Into the Bog of Clogged Courts

As part of his duties as Chief Justice of the U.S., Earl Warren is responsible for the administration of the entire fed eral court system. It is a job of immense frustration. Some courts have been swamped by the growing crime rate, all of them must struggle to cope with the increasing number of Americans who sue to settle a dispute. Yet in the past five years, only 35 new district judgeships have been added to the existing 307 to deal with the greater work load. The result is anything but speedy trial--particularly in the large urban areas. "Insufferable backlogs are normal rather than the exception in many jurisdictions," the Chief Justice said recently. Last week he acted.

His target was the 22-judge Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan and is the busiest federal court in the U.S. His solution was pragmatic and to the point. He assigned eleven federal judges from areas as far-flung as California and Tennessee to sit temporarily in New York. Each of the eleven visitors, whose own home courts are relatively up to date, will hear civil jury cases in New York for a month; the whole program will continue for at least two months in an effort to reduce the waiting period for civil cases, which is now 18 months from the time the case is ready for trial and an average of 39 months from the time the suit is filed.

Lawyers who carefully jockey postponements in the hope that their cases can be heard by a presumably sympathetic judge may be dismayed at appearing before an unknown from Iowa. But, as one New York attorney observed, "we can always check a judge out by calling a colleague who practices in his area." And almost all of the lawyers concede that the potential gain in the court's calendar far outweighs any individual inconveniences. Whether regular reshuffling of judges can provide a long-range solution is not so widely agreed on, however.

Political Block. Many think the only permanent answer is more permanent judges. But even on the state-and local-court level it is hard to add judges. Last week New York's State Judicial Conference despairingly begged the legislature for 125 new judges. "There are areas of this state," said a conference report, "in which calendar delay is reaching such alarming proportions that a breakdown in the administration of justice is conceivable." But similar requests have been made in each of the past eight years with little result. Reason: Democrats and Republicans can never agree on how many of the new jobs each party should get.

Similar problems have stymied other attempts to cut waiting periods. A law in California that requires elimination of the criminal backlog has meant that, where necessary, civil judges are pulled off to hear criminal cases; that, of course, has contributed to an increase in the civil case jam. Nonetheless there is a growing recognition of the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Congress, at the President's urging, has established a Federal Judicial Center that will, as of March 27, begin studying the problems.

There is no lack of suggestions for the Center to consider. Among them: using computers to handle administrative details in order to increase the time available to judges for trial work; making last-minute postponements more difficult so that court calendars are not suddenly without a case; and turning over to non-judges such relatively minor responsibilities as running small-claims and traffic courts. But if the reformers can decide which or how many of the proposed changes are worthwhile, and can get them implemented, they will have worked a minor miracle. Until now, few problems in the law have received more lip service and less real attention than the problem of congested courts.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.