Judicial Efficiency

What Is Judicial Efficiency?

“Judicial efficiency” is a term that is often thrown about in courtrooms and pleadings. The concept, in a nutshell, is that where justice can be served in a manner that does not waste the court’s time and resources, that is the proper course of action.

Judicial efficiency is often promoted using written arguments and motions over oral arguments. Instead of a judge sitting through live witness testimony and argument, a packet of information is written up that includes each side’s sworn witness statements (called affidavits or declarations) and legal arguments with case citations. The judge and her clerks may then reference each party’s legal citations, conduct additional research if necessary, and prepare a written decision. The practice of law is thus heavily dependent upon written documents that shuttle to and from the court, such as:

• Requests for Default Judgement
• Tentative Rulings
• Motions in Limine

Let’s look at how each of these common tools used by attorneys affects judicial efficiency.

Requests for Default Judgment Improve Judicial Efficiency

When you file a complaint and the defendant fails to answer, it would be judicially inefficient to force you to nonetheless present your evidence to the judge in trial-form (jury, bailiff, live witness testimony, etc.). Instead, most counties in California allow for the filing of a written document called a Request for Entry of Default.

A Request for Entry of Default asks the court to find that the defendant has defaulted on his obligation to file a response to your complaint. Once entered, you may gather up your evidence in the form of written declarations and briefed argument and present the packet of paper (called a Request for Default Judgment) to the judge or court clerk to request that judgment be entered against the defendant.

Many times, the judge or court clerk will have a question about a certain piece of evidence or monetary calculation in the Request for Default Judgment. In that case, the Request will be denied and sent back to your attorney’s office. Your attorney will supply the requested information and resubmit the Request for Default Judgment to the court. This process may take a couple of back-and-forth rounds to complete. Depending on how busy the court department is, it could be several months until a judgment is finally entered.

Clients often feel disheartened or disappointed when a Request is denied. Litigating attorneys understand this frustration; however, it is important to remember that this method promotes efficiency – both for the judiciary and the client.

While it is true that some of the questions that result in an initial denial could have been answered quickly if they were asked before the judge in person, the process of scheduling a trial-like hearing to prove one’s case is anything but quick. Often courts do not have free slots open on their calendars for several months. Proving one’s case in person would require witness attendance and hours of attorney time to prepare and appear before the judge. In contrast, it is typically a fairly quick process (equivalent to one day’s work or less) to prepare the Request documents.

Tentative Rulings Improve Judicial Efficiency

A tentative ruling is a draft of how the court intends to rule on the case.

Here’s a brief description of a typical process leading to a tentative ruling:

1. Motions are submitted to the court.
2. The moving party submits a brief with written evidence and citation to case law.
3. The opposing party is given an opportunity to write an opposing brief and does so.
4. The moving party follows up with a final reply brief.
5. A hearing is scheduled for oral arguments before the court by each party’s attorney.
6. In many counties, a tentative ruling is issued the day or so before the scheduled hearing.

In Fresno County, the tentative ruling is posted on the court website or sent to each party’s attorney. If either party is unhappy with the court’s ruling and believes they can convince the court to alter its ruling, that party may call in to advise that they intend to appear at the hearing and deliver oral argument. If neither party calls in, then the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. At this point, the case is closed, and the hearing never needs to take place.

Sometimes clients feel that the tentative ruling process deprives them of their day in court. They would like their attorney to have the opportunity to appear in person before the judge and argue the case. Attorneys do understand this frustration. However, consider that the parties’ written motion paperwork sets forth each party’s argument in detail, with supporting evidence and legal citation allowing the judge to carefully review and consider each of those arguments in detail before issuing a tentative ruling.

It’s important to note that additional oral argument rarely changes the judge’s opinion. Unless the tentative ruling reveals that the judge has made a material mistake regarding the facts of the case or applicable law, there is typically no benefit to further argument.

The system of tentative rulings promotes efficiency for the client too. There is no sense in paying your attorney to travel to and argue before the judge if doing so would make no difference to the outcome of the motion. And it promotes judicial efficiency. If a judge has, say, 30 cases scheduled for argument on a particular day and can dispose of half of them via tentative ruling, then the length of time to complete the argument docket for the day will be significantly reduced, freeing up time for cases in which oral argument is crucial.

Motions in Limine Improve Judicial Efficiency

A motion in limine is a request to a judge asking for the exclusion of a specific piece of evidence or an argument from being presented during a trial. This is a pretrial request. An enormous advantage of a skilled litigation attorney is knowing they can anticipate the reaction to the presentation of a piece of evidence or argument in court and prevent it from occurring in the first place.

The typical “smoking gun” evidence portrayed in television and movies is not a realistic portrayal of the American justice system. To the greatest extent possible, judges like to have issues of fact and law resolved well before trial begins. To that end, squabbles that are likely to come up during the trial (whether a particular piece of evidence will be admissible or a certain witness allowed to testify, etc.) must be written up and presented to the judge for resolution in the weeks prior to trial.

Motions in limine can be used to:

• Partially or entirely exclude questionable expert testimony under the Daubert Standard by asking the judge to examine the reliability of the witness or their methodology before they have an opportunity to speak before a jury
• Admit evidence into court that may be subject to objection to gain the judge’s ruling on its admissibility in advance
• Prevent the presentation of any evidence that could be highly emotional or prejudicial such as mention of prior conviction

Clients sometimes are confused about why their attorney is spending time drafting motions for disputes that have not yet even occurred. Why should a client pay for their attorney to draft a lengthy brief when they could simply object to the witness or evidence during the trial? The answer lies in judicial efficiency.

If a certain piece of evidence or testimony is uttered before the jury that is so inappropriate and damaging that it calls into question the ability of the jury to render a fair decision in the case, a mistrial may be called. Having to start trial from scratch is not a good use of the judge’s or the parties’ time and resources. Even when the dispute is not so extreme, however, trials are most efficient when they can proceed without delay. Jurors are called and the courtroom is staffed with bailiff, court reporter, etc. If the trial must come to a halt to allow the parties to present argument about a certain bit of evidence, this slows down the process and harms efficiency.

Additionally, without the ability to prevent evidence from being brought up in court, a litigating attorney would have to object to it mid-trial. This would greatly increase the risk that the discussion about the inadmissibility of the content would end up abbreviated. If this had to happen, the litigating attorney might never get the opportunity to fully articulate the reason for their objection. Motions in limine ensure every detail of an objection is addressed at a time when the judge can thoroughly examine it and contemplate its validity.

A skilled litigation attorney will carefully draft these motions by clearly presenting exactly what should be excluded. They will express with as much clarity as possible why the evidence should be inadmissible and how it would create prejudice if presented at trial.

Judicial Efficiency Helps Everyone

Methods that improve judicial efficiency are essential to the delivery of justice. They ensure that most cases are handled in a timely manner without exhausting the time and resources of the courts. Judicial efficiency helps ensure the following:

• Access to justice for people without a limitless bank account
• Access to justice for those that need it most

Plus, judicial efficiency protects the time and resources of experienced litigation attorneys and their clients. Adequate judicial efficiency also has far-reaching consequences that many people rarely consider. Consider the following economic effects of an efficient judicial system:

• Helping ensure that businesses can stay afloat by maintaining the effective enforcement of contacts through timely legal resolution
• Promoting the growth of economies by protecting consumer rights and fair business practices
• Encouraging the development of business startups and a competitive market

While the real story of practicing law in the United States is far less dramatic than as seen on TV, our heavy dependence on written documents shuttling to and from the court protecting judicial efficiency ensures that real people have access to the justice they deserve.

LloydWinter, P.C. is a full-service law firm with branches in Texas and California dedicated to providing fair and knowledgeable legal services to all its clients. If you find yourself or your business in a civil litigation matter, we can help and for a reasonable price! We offer monthly billing plans to make sure you can afford the legal support you deserve.