Publications

This white paper is a primer on the general purposes and history of judicial performance evaluation (JPE); the various evaluation criteria, tools, and procedures used in JPE programs; the varying perspectives on JPE; and issues in the realm of JPE warranting focused consideration going forward.

Pleadings are the gateway to the American civil justice system. Parties must be able to afford to stay in the system long enough to narrow their disputed issues and collect relevant evidence for presentation to a judge or jury.

This article summarizes our results of a survey of Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers. The survey collected the opinions of nearly 1500 experienced litigators, representing both plaintiffs and defendants, on a wide range of issues concerning the civil justice system and the pretrial process.

In this essay, we describe how Judicial Performance Evaluation programs work, consider what lessons those programs offer for judicial screening and judicial selection in New York, and explain how both the citizens and judges of New York would benefit from an official, comprehensive JPE program.

Two new studies may help federal judges better achieve the objectives of Rule 1 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure—a “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of civil cases.

This article begins with a discussion of the purpose and design of JPE programs, gleaned from more than thirty years of experience at the state level. It explores the sporadic history of federal JPE, proposes a series of pilot studies to test different methods of implementing JPE programs, and discusses some of the more challenging issues presented by the establishment of a federal JPE program.

In order to explore concerns about the impact of cost and delay on the legal system with specificity, in June 2007 IAALS and the ACTL Task Force on Discovery jointly began work to examine perceived problems associated with pretrial practice—primarily discovery—in civil cases.

Judicial Performance Evaluation has the potential to help dissipate attacks on judicial impartiality and independence by focusing the public on process-oriented judicial skills and away from specific case outcomes.

This article proposes a two-pronged, comprehensive approach to providing proper, relevant information to voters on candidates in contested judicial elections.

This article summarizes the results of a recent comprehensive study of an existing but underutilized approach to process-oriented judicial accountability: judicial performance evaluation.