Preliminary Observations on Implementation of the Pilot Program of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990
Jan 1, 1994
The Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 1990 is rooted in more than a decade of concern that cases in federal courts take too long and cost litigants too much. As a consequence, proponents of reform argue, some individuals are denied access to justice. In the late 1980s, several groups, including the Federal Courts Study Committee and the Council on Competitiveness, began formulating reform proposals. One of these—the Task Force on Civil Justice Reform—initiated by Senator Joseph Biden, convened by the Brookings Institution, and assisted technically by staff from the Institute for Civil Justice (ICJ), produced a set of recommendations that ultimately took the form of legislation.
The new legislation, the CJRA, required each federal district court to conduct a self-study with the aid of an advisory group, and to develop a plan for civil case management to reduce costs and delay. To provide an empirical basis for assessing new procedures adopted under the act, the legislation also required that ten pilot districts adopt six principles of case management and mandated an independent evaluation of these procedural changes. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts asked the ICJ to undertake the evaluation.
In "Preliminary Observations on Implementation of the Pilot Program of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990," Terence Dunworth and James Kakalik summarize the first phase of this evaluation and describe how the procedures and case management policies were implemented in the ten pilot districts.
The CJRA requires the ten pilot districts to incorporate six specific case management principles in their plans:
The ten pilot districts were required to implement their plans by January 1992; the other 84 districts, including the ten used for comparison in the evaluation, could implement theirs any time before December 1993.
Not everyone agrees that the mandated case-management principles in the pilot program have merit. Some see them as overly rigid and controlling—a type of assembly-line justice that prevents the system from adapting to the needs of individual cases. Others think the principles so vague and permissive that pilot districts will be able to comply with the legislative requirements by retaining most of their existing policies.
The ICJ evaluation is designed to provide a quantitative and qualitative basis for assessing how the management principles adopted in the pilot and comparison districts affect costs to litigants; time to disposition; outcomes, including participants' satisfaction with the process; and court resources required. Comparisons are pursued along two dimensions: the ten pilot districts versus the ten comparison districts, and the ten pilot districts before and after the new plans were introduced.
Ideally, the pilot and comparison districts would be similar in every respect except case-management policies. However, since these were not known at the time the pilot and comparison districts were selected, the Judicial Conference and the ICJ used factors such as district size, workload per judge, the number of criminal and civil filings, and the time to disposition in civil cases to select the comparison districts. Based on these features, the pilot districts appear to be comparable to the comparison districts and reasonably representative of all federal districts. Together, the 20 study districts have about one-third of all federal judges and one-third of all federal case filings. Thus, findings based on these districts will support generalizations about the potential effectiveness of system-wide reform. The pilot and comparison districts are shown in Figure 1.
The evaluation requires massive amounts of detailed case-level data from the period January 1991 through December 1995, which will be used in preparing the report due to the Judicial Conference and Congress in late 1996. Data sources include
In addition, the ICJ is collecting similar data for a special supplementary analysis of ADR programs in the six study districts with a sufficiently high volume of ADR cases to permit evaluation.
Advisory Groups. A striking feature of CJRA was the requirement that each district appoint an advisory group; its membership was to be balanced and representative of the actors involved in litigation. The group's 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 group was also to monitor the implementation of the plan and provide input to an annual report.
In general, the advisory groups approached their mission with dedication and conscientiousness. They met frequently and analyzed the data that courts already had. (There was neither time nor resources to gather substantial new data). Lawyers dominate the membership, although a few others representing major categories of litigants were included. Despite the fact that in some districts judges met with, or were members of, the advisory groups, the groups' final reports reflected considerable independence from the court. Most courts accepted their advisory group's recommendations for change.
Differential and Active Case Management. The first three principles that pilot districts were required to adopt establish the court's responsibility for managing its caseload. Before CJRA, most pilot districts had special "tracks" for expediting cases that require minimal management—typically, prisoner petitions, Social Security appeals, government loan recovery, and bankruptcy. For all other cases, the districts used "judicial discretion"—judges making case-management decisions on a case-by-case basis according to their own schedules and procedures.
|Type of Differential Case Management||Pilot Districts|
|Before 12/91||After 12/91|
|Judicial-officer-selected tracking with limited number of "complex" cases to date||0||2|
|Attorney-selected tracking with judicial review||0||2|
|Intensified pretrial management by magistrate judge, with early settlement effort||0||1|
As Table 1 shows, four of the pilot districts interpreted the CJRA's case-management requirement as being fulfilled by a continuation of the judicial discretion model. However, in the other six districts, several different case-management approaches were implemented, including rule-based tracking (which assigns a case to a track on the basis of objective characteristics such as the nature of the suit); judge-selected tracking; attorney-selected tracking (in which the attorney opts for expedited, standard, or complex tracking); and pretrial management with early settlement efforts by a magistrate judge (which delegates nearly all cases to magistrate judges for all pretrial management). This last approach represents a significant expansion of the past responsibilities of magistrate judges in the area of civil pretrial management.
Both the judicial-discretion approach and the new approaches appear to meet the CJRA's loosely defined requirements for differential case management; however, the pilot programs involve less explicit assignment of cases to tracks than might have been anticipated. Interviews with judges and lawyers suggest at least two explanations. First, it is difficult for the court to assign a case to a track based on the limited information available at the time a case is filed. Second, the rigidity inherent in a tracking system conflicts with the desire of judges and lawyers to have schedules and other management procedures tailored to the needs of each case.
Discovery Policies. Issues in managing discovery include how much the court, rather than the lawyers, should control volume and timing of discovery, and what types of information should be voluntarily or mandatorily exchanged without formal discovery requests. Before CJRA, most districts left court control of the volume and timing to the judge in each case; CJRA had little effect on this arrangement. However, CJRA brought about substantial change in early disclosure. Only one district required it before CJRA; after CJRA, all ten pilot districts have adopted one of five approaches providing either voluntary or mandatory exchange of information by lawyers, sometimes only for specified types of cases.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Policies. The CJRA requires pilot districts to adopt, and other districts to consider adopting, some type of alternative dispute resolution program. The legislation does not specifically define ADR, so districts may choose from a number of approaches.
|Volume and Type of ADR||Number of Pilot Districts|
|Before 12/91||After 12/91|
|Volume of ADR|
|More than 150 ADR cases per year||2||5|
|Fewer than 150 ADR cases per year||8||5|
|Type of ADR* in districts with more than 150 cases per year|
|Early neutral evaluation||0||1|
|Other neutral evaluation||0||0|
*Note: Some districts have more than one type of ADR.
Before CJRA, most judges in pilot districts held settlement conferences, but eight of the ten districts had no formally structured ADR program involving a substantial number of cases. After the pilot plans were implemented, five of the ten pilot districts allowed individual judges to refer cases to some type of ADR on a voluntary basis, but few such referrals have been made, and none of these districts has a formally structured ADR program. The other five pilot districts have instituted one or more formal ADR programs (see Table 2).
Based on the first phase of the CJRA evaluation, we can make the following generalizations about how the legislation has been implemented:
The plans implemented in response to CJRA clearly have the potential to significantly affect costs, timeliness, and satisfaction with outcomes. But many of the 10,000 cases that ICJ staff are following are not yet closed, so information on them is incomplete. Final answers to questions about cost, delay, and satisfaction must await closure of these cases and results of the survey. Whatever the outcomes, they will be controversial, potentially intensifying the battle between Congress and the judiciary about who controls the courts, and between judges and attorneys about who controls individual cases.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research brief series. RAND research briefs present policy-oriented summaries of individual published, peer-reviewed documents or of a body of published work.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.