Private Justice

Your private justice editorial (Nov. 4) opposing alternative dispute resolution is off base historically and as policy.

Rather than being a recent phenomenon, the law that “allows” litigants to select a private judge to hear their cases and have the judgment entered in court has been part of California law since 1872. Our law and the courts encourage litigants to resolve their disputes without trials as quickly as possible.

Parties cannot be forced to hire a private judge. How can it be claimed they do anyone harm by selecting that method? In fact, each case removed from the court system reduces the congestion for litigants who remain in it. To deny civil litigants access to such alternatives would lead to the absurd result of no arbitration, no mediation, no settlements; just endless litigation over everything, requiring billions more for more courts and judges. That’s too high a price to pay just so we can feel good about making “wealthy litigants” suffer equally with the less wealthy in an overburdened court system.

The best way to reduce the burden on the courts would be to reduce the number of criminal cases by repealing victimless crime laws. That’s not a perfect solution, but it would lighten the load on the judges and substantially reduce the delay in civil cases.

DAVID P. BERGLAND

Costa Mesa