Mark Martin was elected chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court in November 2014, three months after Gov. Pat McCrory appointed him to serve the remainder of retiring Chief Justice Sarah Parker’s term. Two years ago, Martin, who has served on the court since 1999, convened the North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice, a 65-member panel of attorneys, academics, and non-lawyers to address the state’s handling of civil justice, criminal investigations, legal professionalism, technology, and public trust in the courts.

Earlier this year, the commission delivered a report to the General Assembly urging, among other reforms, legislation raising the default age teenagers charged with nonviolent offenses would be tried in adult courts from 16 to 18 years old. At press time, legislation making that change had passed the House and a version of it was included in the budget passed by the Senate.

Martin spoke with CJ Associate Editor Kari Travis in early May at his office. This is the second part of that interview, covering the use of technology and improving public confidence in the judicial system. Read the first part here.

This interview was edited for clarity and space.

Q: How is transparency handled within the court system? What types of reforms are most pressing when it comes to access to court records, etc.?

A: We have taken some modest steps already. When I first became an appellate judge in 1994, we were just getting ready to launch first generation websites, so it’s really just come along light years since that time. Traditionally, virtually all court records were open to the public, but … there was a practical inaccessibility. So what we’ve tried to do is to bring in as many online resources as we can so citizens can conduct court business anytime, anywhere. Now, that said, we still have a long way to go.

Now, in our collective defense as a state, there are 100 counties, many of them are very rural. There are courthouses where we don’t even have the fiber-optic cable that comes all the way to the courthouse, so there are some infrastructure obstacles, and obviously some programming obstacles, as well. But I think it will be worth the effort in the sense that our citizens will have 24/7 access to all court resources.

I’m very excited about the project because, at the end of the day, I think we’ll have more openness, more transparency, for the people of North Carolina. We are already receiving about 42 percent of our payments for infractions online. Citizens have the convenience of paying anytime of the day or night, and not having to go to the courthouse and pay in person, where oftentimes it’s very cumbersome … .

I’m looking down the road at possibly a virtual court where you don’t have a confrontation [that] you would with a more serious offense, but maybe, say, simply a speeding offense. We could have a virtual district attorney, and a defense attorney, and a judge who [will resolve] this online. Obviously, you would have to use that in a situation where you don’t have a need for discovery, and a lot of complexity. But if you take a look at the numbers of the approximately 3 million cases we have in court each year, a great number of those are very minor infractions, and not serious offenses.

Q: In the report from the North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice, commissioners found that court bias, meaning preferential treatment based upon race, is of particular concern to citizens. The commission recommended a renewed systemwide attention to programs that seek to eliminate the possibility of bias and encourage procedural fairness in our courts. What types of efforts have been made to achieve this?

A: I know if you talk to judges, and district attorneys, and others that serve in the system, everyone takes very seriously their obligation to be very fair with each and every person regardless of race, socioeconomic status, or any other factor. I think a lot of the recent scholarship has wondered if there are times that people can fall prey to what is called implicit bias, where people are handled differently even when nobody really intended to do that.

I think [we can] best address that issue by having systemwide training where, if that’s an issue, people learn how to identify that issue and take affirmative steps to ensure that it doesn’t happen. So when I read the report of the Public Trust and Confidence Committee, as I understood it, they were recommending that system stakeholders take advantage of programs that are available to help people do better in that area. This is my 25th year on the bench in North Carolina, and as I move around the state, I see very many people that are committed to equal justice. I think we do a very good job, but it’s like anything else. If we can improve, and if we can do so in a way that makes sense, then let’s avail ourselves of that resource.

Q: The commission also was concerned with access to legal representation for low-income individuals. The report stated that the “legal needs of our citizens are increasingly going unmet.” What is the solution? Are you likely to expand access to pro bono services, or are you seeking funds to hire more public defenders?

A: I don’t think that spending more money is the solution. If we simply spend more money without careful evaluating its effectiveness, I rarely see that as the way to approach any issue. We’ve all seen procurement in government go awry sometimes — where a lot of money was brought to bear, but there was not a lot of prerequisite and strategic planning of what would be the best fit for that challenge. And all of a sudden, technical obsolescence overtakes us, and years later we’re looking at trying to spend the money again. So I don’t want to look to just resources without evaluating effectiveness.

We have an equal-access-to-justice commission whose principal goal is to encourage attorneys to volunteer more hours to help. And I don’t think it’s asking too much of attorneys that are given a license to practice law to help meet the need of representation of those of modest means. And I will keep on working hard to increase pro bono or voluntary representation of people of modest means.