Assembly gives approval to new probate plan

A redistricting plan for the state’s probate court system was approved by the General Assembly Sept. 24. Both the House and Senate voted in favor by wide margins.

The proposal, as presented by a legislative committee, calls for the existing 117 courts (some are already consolidations of numerous towns) to be condensed into 54.

It will take effect Jan. 5, 2011, when judges elected in the November 2010 election will take office.

The sweeping changes were deemed necessary to steer the court system off the course of potential bankruptcy. They include a dramatic financial restructuring, with less autonomy. Courts are currently set up to be self sustaining; they use the fees they collect to pay their bills and, it is hoped, generate a surplus to feed into a state pool that pays for administration and benefits.

But because so many courts are doing pro bono work, much of it involving family court, the fees have proven to be inadequate to support the system.

In June, the legislature approved $16.25 million over the next two years to bail out the system.

Although the Northwest Corner Probate District has been ahead of the consolidation curve, growing to six area towns in recent years, it will double in size.

It will be seated in Litchfield, but it appears the court currently in the North Canaan Town Hall will remain as a satellite court.

Now that the more pressing subject of redistricting is finalized, a looming issue is the requirement under the approved plan requiring that each judge be an attorney and member of the Connecticut Bar Association.

It is likely to have a wide-reaching effect on seated judges, many of whom are not attorneys, and who often rely on business and other expertise as a basis for focused training on the legal aspects of probate. None will be able to run for re-election in 2010.

Not everyone in the legislature is completely happy with the plan, and more debate may come after changes are underway and the impacts measured.

State Sen. Andrew Roraback (R-30) is among those dissatisfied, with both the attorney requirement and the redistricting.

He proposed creating an additional district of Torrington and Goshen as an amendment to the committee proposal. That would have retained local courts in Torrington and Winsted. The plan was rejected.