L.A. Civil Justice Heads for Gridlock : One hundred new judges are only part of what the Superior Court system needs to deal with its civil backlog.

In 1931, a local lawyer complained to his colleagues that “an action at law in the county of Los Angeles is in the nature of a legal marathon.” In 1931, parties in a civil case had to wait more than a year for a trial in Superior Court.

In 1980, Los Angeles Superior Court’s then-Presiding Judge Richard Schauer declared that the “trial calendar condition is now approaching the critical stage.” Civil litigants had to wait more than four years for an empty courtroom.

Last year, Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner declared that the pace of litigation in the Los Angeles Superior Court is “approaching gridlock.” The wait then, as now, was almost five years to face off before a jury.

Civil delay is not a new problem in the Los Angeles Superior Court. But it has gotten markedly worse and litigants are now indeed facing possible gridlock. Despite temporary dips, the length of time litigants must wait to have their cases heard has risen substantially over the past 60 years--fourfold since 1931, twofold just since 1975. Compared with the 25 largest urban trial courts nationally and the 14 largest California trial courts, Los Angeles is one of the most delayed.

The long wait for civil trial jeopardizes constitutional guarantees of equal access to justice. Waiting years to resolve a dispute is inherently a denial of justice. Moreover, the extreme delay that currently prevails may cause litigants to suffer in other ways: Time may cause legal evidence to deteriorate, memories to fade and the cost of litigation to increase. Frustrated litigants may accept a settlement rather than endure the wait; worse still, they may lose faith entirely in the public justice system’s ability to resolve their disputes.

Some evidence for such disenchantment already exists. The trial rate in Superior Court--the percentage of litigants who take their cases to trial rather than settle or drop their claims--has gone from 9% in 1970 to less than 4%. Los Angeles’ current trial rate is lower than that in many other state or federal courts. This low rate is not surprising in light of the extreme delay and the court’s aggressive efforts to dispose of civil cases through settlement and arbitration and in light of recent increases in the number of disputes taken outside the court system to so-called private judges for resolution.

Moreover, civil delay may remain a problem of major proportions for the Los Angeles court well into the ‘90s. Criminal defendants have a right to a speedy trial; that priority, combined with burgeoning criminal caseloads, will mean continued long delays for civil litigants if major steps are not taken soon.

The causes of the current long civil delay are complex. Primarily, however, our RAND Corp. research finds that the court is so backlogged because the demand for judicial services far exceeds the supply. The number of civil cases filed annually has more than doubled since 1970, to more than 145,000 last year. Although the number of judges and court commissioners has grown steadily, making the court--with 293 judicial officers--the largest trial court in the country, the continuing manpower shortage is the major cause of delay.

To right that imbalance, the court needs to add a large number of new permanent judges. We estimate that the court will need 106 additional judges or commissioners just to handle new case filings projected for 1991. The court needs to hire an additional 66 judges or commissioners on a temporary basis to clear the existing backlog of 40,000 cases. We also suggest that judges and commissioners consider extending their official day by one hour.

Broad-based changes in the management of civil cases and the administration of the court would also help reduce delay. But while the court’s productivity could increase, the root cause of the problem is an imbalance between the increasingly large demand for court services and the court’s ability to supply those services.

Since the 1920s, nearly every panel that has examined the civil delay problem here has found the court to be significantly understaffed and has recommended adding a large number of new judges. The court’s size has grown steadily, but the number of judges added has generally been much lower than what the court estimated it needed to appreciably reduce delay. Although these additions have by no means been insignificant, their size has been dictated as much by political considerations as by the court’s needs.

One decade into its second century, the Los Angeles Superior Court stands at a crossroads. The court has long been concerned about rising civil delay and has actively tried to speed the pace of litigation. Its continuing efforts have been determined and innovative but the current extreme situation calls for an even bolder response. The court, as well as the agencies responsible for overseeing its operation and funding--including the state Legislature, the Judicial Council of California and the county Board of Supervisors--must adopt a stronger and more sustained plan of action. Although the strategies we propose may be viewed as politically infeasible because of cost, significant and permanent reductions in civil delay will not occur if only modest steps are taken. And without those reductions, the court may face even more drastic options to reduce the demand for its services, such as eliminating the right to a jury trial in most cases, sharply raising court fees or altering liability laws to prevent citizens from even bringing lawsuits.

There are no magic bullets in the battle to reduce civil court delay, only tough and expensive choices.