SECRET LEGAL WISDOM

                                A VirtualCourthouse.com Strategic Partner

 

 

 

<< Previous    1  [2]  3  4  5  ...9    Next >>

 

 

Impact of Trial Court Delay 

Trial court delay did not begin overnight, but crept into state courts over several decades - beginning in the 1960s and reaching crisis proportion in the 1980s. In many metropolitan courts it was normal for parties to wait 4 and 5 years for a trial. The American Bar Association, the Conference of Chief Judges and the National Center for State Courts responded to the crisis of delay with commissions such as - 
1. ABA Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration, Standards Relating to Trial Courts ( 1975)
2. National Conference of State Trial Judges, Court Delay Reduction Standards (1985)
3. Lawyers Conference Task Force of Litigation Cost and Delay, Defeating Delay: Developing and Implementing a Court Delay Reduction Program (1986)
These commissions and many others, after study and broad input, recommended many reforms. Chief among the reforms was the insertion of ADR into case management systems and processes.

Caseflow Management in Trial Courts

As the reforms began to be studied and implemented, experience was gained and some principles evolved. The center piece of the caseflow management principles became measurement. So it was said that a complete caseflow management information system should provide at least the following -
1. Measures of activity
2. Measures of inventory
3. Measures of delay
4. Measures of case scheduling accuracy
5. Evaluation measures; and
6. Individual case progress information. 

As trial courts began to measure the key components affecting delay they discovered that a certain percentage of cases were resolved at each step in the process. Steps in the process varied from court to court but usually contained the following -
1. Discovery cut off
2. Settlement conference
3. Pre-trial 
4. Trial

ADR in the Trial Courts

Gradually, the court and the organized bar realized that an additional step requiring ADR would further increase the case resolutions before trial - and so the caseflow process took a different look
1. Discovery cut off
2. ADR 
3. Settlement conference
4. Pretrial
5. Trial

Many trial courts began to experiment with different forms of ADR and from those early experiments definitions and standards evolved (and are still evolving in some courts).Two of the most successful court ADR programs took different approaches yet have had a very significant impact not only on court based ADR activities but also non-court based ADR activities. First, the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Washington, DC and second, MACRO the Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office of the Courts of Maryland .
Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the Superior Court of Washington D.C. was the result of an experimental program motivated in part by the American Bar Association and the National Center for State Courts in 1985.Today, the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division maintains a staff of 22 full-time employees to administer its recruitment and training programs, intake and referral program, small claims mediation program, family and community mediation program, child protection mediation program, landlord and tenant mediation program, probate mediation program, tax assessment mediation program and civil mediation, arbitration and case evaluation programs. Most actual mediations and arbitrations are done by 300 independent, court certified neutrals, who are paid by the court. The Division provided a neutral forum for dispute settlement in more than 6,100 matters in 2005

MACRO, a product of the Maryland ADR Commission of 1998 is a court-related agency, which serves as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) resource for the state. MACRO supports innovative dispute resolution programs, and promotes the appropriate use of ADR in every field. MACRO works collaboratively with many others across the state to support efforts to advance effective conflict resolution practices in Maryland’s courts, communities, schools, state and local government agencies, criminal and juvenile justice programs and businesses.

START YOUR ARBITRATION, MEDIATION, NEUTRAL CASE EVALAUTION

<< Previous    1  [2]  3  4  5  ...9    Next >>