Expert Opinions

In a recent blog post, Lance Soskin argued that "litigation is a multi-billion dollar industry that favors the wealthy," leaves everyone else significantly disadvantaged, and that the answer lies in the better use of alternative dispute resolution. I take a different approach. While mediation and arbitration certainly have their place, we cannot and should not abandon the system itself. What we need is a justice system that is more accessible, efficient, and accountable.

The oldest advice in the world is that the trick is not in knowing the answers—rather it is in knowing the right questions to ask. Such advice has broad application, and in the current debate about legal education, it is quite possible that the wrong questions are currently on the table. The question should not simply be: why does legal education cost so much? Rather, the question should focus on reassessing and re-measuring the value of legal education.

The National Center for State Courts has developed a new model for estimating civil litigation costs, known as the Civil Litigation Cost Model. The model is based on the amount of time lawyers expend on various litigation tasks and their billing rates, which together provide a snapshot of “typical” costs, by task, for a number of case categories. By reflecting how costs are incurred throughout the litigation process, and the variability of costs from case to case, the model provides insight into the effect of such costs on a litigant’s access to the civil justice system.

The American Bar Association's Task Force on the Future of Legal Education has been collecting comments from individuals and organizations since late last year. Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers submitted a comment focused on aligning legal education with the needs of an evolving profession, and made six recommendations.

Once again, law schools have found themselves the subject of a New York Times front-page article about the sharp decline in law school applications. According to the article, law schools are responding by cutting faculty, taking a closer look at affordability, and adding clinics and in-the-field training. But perhaps more interesting is the story the article doesn’t tell—the story of law schools across the country that are already in front of this wave by offering students a better education.

In mid-November, President Obama nominated Raymond P. Moore, a federal public defender, for a vacancy on the United States District Court of Colorado, which will open with the new year. Despite the fact that the process by which Moore was nominated mirrors versions used by twenty-one other states, there is concern that he may face a lengthy confirmation period, which has become a trend during Obama’s presidency.

Meaningful access to justice is the most important issue confronting state courts across this country. There can be little doubt that we now have a state justice system in America that is slowly eroding while at the same time becoming increasingly too expensive for the vast majority of our fellow citizens. These developments, left unchecked, will have real consequences that will go to the very core of the American promise. They should concern us all.

In the final days of North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue's term, she will be filling the supreme court vacancy created by the unanticipated retirement of Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson. Given the short time frame in which the appointment must be made, the governor has decided to forego use of the judicial nominating commission and make a direct appointment. As a necessary step, she entered Executive Order 137, “temporarily modifying” the selection process for all vacancies that may arise before she leaves office. We understand the time constraints but lament her decision.

IAALS has just released a Rule One Initiative research report entitled Measuring Rule 16.1: Colorado’s Simplified Procedure Experiment. In 2004, the Colorado Supreme Court put in place Rule 16.1, a voluntary pretrial process for smaller dollar-volume civil cases, with the hope of providing a more efficient path to resolution. This new reports sets forth the results of an empirical study of Rule 16.1, including its role and impact.

Divorce and resolution of child custody issues take a toll. They take a toll on families, they take a toll on the courts and they take a toll on a variety of other impacted communities, and it's not clear that the current system is working. Which is why we’re formally launching our Honoring Families Initiative. Aligned with the greater mission of IAALS, Honoring Families is dedicated to advancing empirically informed models to ensure greater accessibility, efficiency, and fairness in divorce and child custody matters.

Last month's ETL conference, entitled “The Development of Professional Identity in Legal Education,” brought together teams from its consortium schools, its ETL fellows, and many other legal education reform advocates. Some day in the not-too-distant future, prospective law students will seek out law schools and individual professors who have led, and will continue to lead, these important reform efforts – like those affiliated with ETL. We must facilitate the path to that day.

Recognizing that there is widespread concern that the civil justice system is too complex, costs too much, and takes too long, a new report provides recommendations for designing short, summary, and expedited (“SSE”) programs and calls for implementation of such programs on a national scale. The report, A Return to Trials: Implementing Effective Short, Summary, and Expedited Civil Action Programs, is co-authored by IAALS, ABOTA, and the NCSC.