooner or later, they say, just about everything ends up in court.

Well, that may not be precisely true. But it does seem that a huge number of public issues, from political to social, do end up before a judge at one point or another.

It may be a reflection of our inability to settle things without a third-party overseer. Or it may be that consciously or unconsciously, we have concluded the only place where fairness rules is in the courtroom.

Whatever the explanation, the dockets of Hawai'i's courts continue to expand, with cases ranging from high-profile criminal matters to mundane disputes between neighbors.

And while the judiciary might enjoy feeling wanted, it also worries that it is less than perfectly understood. Too many people still look at the justice system as one controlled by a mysterious, secretive group of lawyers who speak their own language, play by their own rules and report pretty much only to themselves.

It is this perception that worries some in the judiciary. If the public does not understand and appreciate the system, it begins to lose respect for it. And with that, effectiveness is lost.

"The system works if people trust it," Chief Justice Ronald Moon said last week at an unusual conference that brought together judges, lawyers, interested lay people and the media.

The meeting, "Openness in the Courts — a Conference on Transparency in the Judicial System," essentially searched for ways to make the process more accessible to the layman.

Clearly, there are barriers to break down. Judges suggested that the public (including the news media) often do not understand the complexities of the law. That leads to sensationalism, distortion and — in effect — a loss of confidence in the courts.

Others, including but not limited to the media, suggested the judiciary might be at least partially responsible for its own problems by promoting an image of aloofness and unwillingness to explain itself.

Part of that, of course, is guided by judicial canons (written, it must be said, by lawyers and judges) that limit what can be said in the interests of fairness and impartiality. But those canons do not, nor should not, amount to a gag order.

One speaker, Washington state Superior Court Judge Robert H. Alsdorf, made the distinction clear when he said there is a difference between judges justifying their actions or speaking to the substance of a particular case, and explaining the basis for a decision and the legal process behind it. His message: Justify, no, explain, yes.

That worked for Alsdorf when he found himself the target of public outcry after he found a proposed tax-limitation law unconstitutional. But when he took the time to explain publicly the legal basis for his decision, public sentiment shifted from being strongly opposed to relatively supportive.

That appears to be a sound approach. After all, judges and the courts they run are not a tribe apart. They are part of the community and the larger social context in which we all live.