Bar responds to proposals to speed civil cases
The comment acknowledges that strict deadlines for responses to motions and for court resolution of motions ‘are potentially effective case management tools’
A sweeping proposal to speed the resolution of civil cases would require additional court resources, could give large firms an even bigger advantage, and risk making life harder for young lawyers.
Those are just some concerns The Florida Bar expressed in a recent comment to November 2021 report and petition by the Judicial Management Council’s Workgroup on the Improved Resolution of Civil Cases, Case No. SC22-122.
The 18-page comment consists of “general observations” and recommendations, and notes that Bar rule committees are filing more detailed comments to the proposed amendments.
The comment calls the workgroup’s proposed differentiated case management model an “abrupt departure” from past Florida litigation practice, and notes there is a dearth of empirical research to show which models work best.
A workgroup survey found that 60% of respondents reported that their local legal culture includes active case management, “yet the proposed wholesale case management revisions do not differentiate between courts and lawyers who keep their cases progressing and those who do not…” the comment states.
The workgroup proposal is based on a federal model, but U.S. district courts are of “limited jurisdiction” and Florida circuit courts are “general jurisdiction,” the authors note.
The Bar comment cites workgroup statistics that show there were 977, 544, and 385 pending cases per judge in the U.S. Northern, Middle and Southern districts of Florida respectively, as of December 31, 2018, and that there were approximately 1,500 cases per circuit judge in Florida in fiscal year 2018-19.
Each district judge is assisted by up to three full-time law clerks, and for discovery matters, by a full-time U.S. magistrate judge as well as law clerks.
Yet, “Florida circuit judges and county judges have one judicial assistant but no full-time dedicated clerks,” the comment notes.
“The report elsewhere states that the Workgroup’s ‘rule proposals may entail the need for additional personnel (such as case managers), technology, and other resources for the trial courts,’ and that ‘support personnel, such as judicial assistants, case managers, technology staff, and clerk staff will also need training in case management.”
Fewer court hearings will rob the next generation of lawyers of an important opportunity to develop their skills, the comment warns.
“Furthermore, the organizational hierarchy of most firms will lead to young lawyers bearing a large part of the burden imposed by the strict proposed deadlines, reducing their quality of life and increasing the likelihood of adverse outcomes in their legal careers.”
Proposed changes to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.460 would severely restrict a judge’s ability to grant continuances, even “when one may be appropriate to safeguard a lawyer’s or judge’s mental health and wellness, and in turn protect clients and the public,” the comments states.
The comment acknowledges that strict deadlines for responses to motions and for court resolution of motions “are potentially effective case management tools.”
But an “overly rigid framework could actually work against effective and flexible case management.”
The comment recommends that the court “coordinate the adoption and implementation of any proposals from the Report to follow the deployment of specific adequate resources (additional personnel, infrastructure, systems, training, etc.) needed by the trial courts and Clerk of Court…”
The authors also urge the court to consider “whether the proposed changes to the case management process (including strict deadlines for responses to motions and court resolution of motions) would create additional complexity and rigidity in the Rules of Civil Procedure, would unfairly advantage larger law firms and wealthier litigants and may serve to deny access to justice and disadvantage litigants with fewer resources.”
Citing a section of the workgroup report, the Bar’s filing notes that “Ultimately, the impact of the proposed changes may be inconsistent with the goal of the rules to as provided in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.010 to secure the ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.’”
A fourth recommendation urges justices to recognize that “trial judges are generally best suited” to decide such things as sanctions and continuances.
“Limiting a trial court’s discretion may also negatively impact the mental health of lawyers and judges,” the comment says.
A final recommendation urges a “cautious approach” to making comprehensive changes that would impose strict deadlines for motion responses or court rulings, or that would require or result in, “the elimination of oral argument for substantive motions.”
