Meet Chief Strategy Officer Jeff Rinard

I have introduced you to each of the Senior Executive Team members of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (LASC) in these pages over the past two years. I have referred to them as the most important people at the LASC you have never heard of because (1) their work is essential to the operation of our enormous justice enterprise, and (2) few outside the esoteric world of court operations know they exist. Their resumes and work experiences are stellar; they are state-wide and national leaders of their crafts. Each reports directly to the LASC's Court Executive Officer, David Slayton, many supervising dozens to hundreds of employees and administering seven- and eight-figure annual budgets. These are serious people with serious jobs. Because you care about the well-being of the LASC, you should know who they are.

Today, I introduce you to the newest member of this extraordinary team: Jeff Rinard, chief strategy officer. Joining the Court in 2024, Jeff now directs the Office of Court Strategy and Innovation. Within that office, he established and now directs the Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO), Strategy and Innovation Support, our Management Research Unit, and has designed and is building out the court's Enterprise Risk Management Office. We will find out what all that means in a moment.

Before meeting Jeff, think about the past five years, starting from a month before COVID hit. Anything new and different in your work world since then? If your answer is, "well, not really," then I worry for your business because you have likely been left in dust. Hybrid workforces; expanded remote access and virtual court appearances; e-filing; document automation and e-discovery; criminal sentencing reform; bail reform; the rise of alternative legal service providers; invigorated restorative justice and mental health diversion programs; eviction diversion programs; unbundling of legal work; value-based billing and the death of the billable hour; data privacy and cybersecurity regulation; the rise of environmental, social, governance (ESG) concerns driven by investor and regulatory mandates; increasingly sophisticated cyber security attacks.  

Oh, did I mention the rise of generative AI and the revolution that is upon us?

Our reality is one of change exploding around us at a dizzying speed. Change means unprecedented and exhilarating opportunities and unprecedented and terrifying risks. We are all struggling to keep up with this new world. Change and risk are not matters to be conquered -- but they can be managed. Given the size and scope of activities of the LASC, our court leaders came to realize that such management had to be professionalized, bringing state-of-the-art technologies and techniques to bear. What worked for the Court in 2010 or even 2016 does not meet the current and likely future challenge. We needed to up our game. Enter Jeff Rinard.

Q: Jeff, don't take this personally but almost nobody in LA knows who you are. Who are you?

A: (Laughs). Well, I look forward to knowing everyone in LA soon enough. But since I got here almost a year ago, I've been pretty busy here at the court. Who am I? Big picture, I am a guy who is good at getting things done in large, diverse public sector organizations. Of course, it's not really me getting things done; I manage a team of professionals, and together, we are good at getting things done.

Q: A skeptic might ask whether we really need a dedicated executive unit to deal with innovation and strategy. I mean, the court did just fine for many years without an Office of Court Strategy and Innovation. Why all this and why now?

A: We all are aware of the magnitude of our court and the familiar statistics: largest consolidated trial court in the U.S.; 500+ judicial officers; 4,500+ employees; 36 courthouses; more than one million new filings per year; an annual budget in excess of one billion dollars. Without a doubt the LASC did well in the past without an office dedicated to innovation and strategy. Among the reasons I am here is because of the excellence of the court's past work, its court leadership, its judges, its senior executive team, its administrative work force and its outstanding reputation.

But I think experience has shown, in today's court and corporate worlds, among NGOs and among public institutions, an enterprise of this scope really needs a centralized approach to innovation, project management and risk management. And a centralized approach to execution and collaboration with our court team. 

Q: Can you make it a little less abstract?

A: Sure. The way to see it is to look across all the domains both within and external to the court that need to be heard at the front end of any proposed beneficial innovation -- those that will be involved in the development itself, and those that will receive the innovation and who will, we hope, incorporate it into their work lives. The big questions are: What is the innovation we are thinking about? Who will have a role in its creation, process improvement, development and implementation, and what will that role be? What is the order of progression -- what do we need to do first, then second, then third, etc.? And what is the timing, for each step and overall? Think about building a modern courthouse. Of course, the concrete for the foundation will be poured before the windows are installed. But someone, in a project management office, has to develop a comprehensive project plan and collaborate with experts for the thousand things that need to happen in the right order, and then make it happen.

We know a beneficial innovation on our court in this age will involve technology -- procurement of off-the-shelf items, obtaining consultant deliverables, or our Computer Technology Services embarking on a DIY in-house programming development. How long is that going to take and who is going to do it? If we've learned anything about the courts in the last 80 years, we have learned of the paramount importance of excellent communication to and buy-in from the court, judicial officers and court users, whether internal or external to the court. We have a top-notch communications office to assist in getting the message out. When does that group get engaged and what is the ask of it? Usually, communication, collaboration and training related to the innovation must be developed and effectively delivered. We often turn to our  colleagues in judicial education and staff learning and development for this work. But again, when should they be brought in? How long will it take to develop the teaching materials? To train the trainers? To establish and complete a training across our court? And there may be HR matters to work through -- is the innovation consistent with our memoranda of understanding with our eleven labor union partners? Last for now, the innovation and its rollout must comply with the general rules and policies of the court.

Q: How many projects is your office now managing?

A: Right now, our judges and court leaders have identified 92 projects, big and small but all important, that are in various stages of development and implementation and for which my office has responsibility for managing and tracking. Every one of them will further the mission of our court and align with our strategic plan. I don't think the LASC has ever had such a large number of projects going all at once. To your earlier question about whether we really need all this, my answer is: absent a centralized project management office, with professionals trained in that particular area of management, organization, and process development flow, how would we know where to begin? More to the point, how would we know how to proceed?

Q: Tell me about a few that you like talking about.

A: I like talking about all of them, to be honest. But OK. I'll start with among our most ambitious projects, the court's new strategic plan. The California Rules of Court require the Presiding Judge to create and implement a strategic plan for the court. The process was driven by a 21-judicial officer work group with support from the Senior Executive Team. Each member of the work group spent 30 to 40 hours discussing and debating the court's mission, and the major strategies and tactics available to fulfill that vision. The entire bench has had an opportunity to review and comment. The final deliverable is something we can all be proud of because I think it does capture what we are and aspire to be, and will focus on access to justice, public trust and confidence in the court, efficiency and effectiveness in case flow and operations, modernizing our workforce, and being innovative and forward thinking.

Another project on the list is a collaboration with Stanford Law School to determine how the court may enhance access to justice in unlawful detainer litigation where the vast majority of landlords are represented by counsel and the vast majority of tenants are not. Staying within our lane of neutrality, we are looking at means and methods of enhancing the pre-existing notice to tenants to underscore the importance of responding to the complaint and where useful information may be acquired.

Another exciting LASC project is our mobile civic engagement initiative. We talk a lot about meeting our court users "where they are" and normally, we are speaking figuratively. But not on this initiative -- we mean it literally. The court will, by year's end, have a mobile unit that can go out into the community and will offer a variety of court services and information such as assistance with traffic tickets, jury service, information about family law matters and the like. This is designed to serve populations who may not have access to technology and for whom transportation to courthouses is a challenge.

Q: Tell me more about the Enterprise Risk Management Office

A: This new team is in development with the goal of our ERM office being able to apply a structured, organization-wide approach to identifying, assessing, and managing the full spectrum of risks that could impact our court staff and judicial officers' ability to deliver fair, timely and accessible justice. Our team collaborates with court risk owners to address and mitigate the risks court-wide.

Q: Such as?

A: I'm so glad you asked. This is also the answer to the "what keeps you up at night" question. (Laughs.) What I am about to tell you generally applies to all courts. Some are greater or lesser risks on our court, but I'll include them for completeness.

First, there are operational risks such as backlog and delays; technology failures (e.g., e-filing, remote hearings, case management systems); and workforce shortages, recruitment and training gaps.

Second, there are strategic risks such as failure to adapt to legislative or policy changes (e.g., bail reform, sentencing reforms); inability to meet public expectations for transparency and access, and misalignment between resources and growing caseloads.

Third, there are reputational and public trust risks such as perceived bias or lack of fairness; ethical breaches by judges or staff, and data breaches exposing sensitive case information.

Fourth, there are compliance and legal risks such as violations of constitutional guarantees (speedy trial, due process); noncompliance with federal/state mandates (ADA accessibility, open records laws); and cybersecurity/privacy laws (especially with electronic records).

Fifth, there are financial and resource risks such as insufficient funding or overreliance on fines/fees; budget shortfalls from state legislatures; rising costs for courthouse security, digital modernization or emergency preparedness.

Sixth, and last for now, there are safety and security risks such as physical security of courthouses; threats to judges, staff, and litigants; and emergency preparedness for natural disasters, pandemics or active threats.

Q: And what can be done about all these risks?

A: So much of ERM is a matter of making risk identification, ranking and mitigation part of the daily conversation. We all face all kinds of risks in our own lives, and we proactively engage. Maybe we're getting a little older, so we move to a single-story home. We decide to get that vaccination. We make sure we have the right kinds and amounts of insurance in place. What we don't do, or at least shouldn't do, is to not think about the risks because they are frightening and unpleasant. So too, the ERM office will be working across the court to identify and rank risks. And to continuously mitigate those risks in thoughtful and strategic ways. This might include cybersecurity upgrades, succession planning, disaster recovery plans and judicial training. My goal is to make the risk conversation not about compliance checklists and semi-annual PowerPoint presentations but instead about how our risk mitigation is an ongoing conversation which makes us more effective.

The bottom line on all of ERM is to protect judicial independence while ensuring accountability, increase our resilience against crises, and to improve the public's trust and confidence in our court.

Q: Tell us about your background. What were you doing before you came to the LASC?

A: For the immediately-preceding 11 years, I was the director of Enterprise Planning and Regulatory Services for the Texas Office of Court Administration (OCA). The OCA supports the Judicial Branch of Texas statewide. That job very much involved project management for the court, overseeing judicial professional licensing, and a statewide compliance program. Before that, from 1999 to 2013, I was the Enforcement Investigations manager for the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. A big and fascinating job. I managed 42 enforcement investigators overseeing the statewide regulatory compliance for 27 licensing programs and over 6,000 consumer and departmental complaints per year. And before that, from 1988 to 1999, I worked as a Security Forces Investigator for the United States Air Force.

Q: You have had a life of public service and obtained increasingly more challenging jobs with greater responsibilities. What advice do you have for someone coming into public service who tells you someday she would like your job here at the court.

A: I would be flattered that she asked. I would say, this is a great place to work, we have a fantastic group of employees and judicial officers here at the Court. To be successful, show up to work and care about your job. Ask questions and be curious about what you don't know. Stay focused on service to others. And above all -- don't forget why courts exist, to serve people with fairness and empathy. I would also say: What we do matters. We are protecting the vulnerable and promoting fairness for everyone. And transformation is possible, even in institutions as complex as the courts, if you are willing to do the work. So, do the work, make change and make us better!