Expert Opinions

An important takeaway from the May 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation held at Duke University Law School, sponsored by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, was that the disposition of civil actions in our federal courts could be improved by advancing early judicial case management. As a result, the package of amendments that grew out of the Duke Conference, and that went into effect on December 1 of this year, seek to promote sustained, active, hands-on judicial case management.

On December 1, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended to recognize that the rules should be construed, administered, “and employed by the court and the parties” to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination in every case. This change is part of the long awaited amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this blog is one in a series this month on the significant changes.

Just a week ago, the long awaited amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. Of the amendments, the most significant—and controversial—changes are to Rule 26, which specifically incorporates proportionality into the scope of discovery.

Today, December 1, the long awaited amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure go into effect. The “package” of amendments include rule changes across a number of rules (specifically Rules 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, and 34) and focus on increasing cooperation, achieving proportionality in discovery, and encouraging early case management by judges.

Our collective view of litigation is a bit like the old New Yorker map, which shows New York City magnified, and then skips most of the rest of the country, landing on the west coast. Thomas Clarke, Vice President of Research & Technology for the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), recently made that comparison, and he is right.

November 2015 is the 75th anniversary of the Missouri Plan, an innovative approach to selecting state judges intended to preserve their impartiality while holding them publicly accountable for their performance on the bench. First adopted by Missouri voters in 1940, this process is now used to select at least some judges in two-thirds of the states.

Lawyers, judges, and litigants alike have all come to the conclusion that the system is too expensive, complex, and time-consuming. If we are serious about having civil justice that is indeed just, speedy, and cost-effective, we have to make changes. Big changes.

The New York Times is running a series of articles on consumer-business arbitration. The writers observe that arbitration takes away transparency, due process, the right of appeal, and assurance of an impartial decision maker—all of the attributes of a court system. In exchange, it offers a speedier, cheaper process.

In response to record-breaking judicial election spending, and an unprecedented series of scandals involving supreme court justices, reform-minded folks in Pennsylvania are making historic strides toward change.

For the last ten years, IAALS—the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System—has worked to rebuild the civil justice system. After much work, and through collaboration with some of the very best minds in the country, we are finally reaching a critical goalpost in that mission.

Judges are the linchpin of the court system—the piece that that holds the wheels on. When a judge is engaged, attentive, and dedicated to assuring that each litigant gets the best the system can offer, then the process moves smoothly. When a judge is overworked, out of touch, or unprepared, then the wheels fall off.

It is no surprise that there is much confusion around how judges get to be judges in the United States. No two states use the same method to select and retain their judges, and even in individual states, the method may vary by the level of court and even location.