Alternatives Offered for Streamlining the Courts

The Commentary by Judge Donald E. Smallwood recognized the crying need to do something about court congestion, delays, costs and frustration with the system. All connected with the present procedures will no doubt agree.

However, his proposals would not only complicate and exacerbate the present problems, but also would create two or three layers of additional bureaucracy to administer the different functions.

As a non-attorney, but as an experienced expert witness and an occasional arbitrator in litigation matters, and as one looking from the outside to within, (I am) of the opinion that there are much more simple solutions, such as the following:

1. Each and every trial should be allocated a specific and absolute time frame in which to be conducted. This would be set beforehand by the assigned judge in consultation with the attorneys, resulting in a contract to which all concerned would strictly adhere.

2. The time schedules allocated would embrace all elements of the trial, including jury selection and, subsequently, jury deliberation. In a way similar to any other contract, penalties would be imposed if it is broken.

3. Courts should start promptly (at 7 or 8 a.m.) and proceed to completion without the typical long recesses and breaks, which are usually longer than set. Four o’clock would no longer be sacrosanct for finishing the day’s work.

The manner in which trials frequently get “continued” is nothing less than a scandal--frustrating, time-consuming and costly to all concerned, except judges who simply sit back while all others hurry and scurry around in a helpless manner.

Judge Smallwood suggests “alternative dispute resolutions”--which, in fact, means arbitration. And yet many cases go to trial after arbitration, which is contrary to the intent. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is the attorneys’ idea to set up a “trial balloon” situation. Accordingly, it is this writer’s opinion that all arbitrations should be binding and, if not, they should not take place.

Another suggestion to streamline jurisprudence is to abolish, reduce or modify depositions. Here is a way to reduce costs, time, mountains of paperwork, expedite cases and put the trial in court where it belongs rather than as a mini-trial in the attorneys’ offices. Furthermore, if depositions cannot be eliminated entirely, they could be considerably shortened.

We in the United States have a fair justice system; however, that does not mean that it cannot be improved, commensurate with the needs of the times and pressures on the system.

J. PETER CUNLIFFE, Costa Mesa