Courting a Credibility Problem : New study makes a compelling case for more civil-court judges

An ancient ritual among people who enjoy the protection of even the most primitive system of law is poking fun at the system. The Romans had a saying, “The more law, the less justice.” But, joking aside, the current state of the civil courts in Los Angeles County is simply no laughing matter.

A new RAND Corp. study shows a congealing of movement of civil cases in Superior Court that should alarm anyone worried about making our justice system work. For there is little difference in a society based on constitutional rights between the consequences of a loss of respect for the law and a loss of faith in it.

Some statistics tell the story dramatically.

Since 1970, the number of plaintiffs who have been willing to wait for a trial rather than settle out of court or drop a case altogether has plunged by more than half and is lower than in many other states. In that same time, civil case filings have doubled, and the time it takes to actually get into court has grown to nearly five years. There are more judges than in 1970, but Los Angeles still needs 106 more just to keep the backlog of cases from growing next year. On top of that, the county would need 66 temporary judges or commissioners to spend two years dealing with backlogged cases.

The RAND study, one of many valuable ones it has produced on public institutions in recent years, says that improved management of cases has helped but that more improvements are possible.

One existing experiment directed by the state Legislature is “fast track” management, where one judge moves a case from start to finish, much like the federal system. The fast-track style is being tested in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties. RAND now proposes adding other experiments, including having judges spend more time at the outset on cases likely to go to trial and less on those likely to be settled.

Lawyers maneuvering for tactical advantage also contribute to delays. But the most important reason for what RAND calls a “severe” problem is another law entirely: that of supply and demand. There is too large a demand for court services and too small a supply of judges.

Much of the burden of financing Superior courts has been shifted to Sacramento in recent years. In one sense, the judicial shortage is just another reason to review priorities for allocating scarce resources.

This is not a question to be taken lightly because, in a very real sense, confidence in the legal system is a condition of faith in society.