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.
Published in collaboration with the American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery, this report serves as a guide for states interested in testing recommendations designed to reduce cost and delay in the civil justice system.
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.
The Diagnosis and Treatment of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
This article provides a brief overview of the history of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the challenges that have plagued American civil procedure over the past seven decades, and the various approaches that have been employed—often unsuccessfully—to remedy those problems.
This report includes a set of 29 proposed Principles that focus on four core areas: pleadings, discovery, experts and judicial management. It is the culmination of an 18-month collaboration between IAALS and the American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery and provides recommendations that may one day underpin reform of the civil rules of procedure in both federal and state court systems.
Politicians are supposed to be aligned with an ideology. In contrast, judges must decide each case on its merits, not on the basis of political ideology or a campaign contribution. There are two common methods for selecting judges: elections and merit selection. We have only to look at this past election season to understand how these methods support or undermine the ideal of an impartial American judiciary.
This report draws on data drawn from nearly 7,700 federal cases that were terminated between October 1, 2005, and September 30, 2006, and sets forth a series of recommendations, based on findings from three different types of analysis.
In July 2007, a telephone survey of 726 registered Colorado voters was conducted on behalf of IAALS and the League of Women Voters of Colorado Education Fund. Respondents were asked to describe their general perception of Colorado’s courts and judges, but were also asked specific questions related to the process by which judges are selected and evaluated in the state.
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.
This Interin Report discusses the word of the American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery and IAALS to explore problems associated with discovery. After extensive discussion, the Task Force and IAALS decided to administer a survey of ACTL’s Fellows to create a data base for further study.
This report is a must read for small and mid-sized businesses and organizations without e-discovery plans in place. It provides a guide to creating and implementing sound practices with proactive recommendations that will help your business prepare for dealing with e-discovery.
IAALS reached out to those in the trenches—businesses, courts, and the legal community—to provide a snapshot of today’s electronic discovery landscape. This report explores the real world implications of e-discovery and the impact of the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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.
A Proposal for Prospective Performance Evaluations in Judicial Elections
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.
A companion to Shared Expectations, this publication provides useful tools to aid jurisdictions interested in establishing or improving a judicial performance evaluation program.
