Slow Pace of Civil Justice

In response to “Courting a Credibility Problem,” editorial (Sept. 17) and “L.A. Civil Justice Heads for Gridlock,” Commentary (Sept. 14):

Recent publication of the RAND report, “Averting Gridlock: Strategies for Reducing Civil Delay in the Los Angeles Superior Court” and Times articles and editorials about the report have focused attention on the problems I and the other Superior Court judges confront daily.

The RAND report correctly concludes that our court needs many more judges and additional funding to handle our staggering caseload. However, I’m somewhat disappointed that the report is based upon old (pre-1985) data and makes only passing reference to delay reduction programs we have initiated in the past three years.

Let me cite two examples. Since Jan. 1, 1988, the Superior Court has operated an expedited “fast track” pilot program aimed at speeding the pace of civil litigation. Twenty-five judges in the downtown courthouse handle all aspects of a civil case from initial filing to resolution, and require cases to conform to specific time standards. This program has been noticeably successful in reducing time to trial.

Similarly, last year the Superior Court established seven “speedy trial” criminal courts in which judicial officers handling felony cases are relieved of their calendars and devote their workday to trying death penalty and other complex cases.

These and other programs designed to improve case management have been helpful, but they can only go so far to deal with the problem. The need for more judges has been recognized for years. The RAND report reiterates this view and sets the number at 106. In the face of exploding caseloads, the Legislature has only added 14 judges to our court since 1985.

Efforts to obtain additional funding have also been difficult. The Trial Court Funding Act of 1987 provided some state assistance to trial courts and counties for the last two years. However, these funds have been insufficient to meet our needs and were cut back this year because of the $3.6-billion state budget shortfall. As a result, the Superior Court budget for this fiscal year was reduced by $8.2 million.

The RAND report is right on target when it concludes that we need more judges and better funding to do the job.

RICHARD P. BYRNE, Presiding Judge

Los Angeles Superior Court