This post-conference report discusses the various approaches currently in place for evaluating appellate judges and justices, and identifies themes, recommendations, and areas for future work in appellate judicial performance evaluation.

Twenty-two jurisdictions already use judicial screening committees. This report describes the committees in place and their significant variations in membership, appointment process, and, to the degree possible, operations. It also suggests why senators and their staffs might consider using a committee, outlines decisions they might face in structuring and appointing a committee, and identifies issues they and committee members might encounter in operating a committee.

This post-conference overview reviews the national conference on appellate judicial performance evaluation (JPE) hosted by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) at the University of Denver on August 11-12, 2011.

Colorado’s enactment of Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16.1 (“Rule 16.1”) more closely resembles the comprehensive theory model of reform than have many other efforts to amend rules, both state and federal.

Synthesizes the results of four recent studies exploring how attorneys and trial judges across the nation view the civil justice system. Survey respondents overwhelmingly agreed that cost is a concern; delay increases cost; and discovery is responsible for unnecessary cost and delay. Respondents also embraced the need for creative solutions and experimentation.

There has been a convergence of various forces resulting in a willingness of decision-makers to consider change.

A broad national sample of state and federal judges to gauge their support for civil justice reforms advanced by IAALS and the ACTL Task Force.

Colorado’s voluntary simplified pretrial procedure for actions seeking $100,000 or less from any one party was set up to reduce the time to disposition and reduce costs for litigants. But our survey shows use of the rules is relatively infrequent and not widely promoted by responding attorneys and judges.

Final installment of a three-part series that gives courts willing to try pilot projects a means for empirical evaluation of civil rules reforms and how they should be measured.

To preserve and restore the civil jury trial, we must make the pretrial process faster, cheaper and more user-friendly. The focus of this article is to highlight a pilot project proposal under development in Colorado to do just that.