News & Updates

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.

As the legal world is focused on the newly implemented amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which went into effect December 1st, there is one group that is already thinking “what next?”—the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. At the…

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.

A wave of new amendments to the federal rules of civil procedure will take effect Tuesday, Dec. 1, sparking cultural and operational changes to the nation’s legal system. Approved last April by the U.S. Supreme Court, the amendments are intended to refocus the legal community on providing a just, speedy, and less expensive resolution in litigation for every case.

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.

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.

We are excited to open registration for IAALS’ Fourth Civil Justice Reform Summit, which will be held in Denver, February 25-26, 2016. The Summit will feature nationally renowned faculty discussing the challenges of implementing change and engaging in a dialogue with participants regarding the necessary next steps for creating the just, speedy, and inexpensive courts of tomorrow.

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.

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.

Nearly 110 years ago, Roscoe Pound proclaimed: “Dissatisfaction with the administration of justice is as old as the law itself.” In 2015, that sentiment endures and is echoed in the mounting call for real, meaningful change in our civil justice…

The California State Bar recently issued a final opinion weighing in on the question of an attorney’s ethical duties in handling the discovery of electronically stored information. In its Formal Opinion No. 2015-193, the State Bar of California…

The concept of procedural justice has been around for almost half a century and promotes a different style of courtroom interaction. At its core, procedural justice emphasizes that judges be listeners and creative problem solvers. When judges take the time to ensure they explain and are understood, those in their courtroom have a greater likelihood of feeling respected and heard, and the outcomes viewed more positively.

As of July 1, 2015, Colorado has adopted new amendments to its rules of civil procedure with the goal of achieving a more accessible and efficient road to justice. The amended rules seek to increase the involvement of judges in pretrial activity, limit discovery to what is needed to prove a case, and increase a judge’s ability to award sanctions for noncompliance with the rules.

The Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies has issued a call for public comment on its Guidelines and Suggested Practices for Implementing the 2015 Discovery Amendments to Achieve Proportionality. The Guidelines have their genesis in the Duke Law…

In a recent NCSC article, Innovative Courts Encourage Dissent, Judge Kevin Burke of Hennepin County, Minnesota, discussed the benefits of fostering the right forms of dissent in the courthouse. Judge Burke, a member of the IAALS Board of Advisors, acknowledged that "embracing dissent in a courthouse is not easy."

Retired Magistrate Judge John Facciola was recently featured in an interview on Legal Talk Network’s Digital Detectives. He has been referred to as one of the “rock star judges of e-discovery,” having authored over 700 opinions, many of them on e…

The National Center for State Courts has released its final evaluation of Utah’s significant statewide changes to the rules governing disclosures and discovery, implemented in November 2011. The rule changes incorporate proportionality as a key principle governing the scope of discovery.

Early results from Minnesota’s Expedited Litigation Track (ELT) pilot program suggest a reduction in the delays generally caused by either the discovery process or the filing of continuances. The ELT provides a more expedited process for select civil cases (such as personal injury and consumer credit) in two counties in Minnesota, with the goals of a corresponding reduction in the cost of litigation and increased access to the courts.