Call to Action: Achieving Civil Justice for All

CALL TO ACTION:

Achieving Civil

Justice for All

Recommendations to the Conference of Chief Justices

by the Civil Justice Improvements Committee

CALL TO ACTION:

Achieving Civil

Justice for All

Recommendations to the Conference of Chief Justices

by the Civil Justice Improvements Committee

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23185

ncsc.org/civil

CONTENTS

1 CCJ Civil Justice

Improvements Committee

2 The Call

A Strategic Response

Underlying Realities

Recommendations

Bench and Bar Leaders Hold the Key

Appendices

43 Notes

44 Acknowledgements

Thomas M. Falahee

Asst. General Counsel

Ford Motor Company

Hon. Daryl L. Hecht

Justice

Supreme Court of Iowa

Hon. Nathan L. Hecht

Chief Justice

Supreme Court of Texas

Hon. Steven M. Houran

Superior Court Judge

Straord County, New Hampshire

Wallace B. Jeerson

Attorney–Alexander, Debose,

Jeerson & Townsend

Texas

Hon. Eileen A. Kato

District Court Judge

King County, Washington

David G. Leitch

Global General Counsel

Bank of America

Hannah Lieberman

Executive Director

D.C. Neighborhood Legal

Services Program

Donna M. Melby

Attorney–Paul Hastings, LLP

California

Tommy D. Preston, Jr.

Director

National Strategy & Engagement,

Boeing

CCJ CIVIL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE

Hon. Thomas A. Balmer, Chair

Chief Justice

Supreme Court of Oregon

Hon. Jerome Abrams

District Court Judge

Dakota County, Minnesota

Thomas Y. Allman

Executive Vice President

& General Counsel (Retired)

BASF Corporation

Hon. Jennifer D. Bailey

Administrative Judge,

Circuit Civil Division

11th Judicial Circuit of Florida

Daniel J. Becker

State Court Administrator

Utah Administrative Oce

of the Courts

Kim Brunner

Executive Vice President

& General Counsel (Retired)

State Farm Insurance Companies

Colin F. Campbell

Attorney–Osborn Maledon

Arizona

Sherri R. Carter

Court Executive Ocer/Clerk

Superior Court of California,

Los Angeles County

David E. Christensen

Attorney–Christensen Law

Michigan

Michael V. Ciresi

Attorney–Ciresi & Conlin, LLP

Minnesota

Hon. Chase T. Rogers

Chief Justice

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Linda Sandstrom Simard

Professor

Suolk University Law School

Massachusetts

Todd A. Smith

Attorney–Powers, Rogers,

and Smith, PC

Illinois

Larry D. Thompson

John A. Sibley Professor of Law

University of Georgia School of Law

EX-OFFICIO

Mary McQueen

President

National Center for State Courts

Rebecca Love Kourlis

Executive Director

IAALS

FEDERAL COURTS

LIAISON

Hon. Richard W. Story

United State District Court Judge

Northern District of Georgia

ABA TIPS SECTION

LIAISON

Robert S. Peck

President

Center for Constitutional

Litigation, PC

2 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

The Call

Americans deserve a civil legal process that can fairly and promptly

resolve disputes for everyone—rich or poor, individuals or businesses,

in matters large or small. Yet our civil justice system often fails to meet

this standard. Runaway costs, delays, and complexity are undermining

public condence and denying people the justice they seek. This

has to change.

Navigating civil courts, as they operate now, can be daunting. Those

who enter the system confront a maze-like process that costs too much

and takes too long. While three-quarters of judgments are smaller than

$5,200, the expense of litigation often greatly exceeds that amount.

Small, uncomplicated matters that make up the overwhelming majority

of cases can take years to resolve. Fearing the process is futile, many

give up on pursuing justice altogether.

We’ve come to expect the services we use to steadily improve in step

with our needs and new technologies. But in our civil justice system,

these changes have largely not arrived. Many courts lack any of

the user-friendly support we rely on in other sectors. To the extent

technology is used, it simply digitizes a cumbersome process without

making it easier. If our civil courts don’t change how they work, they

will meet the fate of travel agents or hometown newspapers, entities

undone by new competition and customer expectations—but never

adequately replaced.

Meanwhile, private entities are lling the void. Individuals and

businesses today have many options for resolving disputes outside of

court, including private judges for hire, arbitration and online legal

services, most of which do not require an attorney to navigate. But these

alternatives can’t guarantee a transparent and impartial process. These

alternative forums are not necessarily bound by existing law nor do they

contribute to creating new law and shaping 21st century justice. In short,

they are not suciently democratic.

Civil justice touches

every aspect of our

lives and society,

from public safety

to fair housing to the

smooth transaction

of business.

THE CALL 3

Civil justice touches every aspect of our lives and

society, from public safety to fair housing to the

smooth transaction of business. For centuries,

Americans have relied on an impartial judge or jury

to resolve conicts according to a set of rules that

govern everyone equally. This framework is still the

most reliable and democratic path to justice—and

a vital armation that we live in a society where

our rights are recognized and protected. Which is

why our legal community has a responsibility to x

the system while preserving the best of our 200-

year tradition.

Restoring public condence means rethinking how

our courts work in fundamental ways. Citizens

must be placed at the center of the system. They

must be heard, respected, and capable of getting a

just result, not just in theory but also in everyday

practice. Courts need to embrace new procedures

and technologies. They must give each matter the

resources it needs—no more, no less—and prudently

shepherd the cases our system faces now.

It’s time for our system to evolve. Our citizens

deserve it. Our democracy depends on it.

For centuries, Americans

have relied on an

impartial judge or jury

to resolve conicts

according to a set

of rules that govern

everyone equally.

4 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

Our legal system promises the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution

of civil cases. Too often, however, it does not live up to that promise.

This Report of the Civil Justice Improvements (CJI) Committee provides

a roadmap for restoring function and faith in a system that is too

important to lose. The Recommendations contained in this report are

premised on the belief that courts can again be the best choice for every

citizen: aordable for all, ecient for all, and fair for all.

WHY THE CIVIL JUSTICE

IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE AND

THIS REPORT?

The impetus for the CJI Committee and this Report is twofold. First,

state courts are well aware of the cost, delay, and unpredictability

of civil litigation. Such complaints have been raised repeatedly, and

legitimately, for more than a century. Yet eorts at reform have

fallen short, and over the last several decades the dramatic rise

in self-represented litigants and strained court budgets from two

severe recessions have further hampered our ability to promptly and

eciently resolve cases. The lack of coherent attempts to address

problems in the civil justice system has prompted many litigants to

seek solutions outside of the courts and, in some instances, to forgo

legal remedies entirely. As a result, public trust and condence in the

courts have decreased.

Second, on a more positive note, dedicated and inventive court

leaders from a handful of states recently have taken concrete steps

toward change. They are updating court rules and procedures, using

technology to empower litigants and court sta, and rethinking

longstanding orthodoxies about the process for resolving civil cases.

States (including Arizona, Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota,

and Utah) have changed their civil rules and procedures to require

A Strategic Response

This Report of

the Civil Justice

Improvements (CJI)

Committee provides

a roadmap for restoring

function and faith in

a system that is too

important to lose.

A STRATEGiC RESPONSE 5

mandatory disclosure of relevant documents,

to curb excessive discovery, and to streamline

the process for resolving discovery disputes and

other routine motions. A dozen other states have

implemented civil justice reforms over the past

ve years, either on a “pilot” or statewide basis.

Many of those reforms have now received in-

depth evaluations to assess their impact on cost,

disposition time, and litigant satisfaction. Most of

those eorts, however, have focused on discrete

stages of litigation (pleading, discovery) or on

specic types of cases (business, complex litigation),

rather than on the civil justice process overall.

The Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) determined

that, given the profound challenges facing the

civil justice system and the recent spate of reform

eorts, the time was right to examine the civil

justice system holistically, consider the impact and

outside assessments of the recent pilot projects, and

develop a comprehensive set of recommendations

for civil justice reform to meet the needs of the

21st century. At its 2013 Midyear Meeting, the CCJ

adopted a resolution authorizing the creation of the

CJI Committee. The Committee was charged with

“developing guidelines and best practices for civil

litigation based upon evidence derived from state

pilot projects and from other applicable research,

and informed by implemented rule changes and

stakeholder input; and making recommendations as

necessary in the area of caseow management for

the purpose of improving the civil justice system in

state courts.”

THE CJI COMMITTEE

MEMBERS AND GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

With the assistance of the National Center for State

Courts (NCSC) and IAALS, the Institute for the

Advancement of the American Legal System, the CCJ

named a diverse 23-member Committee to research

and prepare the recommendations contained in

this Report. Committee members included a broad

cross-section of key players in the civil litigation

process, including trial and appellate court judges,

trial and state court administrators, experienced

civil lawyers representing the plainti and defense

bars and legal aid, representatives of corporate legal

departments, and legal academics.

The Committee followed a set of eight fundamental

principles aimed at achieving demonstrable civil

justice improvements that are consistent with each

state’s existing substantive law.

The time was right to examine

the civil justice system … and

develop a comprehensive set of

recommendations for civil justice

reform to meet the needs of the

21st century.

6 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

Two subcommittees undertook the bulk of the

Committee’s work. Judge Jerome Abrams, an

experienced civil litigator and now trial court

judge in Minnesota, led the Rules & Litigation

Subcommittee. That subcommittee focused on the

role of court rules and procedures in achieving a just

and ecient civil process, including development

of recommendations regarding court and judicial

management of cases; right sizing the process

to meet the needs of cases; early identication

of issues for resolution; the role of discovery;

and civil case resolution whether by way of

settlement or trial.

Judge Jennifer Bailey, the Administrative Judge of

the Circuit Civil Division in Miami with 24 years

of experience as a trial judge, chaired the Court

Operations Subcommittee. That subcommittee

examined the role of the internal infrastructure of

the courts—including routine business practices,

stang and sta training, and technology—

in moving cases toward resolution, so that trial

judges can focus their attention on ensuring fair and

cost-eective justice for litigants. The subcommittee

also considered the special issues of procedural

fairness that often arise in “high-volume” civil

cases, such as debt collection, landlord-tenant, and

foreclosure matters, where one party often is not

represented by a lawyer. And the subcommittee

looked at innovative programs based on technology

interfaces that some courts are using to assist self-

represented litigants in a variety of civil cases.

The subcommittees held monthly conference

calls to discuss discrete issues related to their

respective work. Individual committee members

circulated white papers, suggestions, and discussion

documents. Spirited conversations led members to

reexamine long-held views about the civil justice

system, in light of the changing nature of the civil

justice caseload, innovations in procedures and

operations from around the country, the rise of self-

represented litigants, and the challenge and promise

of technology. The full CJI Committee met in four

THE WORK OF

THE COMMITTEE,

SUBCOMMITTEES,

AND STAFF

The Committee worked tirelessly over more than

18 months to examine and incorporate relevant

insight from courts around the country. Committee

members reviewed existing research on the state

of the civil justice system in American courts and

extensive additional eldwork by NCSC on the

current civil docket; recent reform eorts, including

evaluations of a number of state pilot projects;

and technology, process, and organizational

innovations. The Committee members thoughtfully

debated the pros and cons of many reform proposals

and the institutional challenges to implementing

change in the civil justice system, bringing the

lessons learned from their own experience as

lawyers, judges, and administrators.

Strong leadership and

bold action are needed

to transform our system

for the 21st century.

With this Report, we

have worked to provide

the necessary insight,

guidance, and impetus

to achieve that goal.

A STRATEGiC RESPONSE 7

plenary sessions to share insights and preliminary

proposals. Gradually, Committee members reached

a solid consensus on the Recommendations set out

in this Report.

In presenting this Report, the Committee is

indebted to the State Justice Institute, which

supported the Committee’s work with a generous

grant. Likewise, the Committee is grateful for

substantive expertise and logistical support from

NCSC and IAALS, without whose help this project

could never have been started, much less completed.

The President of the NCSC, Mary McQueen, and the

Executive Director of IAALS, Rebecca Love Kourlis,

served as ex-ocio members of the Committee

and provided invaluable guidance and assistance

throughout the project. The Committee is most

deeply indebted to the Committee sta, whose

excellent work, tenacity, and good spirits brought

the preparation of this Report to a successful

conclusion: the Committee Reporter, Senior Judge

Gregory E. Mize (D.C. Superior Court); Brittany

K.T. Kauman and Corina D. Gerety of IAALS; and

Paula Hannaford-Agor, Shelley Spacek Miller, Scott

Graves, and Brenda Otto of the NCSC.

Strong leadership and bold action are needed to

transform our system for the 21st century. With this

Report, we have worked to provide the necessary

insight, guidance, and impetus to achieve that

goal. The Recommendations identify steps that

state courts can take now—and in the months and

years ahead—to make the civil justice system more

accessible, aordable, and fair for all. To empower

courts to meet the needs of Americans in all

jurisdictions, the Recommendations are crafted to

work across local legal cultures and overcome the

signicant nancial and operational roadblocks to

change. With concerted action, we can realize the

promise of civil justice for all.

Respectfully submitted by the Civil Justice Improvements

Committee, July 2016

FUNDAMENTAL

FRAMEWORK/PRiNCiPLES

FOR CJi COMMiTTEE

RECOMMENDATiONS

1. Recommendations should aim to achieve

demonstrable improvements with respect to

the expenditure of time and costs to resolve

civil cases.

2. Outcomes from recommendations should be

consistent with existing substantive law.

3. Recommendations should protect, support, and

preserve litigants’ constitutional right to a civil

jury trial and honor procedural due process.

4. Recommendations should be capable of

implementation within a broad range of local

legal cultures and practices.

5. Recommendations should be supported by data,

experiences of Committee members, and/or

“extreme common sense.”

6. Recommendations should not systematically

favor plaintis or defendants, types of litigants,

or represented or unrepresented litigants.

7. Recommendations should promote eective

and economic utilization of resources while

maintaining basic fairness.

8. Recommendations should enhance public

condence in the courts and the perception

of justice.

8 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

THE CIVIL LITIGATION LANDSCAPE

Successful solutions only arise from clear-eyed understanding of

the problem. To inform the deliberations of the CCJ Civil Justice

Improvements Committee, the NCSC undertook a multijurisdictional

study of civil caseloads in state courts. The Landscape of Civil Litigation in

State Courts focused on non-domestic civil cases disposed between July

1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, in state courts exercising civil jurisdiction

in 10 urban counties.

The dataset, encompassing nearly one million

cases, reects approximately 5 percent of civil cases nationally.

The Landscape ndings presented a very dierent picture of civil

litigation than most lawyers and judges envisioned based on their

own experiences and on common criticisms of the American civil

justice system. Although high-value tort and commercial contract

disputes are the predominant focus of contemporary debates,

collectively they comprised only a small proportion of the Landscape

caseload. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the caseload was contract

cases. The vast majority of those were debt collection, landlord/

tenant, and mortgage foreclosure cases (39 percent, 27 percent, and

17 percent, respectively). An additional 16 percent of civil caseloads

were small claims cases involving disputes valued at $12,000 or less,

and 9 percent were characterized as “other civil” cases involving

agency appeals and domestic or criminal-related cases. Only 7

percent were tort cases, and 1 percent were real property cases.

The composition of contemporary civil caseloads stands in marked

contrast to caseloads of two decades ago. The NCSC undertook

secondary analysis comparing the the Landscape data with civil

cases disposed in 1992 in 45 urban general jurisdiction courts. the

1992 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, the ratio of tort to contract

cases was approximately 1 to 1. In the Landscape dataset, this ratio

had increased to 1 to 7. While population-adjusted contract lings

uctuate somewhat due to economic conditions, they have generally

Underlying Realities

The reality of

litigation costs

routinely exceeding

the value of cases

explains the relatively

low rate of dispositions

involving any form of

formal adjudication.

UNDERLYiNG REALiTiES 9

remained fairly at over the past 30 years. Tort

cases, in contrast, have largely evaporated.

To the extent that damage awards recorded in nal

judgments are a reliable measure of the monetary

value of civil cases, the cases in the Landscape

dataset involved relatively modest sums. In contrast

to widespread perceptions that much civil litigation

involves high-value commercial and tort cases,

only 0.2 percent had judgments that exceeded

$500,000 and only 165 cases (less than 0.1 percent)

had judgments that exceeded $1 million. Instead,

90 percent of all judgments entered were less

than $25,000; 75 percent were less than $5,200.

Hence, for most litigants, the costs of litigating

a case through trial would greatly exceed the

monetary value of the case. In some instances, the

costs of even initiating the lawsuit or making an

appearance as a defendant would exceed the value

of the case. The reality of litigation costs routinely

exceeding the value of cases explains the relatively

low rate of dispositions involving any form of

formal adjudication. Only 4 percent of cases were

disposed by bench or jury trial, summary judgment,

or binding arbitration. The overwhelming majority

(97 percent) of these were bench trials, almost half

of which (46 percent) took place in small claims

or other civil cases. Three-quarters of judgments

entered in contract cases following a bench trial

were less than $1,800. This is not to say these cases

are insignicant to the parties. Indeed, the stakes in

many cases involve fundamentals like employment

and shelter. However, the judgment data contradicts

the assumption that many bench trials involve

adjudication of complex, high-stakes cases.

Most cases were disposed through a non-

adjudicative process. A judgment was entered in

nearly half (46 percent) of the Landscape cases,

most of which were likely default judgments. One-

third of cases were dismissed (possibly following a

settlement, although only 10 percent were explicitly

coded by the courts as settlements). Summary

judgment is a much less favored disposition in

state courts compared to federal courts. Only 1

percent were disposed by summary judgment.

Most of these would have been default judgments

in debt collection cases, but the plainti instead

chose to pursue summary judgment, presumably to

minimize the risk of post-disposition challenges.

The traditional view of the adversarial system

assumes the presence of competent attorneys

zealously representing both parties. One of the

most striking ndings in the Landscape dataset,

therefore, was the relatively large proportion

of cases (76 percent) in which at least one party

was unrepresented, usually the defendant. Tort

cases were the only case type in which attorneys

represented both parties in a majority (64 percent)

of cases. Surprisingly, small claims dockets in

the Landscape courts had an unexpectedly high

proportion (76 percent) of plaintis who were

represented by attorneys. This suggests that small

claims courts, which were originally developed as a

forum for self-represented litigants to access courts

through simplied procedures, have become the

10 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

IMPLICATIONS FOR

STATE COURTS

The picture of civil litigation that emerges from

the Landscape dataset conrms the longstanding

criticism that the civil justice system takes too

long and costs too much. Some litigants with

meritorious claims and defenses are eectively

denied access to justice in state courts because it

is beyond their nancial means to litigate. Others,

who have the resources and legal sophistication

to do so, are opting for alternatives to the civil

justice system either preemptively through

contract provisions (e.g., for consumer products

and services, employment, and health care) or,

after ling a case in court, through private ADR

services. In response to these realities, courts

must improve in terms of eciency, cost, and

convenience to the public so that those we serve

have condence that the court system is an

attractive option to achieve justice in civil cases.

The vast majority of civil cases that remain in

state courts are debt collection, landlord/tenant,

foreclosure, and small claims cases. State courts are

the preferred forums for plaintis in these cases

for the simple reason that state courts still hold a

monopoly on procedures to enforce judgments in

most jurisdictions. Securing a judgment from a court

of competent jurisdiction is the mandatory rst step

to being able to initiate garnishment or asset seizure

proceedings. The majority of defendants in these

cases are unrepresented. Even if defendants might

have the nancial resources to hire a lawyer, many

would not because the cost of the lawyer exceeds

the potential judgment. The idealized picture of

the adversarial system in which both parties are

represented by competent attorneys who can assert

all legitimate claims and defenses is, more often

than not, an illusion.

State court budgets experienced dramatic cuts

during the economic recessions both in 2001–2003

and in 2008–2009, and there is no expectation

among state court policymakers that state court

forum of choice for attorney-represented plaintis

in debt collection cases.

Approximately three-quarters of cases were

disposed in just over one year (372 days), and half

were disposed in just under four months (113 days).

Nevertheless, small claims were the only case type

that came close to complying with the Model Time

Standards for State Trial Courts.

Tort cases were the

worst case category in terms of compliance with

the Standards. On average, tort cases took 16 months

(486 days) to resolve and only 69 percent were

disposed within 540 days of ling compared to 98

percent recommended by the Standards.

Other/Unknown

Small Claims

Real Property

Tort

Other Contract

Mortgage Foreclosure

Landlord/Tenant

Debt Collection

11%

19%

24%

11%

16%

11%

CASELOAD COMPOSiTiON

Debt Collection

Landlord/Tenant

Mortgage Foreclosure

Other Contract

Tort

Real Property

Small Claims

Other/Unknown

Contract

Source: NCSC Landscape of Civil Litigation in

State Courts (2015).

Real property cases

comprised 1%

tion threaten to erode a publicly accessible body

of precedents governing civil cases. Diminished

common law will leave future litigants without clear

standards for negotiating civil transactions, settling

cases, or conforming their conduct to clear legal

rules. The privatization of civil litigation likewise

undermines the ability of the legislative and execu-

tive branches of government to respond eectively

to changing societal circumstances that become

apparent through claims led in state courts.

Because the civil justice system directly touches

everyone in contemporary American society—

through cases involving housing, food, education,

employment, household services, consumer

products, personal nance, and other commercial

transactions—ineective civil case management

has an even more pervasive eect on public trust

and condence than the criminal justice system.

budgets will return to pre-2008 recession levels.

These budget cuts, combined with constitutional

and statutory provisions that prioritize criminal and

domestic cases over civil dockets, have undermined

courts’ discretion to allocate resources to improved

civil case management. As both the quantity and

quality of adjudicatory services provided by state

courts decline, it is unlikely that state legislators

will be persuaded to augment budgets to support

civil caseloads.

These trends have severe implications for the future

of the civil justice system and for public trust and

condence in state courts. The cost and delays of

civil litigation eectively deny access to justice for

many members of our society, undermining the

legitimacy of the courts as a fair and eective forum

to resolve disputes. Reductions in the proportion

of civil cases resolved through formal adjudica-

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Both

Defendant

Plainti

Small ClaimsContractOther CivilReal PropertyTort

PERCENTAGE OF CASES WiTH ATTORNEY REPRESENTATiON

Plainti

Defendant Both

Source: NCSC Landscape of Civil Litigation in

State Courts (2015).

UNDERLYiNG REALiTiES 11

12 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

ensure the forward momentum of civil cases toward

resolution. For judges faced with heavy caseloads,

the prospect is just too daunting. Unless litigants

are clamoring for attention, most judges are willing

to assume that the case will resolve itself without

additional interference.

Recognizing that few judges have the luxury of a

caseload small enough to permit individual judicial

attention in every case, the Recommendations

promote the expansion of responsibility for managing

civil cases from the judge as an individual to the

court as a collective institution. The term “court”

encompasses the entire complement of courthouse

personnel—judges, sta, and infrastructure

resources including information technology. The

Recommendations envision a civil justice system

in which civil case automation plays a large role in

supporting teams of court personnel as they triage

cases to experienced court sta and/or judicial ocers

as needed to address the needs of each case. Routine

case activity, such as scheduling and monitoring

compliance with deadlines, can be automated,

permitting specially trained court sta to perform

basic case management responsibilities under the

guidance of legally trained case managers. This in turn

will free the judge to focus on tasks that require the

unique expertise of a judicial ocer, such as issuing

decisions on dispositive motions and conducting

evidentiary hearings, including bench and jury trials.

ONE-SiZE-FiTS-ALL iS

NOT WORKiNG

The Recommendations also recognize that uniform

rules that apply to all civil cases are not optimally

designed for most civil cases. They provide too much

process for the vast majority of cases, including

uncontested cases. And they provide too little

management for complex cases that comprise a small

proportion of civil caseloads, but which inevitably

require a disproportionate amount of attention from

the court.

Instead, cases should be “right-sized”

and triaged into appropriate pathways at ling.

However, those pathways should be exible enough

to permit reassignment if the needs of the case

change over time.

If state court policymakers aim to restore the role

of state courts as the primary forum for dispute

resolution, civil justice reform can no longer be

delayed or merely implemented incrementally

through changes in rules of civil procedure. Instead,

dramatic changes in court operations now must

involve considerably greater court oversight of

caseow management to control costs, reduce

delays, and ensure fairness for litigants.

IMPERATIVE RESPONSES

The Recommendations in this report spring from

the realities made clear by the Landscape data as

well as the experiences of pilot projects and rule

changes around the country. They are founded on

the premise that current civil justice processes are

largely not working for litigants. A core contributing

factor is that lawyers too often control the pace of

litigation. This has led to unnecessary delays in

case resolution. Thus, the leading Recommendation

advocates that courts take denitive responsibility

for managing civil cases from ling to disposition.

This includes eective enforcement of rules and

administrative orders designed to promote the

just, prompt, and inexpensive resolution of civil

cases. That Recommendation is the lynchpin for all

that follow.

THE ENTiRE COURT MUST LEAD

CASE MANAGEMENT

The concept of eective civil caseow management

is not new. It has been a hallmark of court

administration for nearly half a century, but it

has not been solidly institutionalized in most

jurisdictions. Instead, a common trajectory for

implementation of civil caseow reform is an initial

period of education and adoption, followed by

predictable improvements in civil case processing.

However, as new judges rotate into civil calendar

assignments, the lessons previously learned tend

to be forgotten and the court reverts to its previous

practices. One of the primary reasons for this

backsliding is the heavy reliance on the trial judge to

swer was led in less than half of cases in which

the amount-in-controversy exceeded $300,000; the

remaining cases were uncontested and thus did not

require a great deal of court involvement.

Although

case type and amount-in-controversy were both

signicant predictors of the likelihood of future

discovery disputes during the litigation (often cited

as time-consuming case events for judges), other

factors, including the representation status of the

litigants, were stronger predictors of the need for

court involvement in the case.

For these reasons it is imperative that courts

develop rules and procedures for promptly assigning

all cases to pathways designed to give each case the

amount of attention that properly ts the case’s

needs. As importantly, courts must implement

business practices that ensure that rules and

procedures are enforced. Rules and procedures

for each pathway should move each case toward

resolution in an expeditious manner. For example,

empirical research shows that fact-pleading

standards and robust mandatory disclosures induce

litigants to identify key issues in dispute more

promptly and help inform litigants about the merits

of their respective claims and defenses.

Other rules

and procedures that have been shown to be eective

TRADiTiONAL

DiFFERENTiATED CASE

MANAGEMENT iS NOT ENOUGH

The pathway approach described in the

Recommendations improves existing court

structures and dierentiated case management

(DCM) systems. Many court systems are currently

characterized by a tiered structure of general and

limited jurisdiction courts that limit where civil

cases can be led based on case type or amount-in-

controversy or both. DCM is a rule-based system

that, at varying times after ling, assigns civil cases

to case-processing tracks, usually based on case

type or amount-in-controversy. Each DCM track

features its own case-processing rules concerning

presumptive deadlines for case events.

Tiered court systems and DCM oer little exibility

once the initial decision has been made concerning

the court in which to le or the assigned DCM track.

A case led in the general jurisdiction court cannot

gain access to procedures or programs oered to

cases in the limited jurisdiction court and vice versa.

A case assigned to one DCM track usually cannot

be reassigned later to another track. The rules and

procedures for each court or DCM track typically

apply to all cases within that court or track, even if a

case would benet from management under rules or

procedures from another court or track.

DCM’s traditional three-track system often falters

in application because, in some courts, tracking

does not happen unless or until there is a case

management conference. Thus, the benets of early,

tailored case management occur only in the small

percentage of cases where such a conference is

held. And if a properly tagged case does not receive

corresponding sta and infrastructure support, the

fruits of non-judicial case management are lost.

Furthermore, experience has found that case type

and amount-in-controversy—the two factors most

often used to dene the jurisdiction of courts in

tiered systems or DCM procedures—do not reliably

forecast the amount of judicial management that

each case demands. In Utah, for example, an an-

It is imperative that

courts develop rules

and procedures for

promptly assigning

all cases to pathways

designed to give each

case the amount of

attention that properly

ts the case’s needs.

UNDERLYiNG REALiTiES 13

14 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

are presumptive restrictions on the scope of

necessary discovery and strictly enforced deadlines.

These promote completion of key stages of litigation

up to and including trials.

CLOSE ATTENTiON TO

HiGH-vOLUME DOCKETS

It is axiomatic that court rules, procedures, and

business practices are critical for maintaining

forward momentum in cases where all litigants

are fully engaged in the adversarial process to

resolve their disputed issues. These rubrics are even

more critical in the substantial proportion of civil

caseloads comprised of uncontested cases and cases

involving large asymmetries in legal expertise.

While most of these cases resolve relatively quickly,

the Landscape study makes clear that signicant

numbers of cases languish on civil calendars

for long periods of time for no apparent reason.

Research shows that poor management of high-

volume dockets can especially aect unrepresented

parties.

The Recommendations advocate improved

rules, procedures, and business practices that

trigger closer and more eective review of the

adequacy of claims in high-volume dockets.

Court rules,

procedures, and business

practices are critical

for maintaining forward

momentum in cases.

RECOMMENDATiONS 15

Recommendations

These realities illustrate the urgent need for change. It is imperative

that court leaders move promptly to improve caseow management

to control costs, reduce delays, and ensure fairness for litigants, and

embrace tools and methods that align with the realities of modern civil

dockets. Toward those ends, these Recommendations present a broad

range of practices that each state can embrace in ways that t local

legal culture and resources. The Recommendations are set forth under

these topical headings:

• Exercise Ultimate Responsibility

• Triage Case Filings with Mandatory Pathway Assignments

• Strategically Deploy Court Personnel and Resources

• Use Technology Wisely

• Focus Attention on High-Volume and Uncontested Cases

• Provide Superior Access for Litigants

The Recommendations aim to create a future where:

• Each case receives the court attention necessary for ecient and

just resolution;

• Teams of judges, court attorneys, and professionally trained sta

manage the case from ling to disposition;

• Litigants understand the process and make informed decisions

about their cases;

• Justice is not only fair but convenient, timely, and less costly;

• Modern technology replaces paper and redundancy; and

• Civil justice is not considered an insider’s game fraught with

outdated rules and procedures.

In sum, the recommendations provide courts with a roadmap to make

justice for all a reality.

These Recommendations

intentionally use the verbs

“must” and “should.”

“Must“ is used to convey

an action that is essential

and compelling in response

to contemporary issues

confronting civil case managers.

“Should” is used to convey an

action that is important and

advisable to undertake. Hence,

“must-do” Recommendations

are immediately necessary

because they go to the heart of

improving caseow and reducing

unnecessary cost and delay.

“Should-do” Recommendations

are also necessary but may have

to await the availability of such

things as enabling authority or

additional resources.

16 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

EXERCISE ULTIMATE

RESPONSIBILITY

RECOMMENDATiON 1

Courts must take responsibility for managing

civil cases from time of ling to disposition.

1.1

Throughout the life of each case,

courts must eectively communicate to

litigants all requirements for reaching

just and prompt case resolution. These

requirements, whether mandated by

rule or administrative order, should

at a minimum include a rm date for

commencing trial and mandatory

disclosures of essential information.

1.2

Courts must enforce rules and

administrative orders that are designed

to promote the just, prompt, and

inexpensive resolution of civil cases.

1.3 To eectively achieve case management

responsibility, courts should undertake a

thorough statewide civil docket inventory.

ents may favor delay rather than eciency. In short,

adversarial strategizing can undermine the achieve-

ment of fair, economical, and timely outcomes.

It is time to shift this paradigm. The Landscape of

Civil Litigation makes clear that relying on parties to

self-manage litigation is often inadequate. At the

core of the Committee’s Recommendations is the

premise that the courts ultimately must be respon-

sible for ensuring access to civil justice. Once a case

is led in court, it becomes the court’s responsibili-

ty to manage the case toward a just and timely reso-

lution. When we say “courts” must take responsibil-

ity, we mean judges, court managers, and indeed the

whole judicial branch, because the factors producing

unnecessary costs and delays have become deeply

imbedded in our legal system. Primary case re-

sponsibility means active and continuing court

oversight that is proportionate to case needs. This

right-sized case management involves having the

most appropriate court ocial perform the task at

hand and supporting that person with the necessary

technology and training to manage the case toward

resolution. At every point in the life of a case, the

right person in the court should have responsibility

for the case.

RE : 1.1

The court, including its personnel and IT systems,

must work in conjunction with individual judges to

manage each case toward resolution. Progress in

resolving each case is generally tied both to court

events and to judicial decisions. Eective caseow

management involves establishing presumptive

deadlines for key case stages, including a rm

trial date. In overseeing civil cases, relevant court

personnel should be accessible, responsive to case

needs, and engaged with the parties—emphasizing

eciency and timely resolution.

COMMENTARY

Our civil justice system has historically expected lit-

igants to drive the pace of civil litigation by request-

ing court involvement as issues arise. This often

results in delay as litigants wait in line for attention

from a passive court—be it for rulings on motions, a

requested hearing, or even setting a trial date. The

wait-for-a-problem paradigm eectively shields

courts from responsibility for the pace of litigation.

It also presents a special challenge for self-rep-

resented litigants who are trying to understand

and navigate the system. The party-take-the-lead

culture can encourage delay strategies by attorneys,

whose own interests and the interests of their cli-

RECOMMENDATiONS 17

RE: 1.2

During numerous meetings, Committee members

voiced strong concern (and every participating trial

lawyer expressed frustration) that, despite the

existence of well-conceived rules of civil procedure

in every jurisdiction, judges too often do not enforce

the rules. These perceptions are supported by em-

pirical studies showing that attorneys want judges

to hold practitioners accountable to the expectations

of the rules. For example, the chart below summa-

rizes results of a 2009 survey of the Arizona trial

bar about court enforcement of mandatory dis-

closure rules.

Surely, whenever it is customary to ignore compli-

ance with rules “designed to secure the just, speedy,

and inexpensive determination of every action

and proceeding,”

cost and delay in civil litigation

will continue.

RE: 1.3

Courts cannot meaningfully address an issue

without rst knowing its contours. Analyzing the

existing civil caseload provides these contours and

gives court leaders a basis for informed decisions

about what needs to be done to ensure civil docket

progression.

ALMOST ALWAYS OFTEN HALF THE TIME OCCASIONALLY ALMOST NEVER

0% 100%

4% 18% 20% 36% 22%

COURT ENFORCEMENT OF DiSCLOSURE RULES (N=691*)

*Responses for judges and lawyers with experience

with the Rules. Source: IAALS Survey of the Arizona Bench

and Bar on the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (2010).

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 1

Task Force on the Escalating Costs of Civil

Litigation, Washington State Bar Ass’n, Final

Report to the Board of Governors (2015).

Inst. for Advancement of the Am. Legal Sys.,

Survey of the Arizona Bench & Bar on the

Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (2010).

Almost Always

Often

Half the Time

Occasionally

Almost Never

18 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

With the advent of e-ling, civil cover sheets, and

electronic case management systems, courts can

use technology to begin to right size case manage-

ment at the time of ling. Technology can also help

identify later changes in a case’s characteristics that

may justify management adjustments.

This recommendation, together with Recommenda-

tion 1, add up to an imperative: Every case must have

an appropriate plan beginning at the time of ling,

and the entire court system must execute the plan

until the case is resolved.

RECOMMENDATiON 2

Beginning at the time each civil case is led,

courts must match resources with the needs

of the case.

COMMENTARY

Virtually all states have followed the federal mod-

el and adopted a single set of rules, usually similar

and often identical to the federal rules, to govern

procedure in civil cases. Unfortunately, this per-

vasive one-size-ts-all approach too often fails

to recognize and respond eectively to individual

case needs.

The one-size-ts-all mentality exhibits itself at

multiple levels. Even where innovative rules are im-

plemented with the best of intentions, judges often

continue to apply the same set of rules and mindset

to the cases before them. When the same approach

is used in every case, judicial and sta resources are

misdirected toward cases that do not need that kind

of attention. Conversely, cases requiring more assis-

tance may not get the attention they require because

they are lumped in with the rest of the cases and

receive the same level of treatment. Hence, the civil

justice system repeatedly imposes unnecessary,

time-consuming steps, making it inaccessible for

many litigants.

Courts need to move beyond monolithic methods

and recognize the importance of adapting court pro-

cess to case needs. The Committee calls for a “right

sizing” of court resources. Right sizing aligns rules,

procedures, and court personnel with the needs

and characteristics of similarly situated cases. As a

result, cases get the amount of process needed—no

more, no less. With right sizing, judges tailor their

oversight to the specic needs of cases. Adminis-

trators align court resources to case requirements

—coordinating the roles of judges, sta, and in-

frastructure.

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 2

Victor E. Flango & Thomas M. Clarke,

Reimagining Courts: A Design for the Twenty-

First Century (2015).

Inst. for Advancement of the Am. Legal Sys.

& Am. Coll. of Trial Lawyers, Reforming our

Civil Justice System: A Report on Progress and

Promise (2015).

Brian Ostrom & Roger Hanson, National Center

for State Courts, Achieving High Performance: A

Framework for Courts (2010).

Corina D. Gerety & Logan Cornett, Inst. for the

Advancement of the Am. Legal Sys., Momentum

for Change: The Impact of the Colorado Civil

Access Pilot Project (2014).

Paula Hannaford-Agor & Cynthia G. Lee, Utah:

Impact of the Revisions to Rule 26 on Discovery

Practice in the Utah District Courts, Final

Report (2015).

RECOMMENDATiONS 19

RECOMMENDATiON 3

Courts should use a mandatory pathway-

assignment system to achieve right-sized

case management.

3.1

To best align court management practices

and resources, courts should utilize a

three-pathway approach: Streamlined,

Complex, and General.

3.2

To ensure that court practices and resources

are aligned for all cases throughout the life

of the case, courts must triage cases at the

time of ling based on case characteristics

and issues.

3.3

Courts should make the pathway

assignments mandatory upon ling.

3.4

Courts must include exibility in the

pathway approach so that a case can

be transferred to a more appropriate

pathway if signicant needs arise or

circumstances change.

3.5

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms

can be useful on any of the pathways

provided that they facilitate the just,

prompt, and inexpensive disposition of

civil cases.

TRIAGE CASE FILINGS

WITH MANDATORY

PATHWAY ASSIGNMENTS

COMMENTARY

The premise behind the pathway approach is that

dierent types of cases need dierent levels of case

management and dierent rules-driven process-

es. Data and experience tell us that cases can be

grouped by their characteristics and needs. Tailoring

the involvement of judges and professional sta to

those characteristics and needs will lead to ecien-

cies in time, scale, and structure. To achieve these

eciencies, it is critical that the pathway approach

be implemented at the individual case level and

consistently managed on a systemwide basis from

the time of ling.

Implementing this right-size approach is similar to,

but distinct from, dierentiated case management.

DCM is a longstanding case management technique

that applies dierent rules and procedures to dier-

ent cases based on established criteria. In some juris-

dictions the track determination is made by the judge

at the initial case management conference. Where

assignment to a track is more automatic or adminis-

tratively determined at the time of ling, it is usually

based merely on case type or amount-in-controversy.

There has been a general assumption that a majority

of cases will fall in a middle track, and it is the excep-

tional case that needs more or less process.

While the tracks and their denitions may be in the

rules, it commonly falls upon the judges to assign

cases to an appropriate track. Case automation or

sta systems are rarely in place to ensure assign-

ment and right-sized management, or to evaluate

use of the tracking system. Thus, while DCM is an

important concept upon which these Recommen-

dations build, in practice it has fallen short of its

potential. The right-sized case management ap-

proach recommended here embodies a more modern

approach than DCM by (1) using case characteristics

beyond case type and amount-in-controversy, (2)

requiring case triaging at time of ling, (3) recog-

nizing that the great majority of civil lings pres-

ent uncomplicated facts and legal issues, and (4)

requiring utilization of court resources at all levels,

including non-judicial sta and technology, to man-

age cases from the time of ling until disposition.

20 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 3

Victor E. Flango & Thomas M. Clarke,

Reimagining Courts: A Design for the

Twenty-First Century (2015).

Inst. for the Adv. of the Am. Legal Sys. &

American College of Trial Lawyers, Reforming

Our Civil Justice System: A Report on Progress

and Promise (2015).

Corina D. Gerety & Logan Cornett, Inst. for

the Adv. of the Am. Legal Sys., Momentum for

Change: The Impact of the Colorado Civil Access

Pilot Project (2014).

RE: 3.2

Right-sized case management emphasizes trans-

parent application of case triaging early and

throughout the process with a focus on case char-

acteristics all along the way. Pathway assignment

at ling provides the opportunity for improved

eciencies because assignment does not turn on

designation by the judge at a case management

conference, which may not occur or be needed in

every case. Entry point triage can be accomplished

by non-judicial personnel, based upon the identied

case characteristics and through the use of more ad-

vanced technology and training. Triage is done more

eectively early in the process, with a focus on case

issues and not only on case type or monetary value.

RE: 3.3

There has been much experimentation around

the country with dierent processes for case

designation upon ling, particularly for cases

with simpler issues. Courts and parties invariably

underutilize (and sometimes ignore) innovations

THE PATHWAY APPROACH

The pathway approach diers from and improves

upon DCM in several fundamental respects. The

pathway approach:

• Relies on case characteristics other than

just case type and amount-in-controversy to

triage cases onto a presumptive pathway at

the time of ling.

• Provides exibility and continuity by relying

on automated case monitoring to assure

cases remain on the appropriate pathway as

indicated by the need for more or less judicial

involvement in moving toward resolution.

• Enables judges to do more substantive

case work by relying on trained court

sta and technology to assign all cases

promptly at ling.

that are voluntary. Hence, the Committee

recommends mandatory application of a triage-to-

pathway system. When all civil cases are subject

to this right-sized treatment, courts can achieve

maximum cost-saving and timesaving benets.

RE: 3.4

While mandatory assignment is critical, the Com-

mittee recognizes that right sizing is dynamic.

It contemplates that a case may take an o ramp

to another pathway as a case unfolds and issues

change. This exibility comes from active partic-

ipation of the court and litigants in assessing case

needs and ensuring those needs are met.

RE: 3.5

In some jurisdictions, the availability of alternative

dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms is viewed as

an invaluable tool for litigants to resolve civil cases

quickly and less expensively than traditional court

procedures. In others, it is viewed as an expensive

barrier that impedes access to a fair resolution of

the case. To the extent that ADR provides litigants

with additional options for resolving cases, it can be

employed on any of the pathways, but it is imper-

ative that it not be an opportunity for additional

cost and delay.

RECOMMENDATiONS 21

COMMENTARY

Streamlined civil cases are those with a limited

number of parties, routine issues related to liability

and damages, few anticipated pretrial motions,

limited need for discovery, few witnesses, minimal

documentary evidence and anticipated trial length

of one to two days. Streamlined pathway cases

would likely include these case types: automobile

tort, intentional tort, premises liability, tort-other,

insurance coverage claims arising out of claims

listed above, landlord/tenant, buyer plainti,

seller plainti, consumer debt, other contract, and

RECOMMENDATiON 4

Courts should implement a Streamlined

Pathway for cases that present uncomplicated

facts and legal issues and require minimal

judicial intervention but close court supervision.

4.1

A well-established Streamlined Pathway

conserves resources by automatically

calendaring core case processes. This

approach should include the exibility

to allow court involvement and/or

management as necessary.

4.2

At an early point in each case, the court

should establish deadlines to complete key

case stages including a rm trial date. The

recommended time to disposition for the

Streamlined Pathway is 6 to 8 months.

4.3

To keep the discovery process proportional

to the needs of the case, courts should

require mandatory disclosures as an

early opportunity to clarify issues,

with enumerated and limited discovery

thereafter.

4.4

Judges must manage trials in an ecient

and time-sensitive manner so that trials

are an aordable option for litigants who

desire a decision on the merits.

STREAMLiNED PATHWAY CASE

CHARACTERiSTiCS

• Limited number of parties

• Routine issues related to liability and damages

• Few anticipated pretrial motions

• Limited need for discovery

• Few witnesses

• Minimal documentary evidence

• Anticipated trial length of one to two days

appeals from small claims decisions. For these

simpler cases, it is critical that the process not

add costs for the parties, particularly when a large

percentage of cases end early in the pretrial process.

Signicantly, the Landscape of Civil Litigation informs

us that 85 percent of all civil case lings t within

this category.

RE : 4.1

The Streamlined Pathway approach recognizes

resource limits. Resource intensive processes like

case management conferences are rarely necessary

in simple cases. Instead, the court should establish

by rule presumptive deadlines for the completion of

key case stages and monitor compliance through a

management system powered by technology. At the

same time, the process should be exible and allow

court involvement, including judges, as necessary.

For example, a case manager or judge can schedule

a management conference to address critical issues

that might crop up in an initially simple case.

RE: 4.2

Too many simple cases languish on state court

dockets, without forward momentum or resolution.

At or soon after ling, the court should send the

parties notice of the presumptive deadlines for key

case stages, including a rm trial date. The parties

22 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

may always come to the court to fashion a dier-

ent schedule if there is good cause. This pathway

contemplates conventional fact nding by either

the court or a jury, with a judgment on the record

and the ability to appeal. Because this process is

intended for the vast majority of cases in the state

courts, it is important that the process ensure a nal

judgment and right to appeal to safeguard the rights

of litigants and to gain buy-in from attorneys.

RE: 4.3

Mandatory disclosures provide an important oppor-

tunity in streamlined cases to focus the parties and

discovery early in the case. With robust, meaning-

ful initial disclosures, the parties can then decide

what additional discovery, if any, is necessary. The

attributes of streamlined cases put them in this

pathway for the very reason that the nature of the

dispute is not factually complex. Thus, streamlined

rules should include presumptive discovery limits,

because such limits build in proportionality. Where

additional information is needed to make decisions

about trial or settlement, the parties can obtain

additional discovery with a showing of good cause.

Presumptive discovery maximums have worked well

in various states, including Utah and Texas, where

there are enumerated limits on deposition hours,

interrogatories, requests for production, and re-

quests for admission.

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 4

Paula Hannaford-Agor & Cynthia G. Lee, Utah:

Impact of the Revisions to Rule 26 on Discovery

Practice in the Utah District Courts, Final

Report (2015).

Corina D. Gerety & Logan Cornett, Inst. for the

Advancement of the Am. Legal Sys., Momentum

for Change: The Impact of the Colorado Civil

Access Pilot Project (2014).

Paula Hannaford-Agor, et al., Nat’l Ctr. for State

Courts, Civil Justice Initiative, New Hampshire:

Impact of the Proportional Discovery/Automatic

Disclosure (PAD) Pilot Rules (2013).

Because this process is intended

for the vast majority of cases in the

state courts, it is important that the

process ensure a nal judgment

and right to appeal to safeguard the

rights of litigants and to gain buy-in

from attorneys.

RE: 4.4

While the vast majority of cases are resolved with-

out trial, if parties in a Streamlined Pathway case

want to go to trial, the court should ensure that

option is accessible. Because trial is a costly event

in litigation, it is critical that trials be managed in

a time-sensitive manner. Once a trial begins in a

case, the trial judge should give top priority to trial

matters, making presentation of evidence and juror

time t into full and consecutive days of business. A

thorough pretrial conference can address outstand-

ing motions and evidentiary issues so that time

is not wasted and a verdict can be reached in one

or two days.

RECOMMENDATiONS 23

COMMENTARY

The Complex Pathway provides right-sized pro-

cess for those cases that are complicated in a vari-

ety of ways. Such cases may be legally complex or

logistically complex, or they may involve complex

evidence, numerous witnesses, and/or high inter-

personal conict. Cases in this pathway may include

multi-party medical malpractice, class actions,

antitrust, multi-party commercial cases, securities,

environmental torts, construction defect, product

liability, and mass torts. While these cases comprise

a very small percentage (generally no more than 3%)

of most civil dockets, they tend to utilize the highest

percentage of court resources.

Some jurisdictions have developed a variety of spe-

cialized courts, such as business courts, commercial

courts, and complex litigation courts. They often

employ case management techniques recommended

for the Complex Pathway in response to longstand-

ing recognition of the problems complex cases can

pose for eective civil case processing. While imple-

mentation of a mandatory pathway assignment sys-

tem may not necessarily replace a specialized court

with the Complex Pathway, courts should align their

case assignment criteria for the specialized court to

those for the Complex Pathway. As many business

and commercial court judges have discovered, not

all cases featuring business-to-business litigants

or issues related to commercial transactions re-

quire intensive case management. Conversely, some

cases that do not meet the assignment criteria for a

business or commercial court do involve one or more

indicators of complexity and should receive close

individual attention.

RE : 5.1

To ensure proportionality for complex cases, a single

judge should be assigned for the life of these cases.

Judges can do much to prevent undue cost and delay.

A one-judge-from-ling-through-resolution policy

preserves judicial resources by avoiding the need

for a fresh learning curve whenever a complex case

RECOMMENDATiON 5

Courts should implement a Complex Pathway

for cases that present multiple legal and factual

issues, involve many parties, or otherwise are

likely to require close court supervision.

5.1

Courts should assign a single judge to

complex cases for the life of the case, so

they can be actively managed from ling

through resolution.

5.2

The judge should hold an early case

management conference, followed by

continuing periodic conferences or other

informal monitoring.

5.3

At an early point in each case, the judge

should establish deadlines for the

completion of key case stages, including a

rm trial date.

5.4

At the case management conference,

the judge should also require the parties

to develop a detailed discovery plan

that responds to the needs of the case,

including mandatory disclosures, staged

discovery, plans for the preservation

and production of electronically stored

information, identication of custodians,

and search parameters.

5.5

Courts should establish informal

communications with the parties

regarding dispositive motions and

possible settlement, so as to encourage

early identication and narrowing of the

issues for more eective brieng, timely

court rulings, and party agreement.

5.6

Judges must manage trials in an ecient

and time-sensitive manner so that trials

are an aordable option for litigants who

desire a decision on the merits.

24 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

returns to court for a judicial ruling. The parties are

also better served if a single judge is engaged on a

regular basis. During the course of the case, attor-

neys can build upon prior communications rather

than repeat them.

COMPLEX PATHWAY CASE

CHARACTERiSTiCS

• Complex law

• Numerous parties

• Numerous witnesses

• Voluminous documentary evidence

• High interpersonal conict

RE: 5.2

Research and experience conrms the importance

of having a mandatory case management conference

early in the life of complex cases. Case conferences

provide an ideal opportunity to narrow the issues,

discuss and focus dispositive motions prior to ling,

and identify and address discovery issues before

they grow into disputes. Periodic communications

with the court create the opportunity for settlement

momentum and reassessment of pathway designa-

tion if complexities are eliminated. For the Colorado

Civil Access Pilot Project, the focus on early, active,

and ongoing judicial management of complex cases

was essential and received more positive feedback

than any other part of the project.

RE: 5.3

Cases in which the parties are held accountable for

completing necessary pretrial tasks tend to resolve

more quickly. The longer a case goes on, the more it

costs. Eective oversight and enforcement of dead-

lines by a vigilant civil case management team can

signicantly reduce cost and delay.

RE: 5.4

Once a discovery plan is determined, the court must

continue to monitor progress over the course of

discovery. Everyone involved in the litigation, and

particularly the court, has a continuing responsibili-

ty to move the case forward according to established

plans and proportionality principles. Litigation

expense in complex lawsuits, especially discovery

costs, easily can spin out of control absent a shep-

herding hand and guiding principles. Thus, propor-

tionality must be a guiding standard in discovery

and the entire pretrial process to ensure that the

case does not result in undue cost and delay.

While proportionality is a theme that runs across all

of the pathways, in the complex pathway this con-

cept is more surgical. Given the complexities inher-

ent in these cases, proportionality standards should

be applied to rein in time and expense while still

recognizing that some legal and evidentiary issues

require time to sort out.

Mandatory disclosures can also play a critical role in

identifying the issues in the litigation early, so that

additional discovery can be tailored and proportion-

al, although it is possible that the disclosures, like

some discovery, will need to occur in phases.

RE: 5.5

Courts should utilize informal processes, such as

conference calls with counsel, to encourage narrow-

ing of the issues and concise brieng that in turn

can promote more ecient and eective rulings

by the court.

RE: 5.6

Judges must lead the eort to avoid unnecessary

time consumption during trials. A robust pretrial

conference should address outstanding motions and

evidentiary issues so that the trial itself is con-

ducted as eciently as possible. The court and the

parties should consider agreeing to time limits for

RECOMMENDATiONS 25

trial segments. Once a trial begins, the trial judge

should give top priority to trial matters, making

presentation of evidence and juror time t into full

and consecutive days of business.

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 5

Nat’l Ctr. for State Courts, Dimensions of Com-

plexity, Civil Action, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter 2004).

Jordan Singer, Suolk Superior Court Business

Litigation Session Pilot Project: Final Report on

the 2012 Attorney Survey (2012).

Natalie Anne Knowlton & Richard P. Holme,

Inst. for Advancement of the Am. Legal Sys. &

Am. Coll. of Trial Lawyers, Working Smarter,

Not Harder: How Excellent Judges Manage

Cases (2014).

Corina D. Gerety & Logan Cornett, Inst. for the

Advancement of the Am. Legal Sys., Momentum

for Change: The Impact of the Colorado Civil

Access Pilot Project (2014).

To ensure proportionality for complex cases,

a single judge should be assigned for the life of

these cases. Judges can do much to prevent undue

cost and delay.

26 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

COMMENTARY

Like the other pathways, the goal of the General

Pathway is to determine and provide “right-sized”

resources for timely disposition. The General Path-

way provides the right amount of process for the

cases that are not simple, but also are not complex.

Thus, General Pathway cases are those cases that

are principally identied by what they are not, as

they do not t into either the Streamlined Pathway

or the Complex Pathway. Nevertheless, the Gen-

eral Pathway is not another route to “litigation as

we know it.” Like the streamlined cases, discovery

and motions for these cases can become dispropor-

tionate, with eorts to discover more than what is

needed to support claims and defenses. The goal for

this pathway is to provide right-sized process with

increased judicial involvement as needed to ensure

that cases progress toward ecient resolution.

As with the other case pathways, at an early point in

each case courts should set a rm trial date. Pro-

portional discovery, initial disclosures, and tailored

additional discovery are also essential for keeping

General Pathway cases on track.

RE: 6.1 to 6.3

The cases in the General Pathway may need more

active management than streamlined cases. A

judge may need to be involved from the beginning

to understand unusual issues in the case, discuss

the anticipated pretrial path, set initial parameters

for discovery, and be available to resolve disputes

as they arise. The court and the parties can then

work together to move these cases forward, with the

court having the ultimate responsibility to guard

against cost and delay.

A court’s consistent and clear application of pro-

portionality principles early in cases can have a

leavening aect on discovery decisions made in law

oces. Parties and attorneys typically make their

decisions about what discovery to do next with-

out court involvement. A steady court policy with

respect to proportionality provides deliberating par-

ties and attorneys with guidance.

RECOMMENDATiON 6

Courts should implement a General Pathway

for cases whose characteristics do not justify

assignment to either the Streamlined or

Complex Pathway.

6.1

At an early point in each case, the

court should establish deadlines for the

completion of key case stages including a

rm trial date. The recommended time to

disposition for the General Pathway is 12

to 18 months.

6.2

The judge should hold an early case

management conference upon request

of the parties. The court and the parties

must work together to move these cases

forward, with the court having the

ultimate responsibility to guard against

cost and delay.

6.3

Courts should require mandatory disclo-

sures and tailored additional discovery.

6.4

Courts should utilize expedited approaches

to resolving discovery disputes to ensure

cases in this pathway do not become more

complex than they need to be.

6.5

Courts should establish informal

communications with the parties

regarding dispositive motions and

possible settlement, so as to encourage

early identication and narrowing of the

issues for more eective brieng, timely

court rulings, and party agreement.

6.6

Judges must manage trials in an ecient

and time-sensitive manner so that trials

are an aordable option for litigants who

desire a decision on the merits.

RECOMMENDATiONS 27

STRATEGICALLY DEPLOY

COURT PERSONNEL AND

RESOURCES

RE: 6.4 to 6.5

As in the Complex Pathway, courts should utilize

informal processes, such as conference calls with

counsel, to encourage narrowing of the issues and

concise brieng that in turn can promote more

ecient and eective rulings by the court. In ad-

dition, an in-person case management conference

can play a critical role in reducing cost and delay by

aording the judge and parties the opportunity to

have an in-depth discussion regarding the issues

and case needs.

Without doubt, alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

is an important development in modern civil prac-

tice. However, to avoid it becoming an unnecessary

hurdle or cost escalator, its appropriateness should

be considered on a case-by-case basis. That said,

settlement discussions are a critical aspect of case

management, and the court should ensure that there

is a discussion of settlement at an appropriate time,

tailored to the needs of the case.

RE: 6.6

As with the other pathways, trial judges play a cru-

cial role in containing litigation costs and conserv-

ing juror time by making time management a high

priority once a trial begins.

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 6

Paula Hannaford-Agor & Cynthia G. Lee, Utah:

Impact of the Revisions to Rule 26 on Discovery

Practice in the Utah District Courts, Final

Report (2015).

Steven S. Gensler & Lee H. Rosenthal, The

Reappearing Judge, 61 U. Kan. L. Rev. 849 (2013).

RECOMMENDATiON 7

Courts should develop civil case management

teams consisting of a responsible judge

supported by appropriately trained sta.

7.1

Courts should conduct a thorough

examination of their civil case business

practices to determine the degree of

discretion required for each management

task. These tasks should be performed

by persons whose experience and skills

correspond with the task requirements.

7.2

Courts should delegate administrative

authority to specially trained sta to make

routine case management decisions.

COMMENTARY

Recommendation 1 sets forth the fundamental

premise that courts are primarily responsible for

the fair and prompt resolution of each case. This

is not the responsibility of the judge alone. Active

case management at its best is a team eort

aided by technology and appropriately trained

and supervised sta. The Committee rejects the

proposition that a judge must manage every aspect

of a case after its ling. Instead, the Committee

endorses the proposition that court personnel, from

court sta to judge, be utilized to act at the “top of

their skill set.”

Team case management works. Utah’s implemen-

tation of team case management resulted in a 54

percent reduction in the average age of pending civil

cases from 335 days to 192 days (and a 54 percent

reduction for all case types over that same period)

despite considerably higher caseloads. In Miami,

28 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 7

Lee Suskin & Daniel Hall, A Case Study:

Reengineering Utah’s Courts Through the Lens of

the Principles of Judicial Administration (2012).

Fulton County Superior Court, Business Court:

2014 Annual Report (2014).

team case management resulted in a 25 percent

increase in resolved foreclosure cases compared

consistently at six months, twelve months, and

eighteen months during the foreclosure crisis,

and the successful resolution of a 50,000 case

backlog. Specialized business courts across the

country use team case management with similar

success. In Atlanta, business court eorts resulted

in a 65 percent faster disposition time for complex

contract cases and a 56 percent faster time for

complex business tort cases.

RE : 7.1

Using court management teams eectively requires

that the court conduct a thorough examination

of civil case business practices to determine the

degree of discretion required for each. Based upon

that examination, courts can develop policies and

practices to identify case management responsibil-

ities appropriately assignable to professional court

sta or automated processes. Matching manage-

ment tasks to the skill level of the personnel allows

administrators to execute protocols and deadlines

and judges to focus on matters that require judi-

cial discretion. Evaluating what is needed and who

should do it brings organization to the system and

minimizes complexities and redundancies in court

structure and personnel.

RE : 7. 2

Delegation and automation of routine case manage-

ment responsibilities will generate time for judges to

make decisions that require their unique authority,

expertise, and discretion.

The fair and prompt

resolution of each case…

is not the responsibility

of the judge alone. Active

case management at

its best is a team eort

aided by technology and

appropriately trained

and supervised sta.

RECOMMENDATiONS 29

The fair and prompt

resolution of each case…

is not the responsibility

of the judge alone. Active

case management at

its best is a team eort

aided by technology and

appropriately trained

and supervised sta.

RECOMMENDATiON 8

For right-size case management to become the

norm, not the exception, courts must provide

judges and court sta with training that

specically supports and empowers right-sized

case management. Courts should partner with

bar leaders to create programs that educate

lawyers about the requirements of newly

instituted case management practices.

COMMENTARY

Judicial training is not a regular practice in every

jurisdiction. To improve, and in some instances

reengineer, civil case management, jurisdictions

should establish a comprehensive judicial train-

ing program. The Committee advocates a civil

case management-training program that includes

web-based training modules, regular training of

new judges and sitting judges, and a system for

identifying judges who could benet from addition-

al training.

Accumulated learning from the private sector

suggests that the skill sets required for sta

will change rapidly and radically over the next

several years. Sta training must keep up with

the impact of technology improvements and

consumer expectations. For example, court sta

should be trained to provide appropriate help to

self-represented litigants. Related to that, litigants

should be given an opportunity to perform many

court transactions online. Even with well-designed

websites and interfaces, users can become confused

or lost while trying to complete these transactions.

Sta training should include instruction on

answering user questions and solving user

process problems.

The understanding and cooperation of lawyers can

signicantly inuence the eectiveness of any pilot

projects, rule changes, or case management pro-

cesses that court leaders launch. Judges and court

administrators must partner with the bar to create

CLE programs and bench/bar conferences that help

practitioners understand why changes are being un-

dertaken and what will be expected of lawyers. Bar

organizations, like the judicial branch, must design

and oer education programs to inform their mem-

bers about important aspects of the new practices

being implemented in the courts.

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 8

Lee Suskin & Daniel Hall, A Case Study:

Reengineering Utah’s Courts Through the Lens of

the Principles of Judicial Administration (2012).

Report of the Iowa Civil Justice Reform

Task Force: Reforming the Iowa Civil Justice

System (2012).

30 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

KEY RESOURCE FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 9

Lee Suskin & Daniel Hall, A Case Study:

Reengineering Utah’s Courts Through the Lens of

the Principles of Judicial Administration (2012).

FACTORS TO CONSiDER

iN JUDiCiAL ASSiGNMENT

CRiTERiA

• Demonstrated case management skills

• Civil case litigation experience

• Previous civil litigation training

• Specialized knowledge

• Interest in civil litigation

• Reputation with respect to neutrality

• Professional standing with the trial bar

RECOMMENDATiON 9

Courts should establish judicial assignment

criteria that are objective, transparent, and

mindful of a judge’s experience in eective case

management.

COMMENTARY

The Committee recognizes the variety of legal

cultures and customs that exist across the breadth

of our country. Given the case management imper-

atives described in these Recommendations, the

Committee trusts that all court leaders will make

judicial competence a high priority. Court leaders

should consider a judge’s particular skill sets when

assigning judges to preside over civil cases. For

many years, in most jurisdictions, the sole criterion

for judicial assignment was seniority and a judge’s

request for an assignment. The judge’s experience or

training were not top priorities.

To build public trust in the courts and improve

case management eectiveness, it is incumbent

upon court leaders to avoid politicization of the

assignment process. In assigning judges to various

civil case dockets, court leaders should consider

a composite of factors including (1) demonstrated

case management skills, (2) litigation experience,

(3) previous training, (4) specialized knowledge, (5)

interest, (6) reputation with respect to neutrality,

and (6) professional standing within the trial bar.

RECOMMENDATiONS 31

COMMENTARY

This recommendation is fundamental to achieving

eective case management. To implement right-

sized case management, courts must have rened

capacities to organize case data, notify interested

persons of requirements and events, monitor rules

compliance, expand litigant understanding, and

prompt judges to take necessary actions. To meet

these urgent needs, courts must fully employ

information technologies to manage data and

business processes. It is time for courts to catch

up with the private sector. The expanding use of

USE TECHNOLOGY

WISELY

RECOMMENDATiON 10

Courts must take full advantage of technology

to implement right-sized case management and

achieve useful litigant-court interaction.

10.1

Courts must use technology to support

a court-wide, teamwork approach to

case management.

10.2

Courts must use technology to establish

business processes that ensure forward

momentum of civil cases.

10.3

To measure progress in reducing

unnecessary cost and delay, courts must

regularly collect and use standardized,

real-time information about civil

case management.

10.4

Courts should use information technology

to inventory and analyze their existing

civil dockets.

10.5

Courts should publish measurement data

as a way to increase transparency and

accountability, thereby encouraging trust

and condence in the courts.

online case ling and electronic case management

is an important beginning, but just a beginning.

Enterprises as diverse as commercial air carriers,

online retailers, and motor vehicle registrars

have demonstrated ways to manage hundreds of

thousands of transactions and communications.

What stands in the way of courts following suit?

If it involves lack of leadership, the Committee

trusts that this Report and these Recommen-

dations will embolden chief justices and state court

administrators to ll that void.

RE : 10.1

Modern data management systems and court-

oriented innovations, such as e-ling, e-scheduling,

e-service, and e-courtesy, provide opportunities for

personnel coordination not only within courthouses

but also across entire jurisdictions.

RE: 10.2

To move cases eciently towards resolution, case

management automation should, at a minimum, (1)

generate deadlines for case action based on court

rules, (2) alert judges and court sta to missed dead-

lines, (3) provide digital data and searchable options

for scheduled events, and (4) trigger appropriate

compliance orders. Courts should seek to upgrade

their current software to achieve that functionality

and include those requirements when they acquire

new software.

RE: 10.3

Experience and research tell us that one cannot

manage what is unknown. Smart data collection is

central to the eective administration of justice and

can signicantly improve decision making.

Although court administrators appreciate the

importance of recordkeeping and performance

measurement, few judges routinely collect or use

data measurements or analytical reports. As made

clear in previous Recommendations, the entire

court system acting as a team must collect and

use data to improve civil caseow management

32 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

representative picture of civil caseloads nationally,

each court system should gain a rm understanding

of its current civil case landscape. Using technology

for this purpose will increase the ability of courts to

take an active, even a proactive, approach to mana-

ging for eciency and eectiveness.

An inventory should not be a one-time eort.

Courts can regularly use inventories to gauge the

eectiveness of previous management eorts and

“get ahead” of upcoming caseload trends.

RE: 10.5

The NCSC and the Justice at Stake consortium

commissioned a national opinion survey to iden-

tify what citizens around the country think about

courts and court funding. The ultimate purpose of

the project, entitled Funding Justice: Strategies and

Messages for Restoring Court Funding, was to create a

messaging guide to help court leaders craft more

eective communications to state policymakers and

the general public about the functions and resource

needs of courts. Citizen focus groups indicated that

certain narratives tend to generate more positive

public attitudes to courts. These include (1) courts

are eective stewards of resources, (2) the courts’

core mission is delivery of fair and timely justice,

and (3) courts are transparent about how their

funding is spent. In light of these ndings, the

Committee believes that smart civil case manage-

ment, demonstrated by published caseow data,

can lead to increased public trust in the courts.

and reduce unnecessary costs and delay. This can

be accomplished by enlisting court system actors

at dierent levels and positions in developing

the measurement program, by communicating

the purpose and importance of the information

to all court sta, and by appointing a responsible

oversight ocer to ensure accuracy and consistency.

Courts must systematically collect data on two types

of measures. The rst is descriptive information

about the court’s cases, processes, and people. The

second is court performance information, dictated

by dened goals and desired outcomes.

To promote comparability and analytical capacity,

courts must use standardized performance mea-

sures, such as CourTools, as the presumptive mea-

sures, departing from them only where there is

good reason to do so. Consistency—in terms of what

data are collected, how they are collected, and when

they are collected—is essential for obtaining valid

measures upon which the court and its stakehold-

ers can rely.

RE: 10.4

As mentioned above, one cannot manage what is

unknown. This is true at both the macro the micro

levels. A “30,000 foot” view allows court personnel

to consider the reality of their caseload when

making management decisions. As the Landscape

of Civil Litigation provided the CJI Committee a

KEY FUNCTiONS OF CASE

MANAGEMENT AUTOMATiON

• Generate deadlines for case action based

on court rules

• Alert judges and court sta to

missed deadlines

• Provide digital data and searchable options

for scheduled events

• Trigger appropriate compliance orders

RECOMMENDATiONS 33

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 10

John Matthias & Larry Webster, Business Process

Case Automation Studies (2013).

James Cabral et al., Using Technology to Enhance

Access to Justice, 26 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 241 (2012).

Lee Suskin & Daniel Hall, A Case Study:

Reengineering Utah’s Courts Through the Lens of

the Principles of Judicial Administration (2012).

Dan Becker, Reengineering: Utah’s Experience

in Centralized Transcript Management, Future

Trends (2012).

Nat’l Center for St. Cts., Why Measure

Performance? (2005).

Danielle Fox, Hisashi Yamagata & Pamela Harris,

From Performance Measurement to Performance

Management: Lessons From a Maryland Circuit

Court, 35 Just. Sys. J. 87 (2014).

John Greacen, Backlog Performance

Measurement–A Success Story in New Jersey, 46

Judges J. (2007).

Nat’l Center for St. Cts. & Just. at Stake, Funding

Justice: Strategies and Messages for Restoring

Court Funding (2013).

COMMENTARY

State court caseloads are dominated by lower-value

contract and small claims cases rather than high-

value commercial or tort cases. Many courts assign

these cases to specialized court calendars such as

landlord/tenant, consumer debt collection, mortgage

FOCUS ATTENTION ON

HIGH-VOLUME AND

UNCONTESTED CASES

RECOMMENDATiON 11

Courts must devote special attention to

high-volume civil dockets that are typically

composed of cases involving consumer debt,

landlord-tenant, and other contract claims.

11.1

Courts must implement systems to ensure

that the entry of nal judgments complies

with basic procedural requirements

for notice, standing, timeliness, and

suciency of documentation supporting

the relief sought.

11.2

Courts must ensure that litigants have

access to accurate and understandable

information about court processes and

appropriate tools such as standardized

court forms and checklists for pleadings

and discovery requests.

11.3 Courts should ensure that the courtroom

environment for proceedings on high-

volume dockets minimizes the risk that

litigants will be confused or distracted

by over-crowding, excessive noise, or

inadequate case calls.

11.4 Courts should, to the extent feasible,

prevent opportunities for self-represented

persons to become confused about the

roles of the court and opposing counsel.

34 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

RE : 11.3

Courts often employ block calendaring on high-

volume dockets in which large numbers of cases

are scheduled for the same period of time. The

result is often overcrowded, noisy, and potentially

chaotic environments in which litigants may not

hear their case when it is called or may become

distracted by competing activities in the courtroom.

Frequently, courts sequence cases after the initial

call to benet attorneys, resulting in long wait times

for self-represented litigants. The use of electronic

sign-in systems can help ensure that litigants are

not mistakenly overlooked and that their cases are

heard in a timely manner.

RE : 11.4

Self-represented litigants often lack understanding

about the respective roles of the court and opposing

counsel. They may acquiesce to opposing counsel

demands because they mistakenly assume that

the opposing counsel is connected to the court.

As a result, judges may not obtain complete

information from both sides to ensure a legally

correct judgment on the facts and the law. Self-

represented litigants also may not appreciate the

far-reaching implications of agreeing to settle a

case (e.g., dismissal, entry of judgment). To curb

misunderstandings, courts should provide clear

physical separation of counsel from court personnel

and services, and standardized guidelines to all

litigants and counsel concerning how settlement

negotiations are conducted and the consequences

of settlement. Before accepting settlements, judges

should ascertain that both parties understand the

agreement and its implications.

foreclosure, and small claims dockets. Many of

these cases exhibit similar characteristics. For

example, few cases are adjudicated on the merits,

and almost all of those are bench trials. Although

plaintis are generally represented by attorneys,

defendants in these cases are overwhelmingly

self-represented, creating an asymmetry in legal

expertise that, without eective court oversight, can

easily result in unjust case outcomes. Although most

cases would be assigned to the Streamlined Pathway

under these Recommendations, courts should

attend to signs that suggest a case might benet

from additional court involvement. Indicators can

include the raising of novel claims or defenses that

merit closer scrutiny.

RE : 11.1

Recent federal investigations and agency studies

have found widespread instances of judgments

entered in cases in which the defendant did not

receive notice of the complaint or the plainti failed

to demonstrate standing to bring suit or adequate

documentation of compliance with statutory re-

quirements for timeliness or the basis for the relief

sought. Courts have an obligation to implement

practices that prevent such abuse.

RE : 11.2

This recommendation complements Recommenda-

tion 13 with respect to making court services more

accessible to litigants. Self-represented litigants

need access to accurate information about court

processes, including trained court sta that can

help them navigate the civil justice system. This

information should be available electronically or in

person at the courthouse, and at other sites where

litigants can receive free assistance. Standardized

forms should use plain English and include check-

o lists for basic claim elements, potential common

defenses, and the ability to assert counter-claims.

RECOMMENDATiONS 35

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 11

Federal Trade Commission, Repairing a Broken

System: Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection

Litigation (2010).

Mary Spector, Defaults and Details Exploring

the Impact of Debt Collection Litigation

on Consumers and Courts, 6 Va. L. & Bus.

Rev. 257 (2011).

Paris R. Baldacci, Assuring Access to Justice:

The Role of the Judge in Assisting Pro Se

Litigation in Litigating Their Cases in New York

City’s Housing Court, 3 Cardozo Pub. Pol’y &

Ethics J. 659 (2006).

New York County Law. Ass’n., The New York City

Housing Court in the 21st Century: Can It Better

Address the Problems Before It? (2005).

Russell Engler, Out of Sight and Out of Line:

The Need for Regulation of Lawyers’ Negotiation

with Self-represented Poor Persons, 85 Cal. L.

Rev. 79 (1997).

RECOMMENDATiON 12

Courts must manage uncontested cases to

assure steady, timely progress toward resolution.

12.1

To prevent uncontested cases from

languishing on the docket, courts should

monitor case activity and identify

uncontested cases in a timely manner.

Once uncontested status is conrmed,

courts should prompt plaintis to move

for dismissal or nal judgment.

12.2 Final judgments must meet the same

standards for due process and proof as

contested cases.

COMMENTARY

Uncontested cases comprise a substantial proportion

of civil caseloads. In the Landscape of Civil Litigation

in State Courts, the NCSC was able to conrm

that default judgments comprised 20 percent of

dispositions, and an additional 35 percent of cases

were dismissed without prejudice. Many of these

cases were abandoned by the plainti, or the parties

reached a settlement but failed to notify the court.

Other studies of civil caseloads also suggest that

uncontested cases comprise a substantial portion

of civil cases (e.g., 45 percent of civil cases subject

to the New Hampshire Proportional Discovery/

Automatic Disclosure (PAD) Rules, 84 percent of civil

cases subject to Utah Rule 26). Without eective

oversight, these cases can languish on court dockets

indenitely. For example, more than one-quarter

of the Landscape cases that were dismissed without

prejudice were pending at least 18 months before

they were dismissed.

RE 12.1

To resolve uncontested matters promptly yet fairly

requires focused court action. Case management

systems should be congured to identify uncon-

36 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

tested cases shortly after the deadline for ling an

answer or appearance has elapsed. If the plainti

fails to le a timely motion for default or summary

judgment, the court should order the plainti to le

such a motion within a specied period of time. If

such a motion is not led, the court should dismiss

the case for lack of prosecution. The court should

monitor compliance with the order and carry out

enforcement as needed.

RE 12.2

Recent studies of consumer debt collection, mort-

gage foreclosure, and other cases that are frequent-

ly managed on high-volume dockets found that

judgments entered in uncontested cases were often

invalid. In many instances, the plainti failed to

provide sucient notice of the suit to the defendant.

Other investigations found that plaintis could not

prove ownership of the debt or provide accurate

information about the amount owed. To prevent

abuses, courts should implement rules to require or

incentivize process servers to use smart technol-

ogy to document service location and time. Courts

should also require plaintis to provide an adavit

and supporting documentation of the legitimacy of

the claim with the motion for default or summary

judgment. Before issuing a nal judgment, the court

should review those materials to ensure that the

plainti is entitled to the relief sought.

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 12

Fed. Trade Commission, Repairing a Broken

System: Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection

Litigation (2010).

Mary Spector, Defaults and Details Exploring

the Impact of Debt Collection Litigation

on Consumers and Courts, 6 Va. L. & Bus.

Rev. 257 (2011).

Press Release, The Oce [Minnesota] Attorney

General Lori Swanson, Attorney General

Swanson Sues Legal Process Server for Engaging

in “Sewer Service” (Nov. 6, 2014).

Press Release, Attorney General Cuomo

Announces Arrest of Long Island Business Owner

for Denying Thousands of New Yorkers Their Day

in Court (Apr. 14, 2009).

Press Release, New York State Unied Court

System, Chief Judge Announces Comprehensive

Reforms to Promote Equal Justice for New York

Consumers in Debt Cases (April 30, 2014).

Fairfax County [Virginia] General District,

Court Best Practices: Default Judgments/Debt

Buyers (2009).

RECOMMENDATiONS 37

PROVIDE SUPERIOR

ACCESS FOR LITIGANTS

RECOMMENDATiON 13

Courts must take all necessary steps to increase

convenience to litigants by simplifying the

court-litigant interface and creating on-demand

court assistance services.

13.1 Courts must simplify court-litigant

interfaces and screen out unnecessary

technical complexities to the greatest

extent possible.

13.2 Courts should establish Internet portals

and stand-alone kiosks to facilitate litigant

access to court services.

13.3 Courts should provide real-time assistance

for navigating the litigation process.

13.4 Judges should promote the use of remote

audio and video services for case hearings

and case management meetings.

COMMENTARY

The importance of “access to substantive justice”

is inherent in the mission of the CJI Committee and

underpins all of these Recommendations. Recom-

mendation 13 addresses “access” in terms of making

the civil justice system less expensive and more

convenient to the public.

To mitigate access problems, we must know what

they are. We also need to know how the public wants

us to x them. A national poll by NCSC in 2014 found

that a high percentage of responders thought courts

were not doing enough to help self-represented

litigants, were out of touch, and were not using

technology eectively. Responders frequently cited

the time required to interact with the courts, lack

of available ADR, and apprehensiveness in dealing

with court processes. The poll found strong sup-

port for a wide array of online services, including a

capacity for citizens to ask questions online about

court processes.

RE: 13.1

Courts should simplify court forms and develop

online “intelligent forms” that enable litigants to

create pleadings and other documents in a manner

that resembles a Turbo Tax interactive dialogue.

Forms should be available in languages commonly

spoken in the jurisdiction. Processes associated with

the forms (attaching documents, making payments,

etc.) should be simplied as much as possible.

RE: 13.2

To improve citizen understanding of court services,

courts should install information stations inside and

outside of courthouses as well as online. To expand

the availability of important court information,

courts might partner with private enterprises and

public service providers, such as libraries and senior

centers, to install interactive, web-based, court

business portals at the host locations.

RE: 13.3

Courts should create online, real-time court assis-

tance services, such as online chat services, and

800-number help lines. Litigant assistance should

also include clear signage at court facilities to guide

litigants to any on-site navigator personnel. Online

resolution programs also oer opportunities for

remote and real-time case resolution.

RE: 13.4

Vast numbers of self-represented litigants navigate

the civil justice system every year. However, travel

costs and work absences associated with attending

a court hearing can deter self-represented litigants

from eectively pursuing or defending their legal

rights. The use of remote hearings has the potential

to increase access to justice for low-income individ-

uals who have to miss work to be at the courthouse

on every court date. Audio or videoconferencing

KEY RESOURCES FOR

RECOMMENDATiON 13

Tom Clarke, Building a Litigant Portal: Business

and Technical Requirements (2015).

Legal Services Corporation, Report of the Summit

on the Use of Technology to Expand Access to

Justice (2013).

James Cabral et al., Using Technology to Enhance

Access to Justice, 26 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 241 (2012).

World Bank Index, Doing Business 2015: Going

Beyond Eciency (2015).

United Kingdom Civil Justice Council, Online

Dispute Resolution for Low Value Civil

Claims (2015).

Oregon Judicial Department, 2011-2014 Oregon

Judicial Branch: A Four-Year Report (2014).

Administrative Conference of the United States,

Handbook on Best Practices for Using Video Tele-

conferencing in Adjudicatory Hearings (2015).

can mitigate these obstacles, oering signicant

cost savings for litigants and generally resulting in

increased access to justice through courts that “ex-

tend beyond courthouse walls.”

The growing prevalence of smart phones enables

participants to join audio or videoconferences from

any location. To the extent possible and appropriate,

courts should expand the use of telephone commu-

nication for civil case conferences, appearances, and

other straightforward case events.

If a hearing or case event presents a variety of com-

plexities, remote communication capacities should

expand to accommodate those circumstances. In

such instances video conferencing may be more

tting than telephone conferencing. The visual

component may facilitate reference to documents

and items under discussion, foster more natural

conversation among the participants, and enable the

court to “read” unspoken messages. For example

the video may reveal that a litigant is confused or

that a party would like an opportunity to talk but is

having trouble getting into the conversation.

CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

BENCH AND BAR LEADERS HOLD THE KEY 39

Bench and Bar Leaders

Hold the Key

This Report makes clear that state courts cannot simply use comfort-

able old methods to administer justice in the millions of civil cases

now pending. These Recommendations tell state courts “what” they

must do to address the challenges they face now. While many of the

Recommendations to reduce delay and improve access to justice can be

implemented within existing budgets and under current rules of pro-

cedure, others will require steadfast, strong leadership to achieve these

goals. The next step is to develop a strategy for “how” court leaders

can overcome barriers to needed changes and actually deliver better

civil justice.

A key to implementing these Recommendations is to persuade civil

justice actors that there is a problem and it belongs to all of us. As Chief

Justice Roberts stated in his most recent year-end report on the federal

judiciary, it is “the obligation of judges and lawyers to work coopera-

tively in controlling the expense and time demands of litigation.” The

Committee is condent that when a critical mass of judges and lawyers

honestly confront the unvarnished facts about the civil justice system,

bench and bar members will be moved to become problem solvers.

We know that successful problem solving is preceded by careful prob-

lem denition. The CJI Committee began its work with a comprehensive

empirical study of the current state of civil litigation across the coun-

try. The national snapshot of civil litigation undertaken in the NCSC’s

Landscape of Civil Litigation provides a model for problem identication,

big-picture visioning, and strategic planning by state and local courts.

The Committee urges state courts to undertake their own landscape

study. Such a study will not only enable court leaders to diagnose

the volume and characteristics of civil case dockets across the state,

but will also help identify major barriers to reducing cost, delay, and

ineciency in civil litigation. Leaders can then sequence and execute

strategies to surmount those barriers.

“We like comfortable old shoes

out of style and worn through

as they may be and dread

having a new pair…. None of us

like to learn new ways of doing

things (but) the convulsive

change in society confronts

our profession with the urgent

challenge to get our house in

order if we are to renew the

public’s condence in the

American Justice system

that safeguards and protects

individual rights and liberties.”

— Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Improving the Administration of

Justice Today, address to the

Section of Judicial Administration,

American Bar Association, 1958.

40 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

series of recommendations to make courts aord-

able and accessible. The principles of proportional-

ity and cooperation infuse the recommendations.

Signicantly, the report closes by saying, “The Task

Force urges the Board [of Governors] not only to

adopt these recommendations, but to help educate

the judges and lawyers who will be responsible for

making the recommendations a reality.”

In addition to state and local bar associations,

national organizations have a role in promoting

the recommendations contained here. For exam-

ple, during the years spent producing this Report,

several respected lawyer groups provided signicant

input to CJI Committee members and sta. These

include the American Board of Trial Advocates,

the American Civil Trial Roundtable, the American

College of Trial Lawyers, the National Creditors Bar

Association, IAALS Advisory Groups, the Association

of General Counsel, and the NCSC’s General Counsel

Committee, Lawyers’ Committee, and Young Law-

yers’ Committee. Some of these groups have state

counterparts that can collaborate with court leaders

to implement recommendations that t their state

or locality. Those alliances can also lead to focus

groups that educate key constituencies about the

state’s civil justice needs, and the demonstrated ef-

fectiveness of the recommendations collected here.

Advocates for any recommendations can use the

ndings, proposals, and evidence-based resources

in this report to build trust among legislators, exec-

utive branch leaders, and the general public.

Since the civil justice system serves large segments

of society, these Recommendations have constit-

uencies beyond the legal community. Households,

businesses, civic institutions, vendors, and con-

sumers are key stakeholders. Thought leaders and

respected voices within those larger communities

must be educated about the Recommendations and

encouraged to join our call to action.

COURT STRATEGIES

Initially, the Committee urges court leaders to build

internal support for change. This advice derives

from the experience of the Committee during its

two years of work. Thanks to the Landscape of Civil

Litigation, this diverse group of judges, court man-

agers, trial practitioners, and organization leaders

started their work with an accurate picture of the

civil litigation system. Simultaneously, from across

the country, we collected a sampling of best prac-

tices that demonstrate smart case management and

superior citizen access to justice. We then closely

analyzed and discussed the data over the course of

several in-person, plenary meetings and innumer-

able conference calls and email exchanges. What

resulted? Unanimous and enthusiastic support for

major civil justice improvements. And, for each par-

ticipant, there arose intense convictions: The quality

and vitality of the civil justice system is severely

threatened. Now is the time for strong leadership by

all chief justices and court administrators.

Behind this report, there stands a fundamental

tenet: frontline judges and administrators must

have the opportunity to ponder facts about the civil

justice system in their state and strategize about the

recommendations here. Once that opportunity and

those deliberations occur, a wellspring of support

for civil justice improvement will take shape with-

in the judiciary. With a supportive judicial branch,

tough issues will not only be faced and courthouse

improvements undertaken, a unied judiciary will

also facilitate external stakeholder participation.

STAKEHOLDER

STRATEGIES

As the Chief Justice suggested, court improvement

eorts must involve the bar. The Washington State

Bar provides a prime example of lawyers, sobered

by evidence of growing civil litigation costs, taking

bold actions to improve the fair resolution of cases.

After four years of labor, the Bar’s Task Force on the

Escalating Costs of Civil Litigation last year issued a

FUTURE ASSISTANCE

Recognizing that organizational change is a process,

not an event, the NCSC and IAALS will collaborate

to assist court leaders who want to implement civil

justice change. They are taking steps to help move

the Recommendations into action. During the

planned implementation phase, they hope to:

• Develop a directory of experts (judges,

administrators, lawyers, and national experts)

with proven experience in successfully

implementing change in the

civil justice system.

• Provide technical assistance to jurisdictions

wishing to adopt any CJI recommendations.

• Create an Implementation Roadmap for court

leaders to use in developing a strategy for

implementing civil justice improvements.

• Launch an online “community” for users to

communicate with experienced court leaders

who have successfully implemented change.

• Maintain a directory of successful projects for

court leaders to use in initiating change.

• Identify technologies that support civil

justice improvement and work with the

court technology industry to develop

new applications to support civil justice

improvement.

• Continue to evaluate and document eorts to

improve the civil justice system.

• Identify and coordinate with other national

groups committed to improving ecient and

accessible civil justice.

KEY RESOURCES FOR

TAKING NEXT STEPS

Brittany K.T. Kauman, Change the Culture,

Change the System: Top Ten Cultural Shifts

Needed to Create the Courts of Tomorrow (2015).

Brian Ostrom, Roger Hanson & Kevin Burke,

Becoming a High Performance Court, 26(4)

Court Manager 35-43.

Eric T. Washington & Lisa R. VanDeVeer,

Court Governance—The Critical Role of Strategic

Management (2013).

Mary McQueen, Governance: The Final Frontier,

Harvard Executive Session for Court Leaders in

the 21st Century (2013).

John P. Kotter, Leading Change—

Why Transformation Eorts Fail, Harv.

Bus. Rev. (Jan. 2007).

Nat’l Center for St. Cts. & Just. at Stake, Funding

Justice: Strategies and Messages for Restoring

Court Funding (2013).

BENCH AND BAR LEADERS HOLD THE KEY 41

42 CALL TO ACTiON: ACHiEviNG CiviL JUSTiCE FOR ALL

APPENDiCES & NOTES 43

NOTES

1. These values varied somewhat based on case

type; three-quarters of real property judgments,

for example, were less than $106,000 and three-

quarters of torts were less than $12,200.

2. Based on the Landscape of Civil Litigation in State

Courts, NCSC sta estimate that 85 percent or

more of civil cases could be more eectively

managed using streamlined or simplied

procedures. Complex cases, in contrast,

generally consisted of no more than 3 percent

of civil caseloads.

3. Paula Hannaford-Agor & Cynthia G. Lee, Utah:

Impact of the Revisions to Rule 26 on the Discovery

Practice in the Utah District Courts 9 (April 2015).

4. Id. at 24-25, 36-38,53-56; Paula Hannaford-Agor

et al., New Hampshire: Impact of the Proportional

Discovery/Automatic Disclosure (PAD) Pilot Rules 17-

18 (Aug. 19, 2013); Peggy E. Bruggman, Reducing

the Costs of Civil Litigation: Discovery Reform 29-46

5. Hannaford-Agor & Lee, supra note 3, at 14-21.

6. Hannah E. M. Lieberman, Linda Sandstrom

Simard & Ed Marks, Problems and Recommenda-

tions for High Volume Dockets: A Report of the High

Volume Case Subcommittee to the CCJ Civil Justice

Improvements Committee (2016).

7. Rule 1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8. Task Force on the Escalating Costs of Civil Litigation,

Final Report to the Board of Governors 45 (June 15,

2015) (emphasis added).

APPENDICES

Over the course of its deliberations, the CJI

Committee developed a number of working papers

and internal discussion briefs, which provide

further background and context in support of the

Recommendations. These materials and other

resources are available as appendices to this report

at: ncsc.org/civil.

Appendix A: A Day in the Life of a Judge:

Descriptions of Judicial Tasks under each Pathway

Appendix B: NCSC Business Rules Visualization Tool

Appendix C: The Pathway Approach: Draft Rules

and Example Rules from Around the Country

Appendix D: Pilot Projects, Rule Changes, and Other

Innovations in State Courts Around the Country

Appendix E: Best Practices for Courts and Parties

Regarding Electronic Discovery in State Courts

Appendix F: The Role of Proportionality in Reducing

the Cost of Civil Litigation

Appendix G: Remote Conferencing—Findings and

Recommendations

Appendix H: Judicial Assignment Criteria for

Pathway Dockets

Appendix I: Problems and Recommendations for

High-Volume Dockets

Appendix J: Best Practices for Trial Management

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CJi COMMiTTEE STAFF

Judge Gregory E. Mize

(Committee Reporter)

Judicial Fellow

National Center for State Courts

Paula Hannaford-Agor, JD

Director, Center for Juries Studies

National Center for State Courts

Scott E. Graves, PhD

Court Research Associate

National Center for State Courts

Shelley Spacek Miller, JD

Research Analyst

National Center for State Courts

Corina Gerety, JD

Director of Research

IAALS

Brittany Kauman, JD

Director, Rule One Initiative

IAALS

FUTURE ASSISTANCE

The NCSC and IAALS are committed to assisting

court leaders in implementing the Recommenda-

tions in this report. For more information, please

visit ncsc.org/civil.

DISCLAIMER

This project was supported by a grant from the

State Justice Institute (SJI-13-P-201). Points of view

or opinions in this document are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reect the ocial

position or policies of the State Justice Institute,

the Conference of Chief Justices, the National

Center for State Courts, or IAALS.Cover photo by Rae Allen

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23185

ncsc.org/civil