Cross & Donelson on Creating Quality Courts

Professor Frank B. Cross of the University of Texas School of Law, and Professor Dr. Dain C. Donelson of the University of Texas McCombs School of Business, have published Creating Quality Courts, 7 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies No. 3, pages 490-510 (2010). Here is the abstract:

Numerous studies examine the importance of legal systems, yet there is little scholarship on how nations can improve their legal systems. Nations might try to invest more resources, including increasing overall budgets, increasing judicial salaries, or expanding the number of judges and/or courts. We examine data for a set of European nations, with a focus on the most effective way to use national resources to enhance judicial quality. We consider the effect of different uses of government resources and the effect of different judicial systems on measures of judicial quality, including independence, efficiency, the rule of law, and perceived impartiality.

ADIJ 2010: Générations Numériques

The 2010 Annual Conference of ADIJ — l’Association pour le développement de l’information juridique — on the topic of Générations Numériques, will be held 30 September 2010, at Maison du Barreau – 2/4 rue de Harlay, Paris 1er.

The conference is co-sponsored by l’Ordre des Avocats de Paris.

The legal informatics sessions of the conference include:

• Bruno Martin Laprade, La dématérialisation du travail collégial au sein d’une Cour Administrative d’Appel : une expérience réussie;
• Flavien Errera, Samuel Frédéric Servière, and Patrice Platel, Atelier Nouvelles technologies en droit public: La réutilisation des données publiques, l’accès du citoyen aux données de l’administration [...].

For more information, please see the announcement.

HT Stéphane Cottin.

Reagan, National Security Case Studies: Special Case-Management Challenges

Robert Timothy Reagan of the Federal Judicial Center has published National Security Case Studies: Special Case-Management Challenges (2010). Here is a summary:

National security cases often pose unusual and challenging case-management issues for the courts. Evidence or arguments may be classified; witnesses or the jury may require special security measures; attorneys contacts with their clients may be diminished; other challenges may present themselves.

The purpose of this Federal Judicial Center resource is to assemble methods federal judges have employed to meet these challenges so that judges facing the challenges can learn from their colleagues experiences.

These case studies include background factual information about a selection of national security cases as well as descriptions of the judges challenges and solutions. The information presented is based on a review of case files and news media accounts and on interviews with the judges.

Lee & Willging, Attorney Satisfaction with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Emery G. Lee III and Thomas E. Willging, both of the Federal Judicial Center, have published Attorney Satisfaction with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (2010). Here is the executive summary:

This report provides a brief comparison of the results of three surveys on the current operation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”). These surveys asked attorneys in the American College of Trial Lawyers (“ACTL”), the American Bar Association Section of Litigation (“ABA Section”), and the National Employment Lawyers Association (“NELA”) to respond to a series of statements regarding the Rules. The Federal Judicial Center (“FJC”) did not administer the ACTL survey, but it did administer the ABA Section and NELA surveys. Respondents in the ACTL survey had many more years of practice, on average, than respondents in the other surveys. The following findings are discussed in this report:

• Members of the ABA Section tended to agree that the Rules are conducive to the goals stated in Rule 1 (“to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”), but ACTL fellows and NELA members tended to disagree.
• The statement, “The Rules must be reviewed in their entirety and rewritten to address the needs of today’s litigants,” elicited more disagreement than agreement in each of the surveys and among all groups (plaintiff attorneys, defendant attorneys, and attorneys representing both plaintiffs and defendants about equally).
• The statement, “One set of Rules cannot accommodate every type of case,” elicited more disagreement than agreement from ABA Section and NELA members, and more agreement than disagreement from the ACTL fellows.
• The statement, “Trial dates should be set early in the case,” elicited more agreement than disagreement with every group except ABA Section defendant attorneys.
• The statement, “Discovery is abused in almost every case,” elicited more disagreement than agreement from the ACTL fellows and ABA Section plaintiff attorneys, and more agreement than disagreement from NELA members and other ABA Section members.
• The statement, “Economic models in many law firms result in more discovery and thus more expense than is necessary,” elicited more agreement than disagreement in each of the surveys and among all groups.
• The statement, “The cumulative effect of the changes [enacted since the Pound Conference in 1976] has significantly reduced discovery abuse,” elicited more disagreement than agreement in every survey and among every group except ABA Section plaintiff attorneys.
• The statement, “Intervention by judges or magistrate judges early in the case helps to limit discovery,” elicited more agreement than disagreement in each of the surveys and among every group.
• The statement, “Judges do not enforce Rule 26(b)(2)(C) to limit discovery,” elicited more agreement than disagreement in each of the surveys and among every group, although ABA Section plaintiff attorneys were almost evenly divided.
• The statement, “Summary judgment practice increases cost and delay without proportionate benefit,” elicited more agreement than disagreement from plaintiff attorneys in each of the surveys and more disagreement than agreement from defendant attorneys and those representing both plaintiffs and defendants about equally.
• Attorneys in all three surveys reported that costs were disproportionate to the value of some cases, although respondents in the ABA Section and NELA surveys tended to answer that costs are not disproportionate to the value of large cases.
• In all three surveys, the most common response to the question asking about “the primary cause of delay in the litigation process” was “time to complete discovery.”

Respondents to the NELA survey were also asked a series of questions about the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent pleadings decisions [known as Iqbal and Twombly] on employment discrimination cases. The most commonly reported impact was the inclusion of additional facts in the complaint, followed by an increase in the number of motions to dismiss filed by defendants. Few respondents, however, reported that any of their employment discrimination cases had been dismissed under the new standard.

Effectively Assisting Pro Se Bankruptcy Filers: Course Materials

Full text of the program materials are now available from a October 18, 2009 joint continuing legal education program entitled Effectively Assisting Pro Se [Bankruptcy] Filers: A View from the Bench, cosponsored by the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges and the ABA Section of Business Law Business Bankruptcy Committee. The materials contain useful information about legal ethics, legal information, and legal communication issues concerning self-represented debtors in U.S. consumer bankruptcy cases.

The program participants were:

• The Honorable Judith H. Wimur, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey;
• The Honorable Eileen W. Hollowell of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona;
• The Honorable Elizabeth S. Stong of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York;
• Mary Fox, Pro Se Bankruptcy Law Clerk for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York; and
• Professor Angela K. Littwin of the University of Texas School of Law.

The materials include the following:

• Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Bankruptcy Judges Advisory Group, Assisting Pro Se Parties in Bankruptcy Cases (May 28, 2008);
• John M. Greacan, “No Legal Advice from Court Personnel”: What Does that Mean?, Judges Journal, Winter 1995, at 10;
• Judicial Neutrality vs. Judicial Engagement;
• Angela Littwin, An Empirical Examination of Pro Se Filers After Bankruptcy Reform (n.d.);
• Pro Se Filing Statistics by Quarters During the Twelve-Month Period Ending December 31, 2008;
• Pro Se Filing Statistics from Bankruptcy Districts in the Ninth Circuit, 1999-2008;
• Mary Fox, Materials Utilized by the Pro Se Law Clerk in the Eastern District of New York.