on Facebook
on Twitter
on YouTube
Administration of Justice
"Just, speedy, and inexpensive": How well do the courts meet these standards? The ICJ researches ways that court management can be improved
Real numbers and plain talk about the courts' workload and judicial management have long been specialties of the ICJ. During its first decade, the ICJ conducted studies of the reasons for pre-trial delay, the public costs of operating our courts, and the pace of litigation. Subsequent work focused on developing recommendations for reform in specific court systems and on particular aspects of the adjudicatory process such as court-ordered arbitration and settlement conferences.
This early work led to one of the ICJ's largest and most influential projects: an examination of the court management strategies mandated by the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990. Carrying out the charge of the U.S. Congress, staff members examined the details of more than 12,000 cases, conducted interviews with court administrators, judges, and local litigators in 20 courts, and documented how Federal District Court judges use their time to see if the new reforms were working. Ultimately, the research found that the Act's provisions did little to reduce delay or control costs, and as a result many of its provisions were allowed to "sunset" in 1999 after the ICJ's four studies were published. In addition to answering to the stated research question, the ICJ's work provided policymakers with first-time-ever empirical measures of what case management procedure can and cannot accomplish and suggested a package of techniques that could, if effectively implemented, improve the efficiency of the nation's courts.
Today, the ICJ continues to study the challenges and problems of civil court systems in its recent study of the workers' compensation courts in California, and its continuing work in alternative dispute resolution and electronic court filing systems across the country.
Featured Publications
Improving Dispute Resolution for California's Injured Workers: Executive Summary 2003
Nicholas M. Pace, Robert T. Reville, Lionel Galway, Amanda B. Geller, Orla Hayden, Laural A. Hill, Christopher Mardesich, Frank W. Neuhauser, Suzanne Polich, Jane Yeom, and Laura Zakaras
For more than two decades, the California workers' compensation courts have been criticized for being slow, expensive, and procedurally inconsistent. In response to these concerns, the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation engaged the RAND Institute for Civil Justice to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the courts. The research team found that the courts' problems stem largely from severe understaffing, the failure to upgrade their management information system, and a lack of clear guidance and coordination in the governing rules and procedures.
Related documents:
- Improving Dispute Resolution for California's Injured Workers (Full Document)
- News release
Do We Need an Empirical Research Centers on Judicial Independence? 1999
Deborah R. Hensler
Discusses the need for research on judicial independence for the purpose of learning about the nature of attacks upon independence, evaluating the methods by which judges attain appointment, and, most importantly, understanding the public's attitude and knowledge regarding courts.
Discovery Management: Further Analysis of the Civil Justice Reform Act Evaluation Data 1998
James S. Kakalik, Deborah R. Hensler, Daniel McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro, Nicholas M. Pace, Mary E. Vaiana
Related publications:
- "Analyzing Discovery Management Policies: RAND Sheds New Light on the Civil Justice Reform Act Evaluation Data," RP-714 (2000, 6 pp.) (Ordering Information)
An Evaluation of Judicial Case Management under the Civil Justice Reform Act 1996
James S. Kakalik, Terence Dunworth, Laurel Hill, Daniel McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro, Nicholas M. Pace, Mary E. Vaiana
This report describes the effects of the CJRA case management principles on time to disposition, costs, and participants' satisfaction and views of fairness. The study found that the CJRA's package of case management policies, as implemented, had little effect on any of these outcomes. However, what judges do to manage cases does matter. A package of procedures containing early judicial management, early setting of a trial date, and shorter time to discovery cutoff could reduce time to disposition by 30 percent, with no change in litigation costs, satisfaction, or perceived fairness.
Related publications:
- Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive? An Evaluation of Judicial Case Management under the Civil Justice Reform Act, 1996 (Full Document)
- Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive? An Evaluation of Judicial Case Management under the Civil Justice Reform Act: Summary. Originally published in Dispute Resolution, Systems in Transition, The 1997 Isaac Publado Lectures, 1997. (Ordering Information)
- Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive? An Evaluation of Judicial Case Management Under the CJRA 1996 (Research Brief)
- Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive? Originally published in Judicature, v. 80, no. 4, January-February 1997. RP-635 (Ordering Information)
Implementation of the Civil Justice Reform Act in Pilot and Comparison Districts 1996
James S. Kakalik, Terence Dunworth, Laurel Hill, Daniel McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro, Nicholas M. Pace, Mary E. Vaiana
This report traces the stages in the CJRA implementation: the recommendations of the advisory groups, the plans adopted by the districts, and the plans actually implemented. The study found that all pilot districts complied with the statutory language of the act. But the amount of change varied widely, and in some districts, planned changes were not fully implemented. However, implementing the pilot plans may have heightened the consciousness of judges and lawyers and brought about some important implicit shifts in their approach to case management.
An Evaluation of Mediation and Early Neutral Evaluation under the Civil Justice Reform Act 1996
James S. Kakalik, Terence Dunworth, Laurel Hill, Daniel McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro, Nicholas M. Pace, Mary E. Vaiana
This report describes an assessment of the effects of six different alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs that included mediation and early neutral evaluation. The study found that, once litigation had begun, referral to ADR was not a panacea, nor was it detrimental. Neither time nor costs nor lawyer views of satisfaction or fairness changed significantly as a result of referral to any of these programs; however, lawyers and litigants who participated in the programs liked them. The only statistically significant finding was that cases referred to ADR were more likely to have a monetary outcome.
Preliminary Observations on Implementation of the Pilot Program of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 1994
Terence Dunworth and James S. Kakalik
Case-management procedures vary greatly among the various district courts, and one result of the CJRA pilot program has been to increase this variation. Some districts have moved aggressively to implement the policies of the pilot program, while others remain more cautious. However, the authors note that even in those districts whose explicit policies have changed the least under the pilot program, the implementation process has heightened the sensitivity of lawyers, judges, and clerks to the problems of litigation costs and delay.
Related Publication:
- Evaluating the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990. 1995 (Research Brief)
More Resources
Full list of related ICJ publications
Search for more RAND publications
Research links to other Web sites
Top