Judges and attorneys from across the country point to dispositive motions as a critical area for reform. When used appropriately, these motions can make civil litigation more efficient; but when they are filed reflexively, and are not thoughtfully managed or timely ruled upon by the court, they inject additional cost and delay into court systems across the country. This report calls for a new paradigm for motion practice in the United States.
This report provides a path forward to help courts use existing technologies to improve the user experience, particularly for those people who choose to represent themselves.
A first of its kind study, this report brings together national data from family cases that confirms what we have long known at IAALS: family courts must do more to focus on problem solving rather than rely on the traditional structure framed around an adversarial approach.
This report provides a summary of the recommendations and solutions coming out of the IAALS/ABA Better Access through Unbundling conference, which are designed to add to the strengthening foundation for widespread implementation of unbundled legal services.
In this report, we make recommendations for judicial discipline systems that are designed to achieve a balance between transparency and accountability, confidentiality and trustworthiness—all with the goal of enhancing public trust and confidence in the judges of this nation.
IAALS has focused on understanding the current motions landscape and issuing recommendations for improvement. This report is intended to spark a national conversation about the current challenges of summary judgment, a process by which the court can rule on a portion or all of the issues in a case without proceeding to trial.
This report to the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) describes a large but relatively unknown group of executive branch adjudicators who are not “Administrative Law Judges” (ALJs) governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. ACUS commissioned this report to obtain data and provide recommendations concerning non-ALJs’ appointment, independence, and oversight.
Despite the recent focus on case management, and the literature and experience on the ground that all pointed to the importance of case management decades ago, it is still not the norm. This report recognizes that case management is essential for judges, courts, attorneys, and—most importantly—the litigants.
This document provides a description of common metrics and methods for assessing the effectiveness of existing and newly implemented civil justice rules and business practices.
This questionnaire provides a structured self-assessment tool to help court leaders highlight areas within their civil justice system in need of reform as well as potential implementation barriers.
Judicial recusal in appropriate circumstances is essential to ensuring a judiciary that is qualified and impartial and that inspires public trust. But states vary substantially in the key features of their judicial recusal procedures. This report makes eight recommendations for crafting recusal procedures that are efficient, transparent, and fair to both judge and litigant.
Our studies show that the court system does an insufficient job helping people navigate their way through the system to resolution. People feel frustrated, lost, disempowered, and disillusioned by our legal system, especially self-represented litigants. In an effort to address this issue, IAALS' Court Compass project intends to create a shared base of information that will allow us to move toward solutions.
This roadmap provides guidance and support for implementing the Conference of Chief Justices recommendations for improving the American civil justice system in a way that is thoughtful, responsive to the needs of court users, well-designed, and well-executed—so that the reforms have the greatest possibility of success.
This report analyzes data from the Foundations for Practice survey regarding hiring practices and answers this question: How can employers hire new lawyers who have the foundations they desire?
This publication offers a menu of recommended practices and tools for designing and implementing a judicial performance evaluation program that fosters legitimacy in the eyes of the public and the judges.
