The groups' mandate was to assess the condition of the civil and criminal dockets, identify the principal causes of delay and excess cost, and make recommendations, which the court was free to accept or reject, for dealing with these problems. The advisory groups were also to monitor the implementation of the plan and provide input to an annual reassessment for each district.
The act calls for a "balanced" composition of the advisory group, to include not only attorneys but also other persons who can speak for major categories of litigants. That balance was met for the vast majority of the advisory groups as far as lawyers are concerned. "Other persons" were minimally represented. Limited by their lack of familiarity with the federal district court system, lay people usually played only a very modest role in meetings of the advisory groups.
In general, the advisory groups approached their mission with dedication and conscientiousness. They analyzed the data that courts already had regarding time to disposition, but they had little information on litigation costs with which to work. Many groups supplemented court data with interviews of judges and court clerks and with surveys of attorneys and, occasionally, litigants. The advisory groups' final reports reflected considerable independence from the courts. Most courts incorporated most of their advisory group's recommendations into their plans.
Our interviews and the available documents suggest that the quality of the required annual reassessments varies markedly from district to district. Although the act does not require a written assessment, seven of the 20 districts in this study have done written reassessments at least twice. Six of the 20 districts had no written documentation of the results of any annual assessment when we inquired in January 1996.
Our interviews indicate that generating the reports and plans required by the act have made district courts more cognizant of case management problems and opportunities. Bench-bar understanding reportedly has also been improved. That benefit alone probably justifies the advisory groups' work.
Several of the CJRA advisory group assessments contended that certain factors beyond the courts' direct control influence civil litigation cost and delay. Three factors predominated: First, the assessments cited the pressure generated by the criminal docket. Legislation creating new federal crimes, adoption of the Speedy Trial Act, and the advent of mandatory sentencing guidelines all increase the burden on the federal court and provide less time for the orderly movement of civil cases. Second, the assessments noted that judicial vacancies are being left unfilled for substantial periods of time. Third, the need for better assessment of the effect of proposed legislation on the courts' workload was highlighted.
Many pilot and comparison districts interpreted some or all of their current and past practices to be consistent with the language of the act and continued those practices unchanged. However, if the spirit of the act is interpreted to mean experimentation and change focusing on the six CJRA principles, then the pilot districts met that spirit to varying degrees.
Comparison districts, having no mandated policies, generally made fewer changes than pilot districts.
Even in pilot districts whose plans suggested major changes, implementation often fell short. Thus, there was less change in case management after CJRA than one might have expected from reading the plans.
However, implementing the pilot plans may have heightened the consciousness of judges and lawyers and brought about some important implicit shifts in attitude and approach to case management on the part of the bench and bar. For example, our interviews suggested, and the case-level data we collected confirmed, that the fraction of cases managed early has increased and that time to discovery cutoff has shortened.