slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 132

CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 101 Views
  • Uploaded on

CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT. Date(s) Educational Program or Sponsor Faculty 2.5 Day Toolbox. PURPOSES OF COURTS. To do individual justice in individual cases To appear to do justice in individual cases To provide a forum for the resolution of legal disputes

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT' - ezhno


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT

Date(s)

Educational Program or Sponsor

Faculty

2.5 Day Toolbox

slide2

PURPOSES OF COURTS

  • To do individual justice in individual cases
  • To appear to do justice in individual cases
  • To provide a forum for the resolution of legal disputes
  • To protect citizens against arbitrary use of Government power
  • To make a formal record of legal status
  • To deter criminal behavior
  • To help rehabilitate persons convicted of crimes
  • To separate persons convicted of serious offenses from society

Time destroys the purposes of courts. The purpose underlying CFM is not faster and faster and more and more, it is justice. CFM is a justice not an efficiency driven activity.

slide3

LOCAL LEGAL CULTURE

Source: Thomas Church et al, Justice Delayed, NCSC, 1978.

slide5

SIN QUO NON

THE COURT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR

SUPERVISING CASE PROGRESS.

aba standards relating to court delay reduction
ABA STANDARDS RELATING TO COURT DELAY REDUCTION

Standard 2.50

Case flow Management and Delay Reduction: General Principle

From the commencement of litigation to its resolution, whether by trial or settlement, any elapsed time other than reasonably required for pleadings, discovery, and court events, is unacceptable and should be eliminated. To enable just and efficient resolution of cases, the court, not the lawyers or litigants, should control the pace of litigation. A strong judicial commitment is essential to reducing delay and, once achieved, maintaining a current docket.

three things that courts must have
Leadership

Standards

Information Related to Standards

Timely

Accurate

Clearly Presented

Used for Continuous Improvement

THREE THINGS THAT COURTS MUST HAVE
judicial commitment and leadership
This is the key element

The chief judge sets the tone

Judges must:

Manage judges

Be committed and show commitment

Involve other judges, other agencies, staff, court administrators, and others

Establish courtwide policy

Establish partnership with court administrator and the clerk

JUDICIAL COMMITMENT AND LEADERSHIP
characteristics of successfully managed courts
Accountability

Persistence

Willingness to initiate change

Continuity

Pet projects do not survive

CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFULLY MANAGED COURTS
why many courts have leadership failures
Lack of leadership skills

Lack of willingness to lead

Frequent changes of leadership

WHY MANY COURTS HAVE LEADERSHIP FAILURES
standards
For the system as a whole

For parts of the system

For individual cases

STANDARDS
types of standards
Filing to disposition all case types

Pending cases all case types

MICRO

  • Time between events
  • Individual cases
TYPES OF STANDARDS

MACRO

  • RELATED GOALS
  • Continuances
  • Cases over standard
new jersey civil time standards
New Jersey Civil Time Standards

*ACMS is the automated case management system, which provides

notices based on elapsed time in individual cases.

why standards are helpful
Promote Expedition and Timeliness

Motivation

Organize CFM software and MIS

Stimulate new programs and procedures

Internal and External Accountability: cCourt systems, courts and their leaders, management, programs and individuals

WHY STANDARDS ARE HELPFUL
information
Timely

Accurate

Clearly Presented

Used for Continuous Improvement

INFORMATION
caseflow management information systems monitoring levels

Level I

Basic Information

Level II

For Efficient Information

Level III

For Top Management Efficiency

CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS:MONITORING LEVELS
level i
How many cases are filed each year?

How many cases are pending?

How many cases are pending on each judge team and each judge’s docket?

How old are the pending cases?

LEVEL I

Questions you must be able to answer

for basic CFM and docket management

level i continued
What is the status of each case? What was the last event? When did it occur? What is the next event? When is it scheduled?

How many cases are disposed each year? How many cases do each judge dispose each year, month, week, and day?

How do the cases reach disposition, i.e., how many by jury, bench trial, settlement/plea, dismissal, etc.?

How old are the cases when they reach disposition?

LEVEL I(Continued)
level ii
How old are all pending cases and how old are cases at disposition? When do dispositions occur? How many cases settle on the day of trial? How many settle before a trial date is set? How many events are set? How many are held? How many events are adjourned/ continued/dismissed? What is the continuance rate for events other than trials? What is the trial rate? How many cases are scheduled for trial that never result in a trial? LEVEL II
level ii continued
How many appearances are there per case?

How many appearances per case would there be if continuances were eliminated?

LEVEL II(Continued)
level iii
How do the flow chart and the reverse telescope compare with court perceptions of the system?

What are the trial probability rates for each type of case?

Is judge time being efficiently utilized?

What are the short- and long-term trends? Based on the data, what problems can be anticipated? What steps can be taken now to avoid future problems?

LEVEL III

Questions you must be able to answer

for top docket management efficiency

level iii continued
What are system strengths and weaknesses? What can be done to improve the system?

What is the source of docket problems? Which cases are getting old? Why? Who is responsible?

LEVEL III(Continued)
reverse telescope

80% Answered

60% At Issue

45% to ADR

35% Settlement Conference

15% Pretrial

5% Trial Starts

Cases Filed 100%

10% Trial Starts

15% Pleas On Trial Setting(s)

50% Begin Trial

60% Pretrial Conference/Motions Hearing

80% First Appearance/Preliminary Hearing

97% Arraignment

CRIMINAL

REVERSE TELESCOPE

CIVIL

2% Trial

5% Trial

three axioms
Lawyers settle cases, not judges

Lawyers settle cases when prepared

Lawyers prepare for significant events

THREE AXIOMS
five principles
Early control

Continuous control

On a short schedule

Be reasonably arbitrary

Create the expectation and reality that events happen when scheduled

FIVE PRINCIPLES
calendaring systems the basics
Individual

Master

Team

Hybrid

CALENDARING SYSTEMS:THE BASICS

Types of Case Assignment Systems

individual calendar system

Cases Filed

Judge

Judge

Judge

Judge

Judge

Motions

Pretrial

Conferences

Dispositions

Motions

Pretrial

Conferences

Dispositions

Motions

Pretrial

Conferences

Dispositions

Motions

Pretrial

Conferences

Dispositions

Motions

Pretrial

Conferences

Dispositions

INDIVIDUAL CALENDAR SYSTEM
individual calendar alleged strengths
Autonomy and Responsibility

Accountability

Competition

Motions Practice

Continuity and Familiarity

Eliminate Judge Shopping

INDIVIDUAL CALENDAR ALLEGED STRENGTHS

Source: Maureen Solomon, Case flow Management in the Trial Court, ABA, 1973.

master calendar system

Cases Filed

Master Calendar Judge

Pretrials

Arraignments

Motions

Continuances

Judge

Judge

Judge

Judge

Judge

Disposition

Disposition

Disposition

Disposition

Disposition

MASTER CALENDAR SYSTEM
master calendar alleged strengths
Use of Time

Trial Date Certainty

Uniform Disposition Rates

Central Control

Team Spirit

Specialization

Pre Trial Continuity Court Wide

Less Expensive

MASTER CALENDAR ALLEGED STRENGTHS

Source: Maureen Solomon, Case flow Management in the Trial Court, ABA, 1973.

team calendar system

Cases Filed

Assigned to Team

Team 1

Team 2

Team 3

Master Calendar Judge

Judge 1

Judge 2

Judge 3

Master Arraignment

(Rotating)

TrialJudge

TrialJudge

TrialJudge 1

TrialJudge 2

TrialJudge 3

Team Calendar System
team calendar strengths
Same as Individual Calendar: Accountability, Consistency and Competition

More Cooperation to achieve goals, shape the work so no courtrooms fall behind 

Reduce Judicial isolation

More willingness to attempt change; change is less threatening, more shared risk

Everyone looking at the same problems, seeking common solutions

TEAM CALENDAR STRENGTHS
weaknesses
Difficult to make groups function as teams

Difficult system to maintain over time, keep the teams meeting and working as a team

Difficult to recruit or appoint effective team leaders

WEAKNESSES
hybrid calendar system 1

Cases Filed

Motions Filed

Motions Judge

Pretrial Conference Requested

PRETRIAL EXAMINER

Notice of Issue Filed

READY-FOR-TRIAL STATUS

To Judge

To Judge

To Judge

To Judge

To Judge

Pretrial Conference If Not Held Earlier*

Pretrial Conference If Not Held Earlier*

Pretrial Conference If Not Held Earlier*

Pretrial Conference If Not Held Earlier*

Pretrial Conference If Not Held Earlier*

Disposition

Motions

Motions

Motions

Motions

Disposition

Disposition

Disposition

Disposition

Motions

HYBRID CALENDAR SYSTEM - 1
hybrid calendar system 2

Cases Filed

Random

Assignment

To Judge

To Judge

To Judge

To Judge

To Judge

Motions

Motions

Motions

Motions

Motions

Pretrial Conference

Pretrial Conference

Pretrial Conference

Pretrial Conference

Pretrial Conference

Ready-for-Trial Status

Ready-for-Trial Status

Ready-for-Trial Status

Ready-for-Trial Status

Ready-for-Trial Status

CENTRAL TRIAL POOL

Assigned by Assignment Office

Trial Date

To Judge

To Judge

To Judge

To Judge

To Judge

Disposition

Disposition

Disposition

Disposition

Disposition

HYBRID CALENDAR SYSTEM - 2
hybrid calendar strengths
Allows judges and administrators to use the most effective and efficient calendar type for various types of cases

Provides greatest flexibility. Can use different calendar types for difference DCM tracks 

Allows managers to take advantage of the strengths of individual judges

Various parts of the system can be changed without changing the entire system

HYBRID CALENDAR STRENGTHS
hybrid calendar weaknesses
More complex therefore more difficult to monitor

Requires an effective automated information system because so much monitoring is required

HYBRID CALENDAR WEAKNESSES
common elements of success
Collective Responsibility Court Control

Continuing Consultation

Standard Procedures

Restrictive Continuance Policy

Central Control and Coordination

Time Standards Filing to Disposition

Measurement of Performance

Change

COMMON ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS

Source: Maureen Solomon, Case flow Management in the Trial Court, ABA, 1973.

factors to consider when selecting a case assignment system
State mandates

Number of judges

Judges’ management skill levels and personalities

Number and types of cases being managed

Degree of cooperation among judges

Preferences of most judges

Available and likely staff and information resources

FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN SELECTING A CASE ASSIGNMENT SYSTEM
camden civil dispositions

Trial

All other Dispositions 98%

Dismissals 27%

Default & Summary Judgments 9%

Other 10%

CAMDEN CIVIL DISPOSITIONS

2%

Settlements 52%

guidelines for early non trial dispositions the other 98
Obtain dispositions before trial dates are scheduled

Provide information necessary for lawyer preparation and all other decision makers to make decisions as early as possible

Create an early disposition climate

Create special early disposition tracks and programs for certain types of cases (DCM)

GUIDELINES FOR EARLYNON-TRIAL DISPOSITIONS(THE OTHER 98%)
controlling continuances
CONTROLLING CONTINUANCES

No system will work

if continuances are allowed.

the continuance conundrum

Due to unreadiness

Attorneys request continuance

When low on list attorneys may not prepare case & have witness present

Court routinely grants continuance

Usually cases low on list are not reached for trial

Too few ready cases to keep judges busy

Court schedules unrealistically high number of cases

THE CONTINUANCE CONUNDRUM

Source: Maureen Solomon, Case flow Management in the Trial Court, ABA, 1973.

workload expansion due to continuances

45,855 Appearances

if 5 per filing

Filings

9,171

9,622 Dispositions

119,223 Appearances if

13 Appearancesper filing

WORKLOAD EXPANSION DUE TO CONTINUANCES
impact of decreased appearances per case
Better use of judicial resources and time

Less work for court personnel

Reduced attorney load

Reduced litigant inconvenience

Reduced costs

IMPACT OF DECREASED APPEARANCES PER CASE

119,223 Appearances @ 13 / case

45,855 Appearances @ 5 / case

73,368 Fewer Appearances Mean . . .

how to multiply your workload
How to Multiply Your Workload

1st

TRIAL DATE

2nd

TRIAL DATE

3rd

TRIAL DATE

THESE CONTINUANCES AFFECT …

Files Prisoner Transportation

Computer Entries Jail Population

Forms Prosecutor

Scheduling Judge

Defense Staff

reasons why trials do not occur on scheduled dates
Poorly trained attorneys

Too few early and too many late dispositions

Calendars overset and set too early

Poor use of DCM and ADR

Jury management problems

Parties not prepared

REASONS WHY TRIALS DO NOT OCCUR ON SCHEDULED DATES
reasons why trials do not occur on scheduled dates continued
Attorney conflicts

Adjournments

Cut-off dates for motions, evidentiary hearings

Commitment to estimated trial length

Scheduling backup trials

Trial backup systems

REASONS WHY TRIALS DO NOT OCCUR ON SCHEDULED DATES(continued)
more reasons why trials do not occur on scheduled dates
MORE REASONS WHY TRIALS DO NOT OCCUR ON SCHEDULED DATES

Is this for participants to make suggestions?

guidelines for setting firm trial dates
Schedule as few cases for trial as possible

Goal: Percentage of cases scheduled for trial not more than twice the actual trial rate.

Set firm trial dates. Set Trial date when case is trial-ready after all pretrial matters have been resolved.

Goal:15% continuances or less.

Do it once

Consider every event a disposition opportunity

GUIDELINES FOR SETTING FIRM TRIAL DATES
guidelines for achieving firm trial dates
Schedule as few trials as possible

Schedule trials late in the process*

Have backup systems

Gather and review monitoring information

GUIDELINES FOR ACHIEVING FIRM TRIAL DATES
continuances and trial resets
Sample jurisdiction

26,612 filings

532 trials

26,612 x 3 people = 79,836 people

Continue once - 79,836 x 2 = 159,672

Continue twice - 79,836 x 3 = 239,503

Continue 3 times - 79,386 x 4 = 319,344

Trial - average appearances per case = 5

CONTINUANCES AND TRIAL RESETS
controlling continuances and trial resets
Strict written court policy to limit continuances

Track continuance rate to see if policy is enforced

Who continued

Reasons for continuance

CONTROLLING CONTINUANCES AND TRIAL RESETS
continuances rules
Continuances breed continuances

If attorneys believe case will proceed as scheduled, they will prepare

Preparation minimizes the need for continuances

Cannot establish trial date certainty if you allow continuances

CONTINUANCES RULES
target continuances rate
TARGET CONTINUANCES RATE

Goal: Continuance rate of 15% or less

per scheduled court event including trial settings

proven techniques for both civil and criminal cases
Court attention to cases at earliest possible moment

Early and continuous case control

Event deadlines

Restriction of continuances

Smaller trial calendars

Firm trial dates

Trial management

For all but the most complex court cases, do not schedule trials until all other settlement options have been tried

PROVEN TECHNIQUES FOR BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES
proven techniques specifically forcivil cases
Control time from filing to service

Monitor receipt of answer or responsive pleading

Case differentiation for track assignment and management

Early case scheduling conferences

Trial date selected after all settlement options explored for all but the most complex cases (1-2% max)

PROVEN TECHNIQUES SPECIFICALLY FORCIVIL CASES
proven techniques specifically for criminal cases
Realistic Charging

More Dispositions at or before arraignment in general jurisdiction court

DA, PD, Court Consultation on appropriate processing track

Every event meaningful

PROVEN TECHNIQUES SPECIFICALLY FOR CRIMINAL CASES
proven techniques specifically for criminal cases continued
Early disposition of motions

Plea cut off dates

Trial dates scheduled only if needed, after all settlement options explored

PROVEN TECHNIQUES SPECIFICALLY FOR CRIMINAL CASES(continued)
proven techniques for motivating and helping judges
Chief judge should serve as role model

Structure - policies, meetings, involvement

System climate

Provide good information

Use peer and system pressure

PROVEN TECHNIQUES FORMOTIVATING AND HELPING JUDGES
proven techniques for motivating and helping judges1
Provide orientation for new judges

Employ positive motivation

Include judges in staff meetings

Include lead and other staff in judge’s meetings

Do not waste time in meetings, provide staffing and information

Build team approach - regular meetings

Hold meetings off-site

PROVEN TECHNIQUES FORMOTIVATING AND HELPING JUDGES
group exercise
GROUP EXERCISE:

THE SAME OR BETTER JUSTICE SOONER:

DESIGNING COURT INTERVENTION

managing trial time
65-75% of a judge’s time is spent in trial

Trial time includes time scheduling, continuing, and re-scheduling trials

Judge and courtroom based staff time is the most expensive resource in the court (about $2,500 per day per courtroom)

Trial time can be reduced by careful management

MANAGING TRIAL TIME*
  • All material adapted from Dale Sipes et al, On Trial: The Lengths of Criminal and Civil Trials,
  • National Center for State Courts, 1989
the math
THE MATH

10 minutes per hour saved by each judge in trial

4.5 hours per day on bench in trial on average

40.5 minutes per day saved per judge

8 judges

324 minutes per day

5.4 hours per day

Equals more than one new judge!

profile of a trial 1
1. Selection of the jury in jury trials

2. Plaintiff’s/prosecution’s opening statement

3. Defense’s opening statement

4. Plaintiff’s/prosecution’s evidence

5. Defense’s evidence

6. Plaintiff’s/prosecution’s rebuttal

7. Plaintiff’s/prosecution’s closing argument

8. Defense’s closing argument

9. Charge to the jury in jury trials

10. Submission of case to judge in a bench or jury trial

PROFILE OF A TRIAL - 1
mean length for all trials
Civil Jury 13 hours 13 minutes

Criminal Jury 11 hours 7 minutes

Civil Non Jury 4 hours 54 minutes

Criminal Non Jury 3 hours 29 minutes

Plaintiff/prosecution from 2 to 2.7 times longer than defense

Capital cases and jury deliberation excluded

MEAN LENGTH FOR ALL TRIALS*
can trial length be controlled
CAN TRIAL LENGTH BE CONTROLLED?

Judges and attorneys overwhelmingly believe that trial length can and should be controlled

techniques
Prevent repetitive questioning

Define areas of dispute before trial

Set time limits during trial

TECHNIQUES
controlling trial length
Pre-trial atmosphere

Trial continuity and length of trial day

Larger trials - more of everything

Examination of jurors

Witnesses

Exhibits

Length of testimony

Breaks

Interruptions

CONTROLLING TRIAL LENGTH
long trials
Long trials result when judges allow:

More witnesses, exhibits, breaks, and interruptions

Loss of trial momentum

Trials and trial segments that go over breaks in morning, afternoon, days, and weekends

LONG TRIALS
dcm principles
WHY NOT TREAT ALL CASES A LIKE?

CASES ARE DIFFERENT

SOME CASES MAY BE SLOWED TO THE PACE OF ALL,WHILE OTHERS ARE PUSHED MORE QUICKLY THAN JUSTICE REQUIRES

CASES NEEDING A JUDGE’S MAY NOT GET IT, WHILE CASES NOT NEEDING IT MAY BE BROUGHT BEFORE A JUDGE

DCM PRINCIPLES
slide81
Objective:

Same or better justice sooner

Eliminate waste and delay

Reduce costs time and otherwise

DCM

Definition: Determination of the appropriate level of court and attorney

attention that will move each case to disposition in a just and efficient manner

dcm as triage criminal example
Band Aid

Stitches

X-Rays

Surgery,

Long hospital Stay, ICU

DCM AS TRIAGECRIMINAL EXAMPLE

Diversion

Probation

Motions, bench trial

Jury trial

Compare welfare fraud to first degree murder

dcm elements
Early case screening for complexity based on established criteria

Assignment to unique case tracks

Different procedures for each case track

Base assignment system on need by track

DCM ELEMENTS
benefits of dcm
Optimum use of ADR

Attorney required to give early attention to cases

Potential for reduced motion practice

Facilitates accurate trial scheduling by reducing the number of cases not reached on trial day

BENEFITS OF DCM
three generic case tracks
Basic/Expedited

Proceed to disposition w/ little or no court oversight

Monitorable non labor intensive events

20 – 25% of cases

THREE GENERIC CASE TRACKS
three generic case tracks1
Standard

Contested issues with only modest need for court or judicial hearings

65 – 70 % of cases

THREE GENERIC CASE TRACKS
three generic case tracks2
Complex

Continuous and extensive judicial and court oversight due to:

Seriousness, size and complexity of issues,

Visibility, identity and number of parties, and others involved,

Difficulty or novelty of legal and factual issues

0 – 5% of cases

THREE GENERIC CASE TRACKS
slide88
CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFYING CASES AS:

BASIC/SIMPLE/EXPEDITED

STANDARD

COMPLEX

dcm model application
OLD: Designed for complex cases; no firm trial dates; master calendar for 28 judges, minimal accountability, continuances freely given; usually set six trial dates then settle/disposed; no discovery or other cut offs; all cases given 2 – 5 years to ripenDCM MODEL APPLICATION
dcm model application1
DCM MODEL APPLICATION

NEW: New cases assigned to 7 of 28 judges using individual calendar;

Accurate count of active pending cases; old cases assigned to 21 judges with non complex cases assigned to efficient judge; take control of all other w/ special attention to backlog cases and scheduling orders for all cases, set time limits for response, expedite mediation, final settlement conference

dcm model application2
DCM MODEL APPLICATION

New Cases: 7 Judge Pilot w/ 4 Tracks:

SHORT: 3 months discovery

REGULAR: 6 months discovery

LONG: 9 months discovery

EXCEPTION: Custom design for each case

  • Results
  • Of all cases 60 months or older only 18 went to trial
  • Reduced pending caseload from 31,000 to 21,000 in three years
  • As current pending cases were reduced the 21 judges assigned to the “day backward” calendar were assigned to the new “day forward” dockets and teams
  • In three years there were only 3,200 cases over 2 years old
needed criminal information
Bail recommendation

Sentence guideline score based on current offense and criminal history

Urinalysis results

Addiction severity index result

Sanction guideline recommendation

NEEDED CRIMINAL INFORMATION
clearance rate filings dispositions
DEFINITION OF BACKLOG

The backlog is the number of cases in the inventory that are older than the time standard set by the court.

CLEARANCE RATEFILINGS/DISPOSITIONS
backlog analysis 1
Court A – CRIMINAL

Annual Filings: 9,171

Dispositions Last Year: 10,380

Current Pending: 4,780

Time Standard: 6 months

Cases over 1 year old: 2,480

Pending Goal

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 1
the math1
100 Filings

100 Pending Cases

Median Time to Disposition 12 months

100% Case 24 months

50 Pending Cases

Median Case 6 months

100 % Case 12 months

25 Pending Cases

Median Case 3 months

100 % Case 6 months

Pending Goal = Filings x .25 for each six months

4 Month Time Standard Filings x ______

2 month Time Standard Filings x ______

THE MATH
backlog analysis 2
Court B – CRIMINAL

Annual Filings: 9,171

Dispositions Last Year: 8,048

Current Pending: 1,841

Time Standard: 6 months

Median age: 81 days

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 2
backlog analysis 3
Court C – CRIMINAL

Annual Filings: 9,171

Dispositions Last Year: 12,590

Current Pending: 3,450

Time Standard: 6 months

Median age at disposition: 628 days

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 3
backlog analysis 4
Court D – CRIMINAL

Annual Filings: 9,171

Dispositions Last Year: 9,180

Current Pending: 2,140

Time Standard: 6 months

Median age at disposition: 94 days

Median age pending 84 days

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 4
backlog analysis 5
Court E – CIVIL

Annual Filings: 28,100

Terminations Last Year: 22,380

Current Pending: 42,740

Time Standard 98% in 18 months

Number of judges 20

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 5
backlog analysis 6
Court F – CIVIL

Annual Filings: 8,254

Terminations Last Year: 8,221

Current Pending: 7,537

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 6
backlog analysis 7
Court G – CIVIL TRACK I

Annual Filings: 4,058

Terminations Last Year: 3,823

Current Pending: 3,277

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 7
backlog analysis 8
Court H – ALL TRACKS

Annual Filings: 98,675

Terminations Last Year: 108,533

Current Pending: 97,876

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 8
backlog analysis 9
Court I – CIVIL TRACK II

Annual Filings: 4,734

Terminations Last Year: 4,590

Current Pending: 3,866

Time Standard 100% 18 months

Backlog 465

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 9
backlog analysis 10
Court J – CIVIL TRACKS III and IV

Annual Filings: 563

Terminations Last Year: 534

Current Pending: 817

Time Standard 100% 24 months

Backlog 145

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 10
backlog analysis 11
Court 11 – SPECIAL CIVIL AUTO AND CONTRACT

Annual Filings: 16,866

Terminations Last Year: 15,750

Current Pending: 2,574

Time Standard 100% 4 months

Backlog 80

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 11
backlog analysis 111
Court I2 – SPECIAL CIVIL SMALL CLAIMS and TENANCY

Annual Filings: 13,801

Terminations Last Year: 13,702

Current Pending: 921

Time Standard 100% 2 months

Backlog 11

BACKLOG ANALYSIS - 11
attacking an existing backlog
Determine the active pending caseload

Administratively review all cases

Formally close “dead” cases

Announce the results

Determine status of remaining cases

Send notices and determine if still active

Case review by highly efficient judge

ATTACKING AN EXISTING BACKLOG -
attacking an existing backlog 2
Formulate plan for remaining cases

Settlement conference and early disposition

Deadlines and short schedules for intense judicial attention

Mediation and arbitration

Extra resources for conducting trials in old cases

Other staff requirements

System for monitoring progress

Implement effective docket management plan

ATTACKING AN EXISTING BACKLOG - 2
systems approach and vision
Case flow management is not just the court; it’s the whole system

Everyone has to work together

Include all individuals and agencies involved

Obtain buy-in of all involved

SYSTEMS APPROACH AND VISION
systems approach
Techniques

Cooperation

Commitment

Feedback

Program modifications

Small, continuous improvements

Result

Maintain the docket without backlog

SYSTEMS APPROACH
anticipatory caseflow management
Develop a vision of the future

Develop a mission and goals statement

Establish objectives

Set performance targets and indicators

Formulate implementation plans and strategies

ANTICIPATORY CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT
why a team approach is more efficient
More motivation

More commitment

Team can withstand more stress

Team generates and sustains energy

More excitement and enthusiasm

Different perspectives in problem solving

WHY A TEAM APPROACH IS MORE EFFICIENT
court purposes and vision
COURT PURPOSES AND VISION

Court leaders must understand court purposes and promote vision and action throughout the court and justice community organized around the impact caseflow management has on justice. Acceptable court performance is impossible without effective caseflow management.

fundamentals
FUNDAMENTALS

Fundamentals include the relationship between the purposes of courts and effective caseflow and trial management, leadership, time standards, alternative case scheduling and assignment systems, and case management techniques, including differentiated case management (DCM) and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

leadership teams and system wide effectiveness
Court managers and the judge(s) in charge of the court (including the judges who head specialized court divisions) must work together to improve case processing and jointly lead the court and justice system. Understanding that while caseflow management requires early and continuous court control of individual cases, system-wide caseflow effectiveness is a cooperative effort of public and private litigants and lawyers, law enforcement, social services, health, detention and correctional organizations, and judges and court staff.LEADERSHIP TEAMS AND SYSTEM-WIDE EFFECTIVENESS
change and project management
CHANGE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Courts must skillfully and continuously evaluate caseflow with qualitative information and data and statistics, identify problems, and successfully build support for implementing and managing change.

technology
TECHNOLOGY

Technology supports caseflow management through creation and maintenance of records concerning case processing and schedules, structuring management of pre-trial, trial, and post-dispositional events, conferences, and hearings; monitoring case progress; flagging cases for staff and judge attention; enabling verbatim records of court proceedings; and providing needed management information and statistics.

personal intervention
PERSONAL INTERVENTION

Court leaders need to personally intervene, communicate, and negotiate to bring about just and efficient case processing for all case types from filing to closure and court event to court event.