Justices Agree to Decide All Cases Within 90 Days

In a major policy shift, the state Supreme Court said Tuesday that it has adopted a new rule that will require the justices to issue a decision within 90 days after a case has been argued before the court.

The action is the most far-reaching to date in an effort by the court under Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas to streamline its decision-making process and ease its staggering backlog of cases.

“I believe it is important that the citizens of this state know that a decision will be forthcoming from the court in a predictable fashion,” Lucas said.

While legal experts cautiously welcomed the move, they also expressed considerable concern that the self-imposed deadline could have an adverse effect on the quality of the court’s opinions.

UC Berkeley law professor Stephen R. Barnett said the new policy could unwisely reduce the role of oral argument, which at its best can help clarify legal issues or even persuade the justices to change their views of a case.

“The real danger is that the justices will have closed their minds before argument,” said Barnett. “This is a commendable effort . . . but the 90-day rule is crazy for the state Supreme 1131378034backwards.”

The court said it would implement the new policy in January in all civil and criminal cases--including death penalty appeals. The deadline can be set aside, but only by order of the chief justice in what court officials said would be very limited circumstances.

The action followed settlement of an unusual lawsuit filed by a Malibu attorney seeking the high court’s strict compliance with a state constitutional provision requiring California judges to file decisions within 90 days after cases are submitted, or not be paid.

For more than 30 years, the high court had sidestepped the deadline by determining that a case was not actually “submitted” until it was virtually ready for a decision.

The new policy will substantially shorten the time it takes the justices to issue a ruling after the filing of briefs and oral argument--a process that in recent months has averaged about 200 days and in complex cases can take a year or more.

By the same token, the period between the court’s agreement to hear a case and argument could lengthen if the justices, as they have in recent weeks, substantially reduce the number of cases they hear during their monthly argument calendars.

The court’s announcement Tuesday drew praise from retired state Supreme Court Justice Frank K. Richardson, who chaired a blue-ribbon commission appointed by Lucas to study the court’s internal operations. The commission proposed a wide array of administrative reforms but left open the question of adherence to the 90-day deadline.

“This is a very commendable move,” Richardson said. “It will require a great deal of self-discipline by the court because of its enormous workload. If the justices can adhere to the deadline, it will be a very considerable step to speeding up the process.”

Dean Gerald F. Uelman of the Santa Clara University law school, who has studied the court’s procedures, voiced concern that the deadline would put “enormous pressure” on justices preparing concurring or dissenting opinions--a frequent occurrence in major cases.

“I very much fear that the process of opinion-preparation may suffer in some cases,” Uelman said. “Streamlining procedures is a goal worth shooting for--but the justices can only work so hard and it looks to me as though they’re working as hard as they can.”

San Francisco attorney Ephraim Margolin, president of the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers, expressed surprise at the action, pointing to the court’s inherent need for careful deliberations, particularly in capital cases and other complex matters.

“We’ll have to wait and see,” Margolin said. “This looks very good in terms of court administration, but I have my fears over what it may mean in practice.”

The court made public its unanimous change in policy in a two-page announcement. More details were promised when Lucas addresses the annual meeting of the State Bar this weekend in Monterey.

Lynn Holton, a spokeswoman for the court, said that exceptions to the deadline would be permitted only in unusual circumstances, such as an illness on the court or when a decision must be delayed pending a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The deadline will be applied in all cases, including capital cases, which are much more voluminous and complex, she said. Although the court has issued a record 54 capital rulings since Lucas became chief justice last year, there are still about 170 such cases pendi1852252258half of its backlog.

The court’s action brought a conclusion to a novel lawsuit filed last year by Malibu attorney Stanley M. Sapiro and Brian W. Stevens, of Rolling Hills Estates. Stevens, in a separate case against state officials in which he was represented by Sapiro, had waited more than 2 1/2 years before a high court decision was issued in June, 1986.

The suit field by Sapiro and Stevens named the justices as defendants and, among other things, sought a ruling requiring them to comply with the 90-day rule. A special panel of appellate court justices was appointed to decide the issue, but after extended negotiations between Sapiro and state attorneys, the case was settled.

Under the agreement, Sapiro and Stevens will not receive any monetary award but could be eligible for state-paid attorneys’ fees. The court, while adopting the policy the two plaintiffs sought in the case, did not concede that it was required to do so under the law, Holton said.

Sapiro said Tuesday that he believed the policy shift would prove beneficial to the judicial system.

“The right to a speedy hearing goes back to the Magna Carta,” the lawyer said. “My gosh, if other courts in California have been following the 90-day rule, why shouldn’t this court?”