Proposed Task Force Regarding Active Judicial Case Management

Via Email

Hon. Lawrence K. Marks
Chief Administrative Judge, State of New York
Office of Court Administration
25 Beaver Street
New York, NY 10004

Re:      Proposed Task Force Regarding Active Judicial Case Management 

Dear Judge Marks,

Thank you for all that you are doing to keep New Yorkers safe and the courts functioning during this challenging time.  The task is extraordinary and we are grateful for your leadership.

Although we understand that the court system is presently facing a tough challenge in returning to normal functionality, we wanted to apprise you of a pilot project that we believe is worth pursuing at the appropriate time.  The New York City Bar Association spends a considerable amount of time and energy conceiving, proposing and assisting in the implementation of innovations, small and large, to help improve the efficiency of litigation in the New York State courts.  The City Bar’s numerous committees each contribute to the cause, including the Council on Judicial Administration, the State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction Committee and the Litigation Committee.  Also, as you know, former City Bar president John Kiernan established, in 2017, a Committee for the Efficient Resolution of Disputes, whose work has continued under the leadership of co-chairs Erin Gleason Alvarez and Daniel F. Kolb, and with the strong support of current City Bar president Roger Juan Maldonado.

In February of this year, Judge Jennifer Bailey of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida joined a meeting of the Council on Judicial Administration, via videoconference, and presented the results of a pilot project that enjoyed considerable success in facilitating the expedited resolution of civil matters in her court.  The project grew out of the work of the Conference of Chief Justices and State Court Administrators, held in 2016.  The Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, and three other courts, implemented the project, focusing on active judicial case management, pursuant to which, inter alia: (i) an initial case management order is entered based on the nature of the case; (ii) the assigned judge presides over the initial case conference and at subsequent conferences; (iii) deadlines are established in the case management order after triaging the case to identify the core factual and legal issues; and (iv) the judge keeps the parties on track by enforcing the deadlines in the case management order.  We have enclosed a performance report that provides more information about the project, as carried out in Florida.

The call for active judicial case management is not new in New York.  Indeed, as set forth (on page 7) of the June 2018 “Report and Recommendations by the President’s Committee for the Efficient Resolution of Disputes[1],” it is recommended that, inter alia: “Rather than keeping hands off and allowing the process to be self-executing, [the judiciary] should actively engage in promoting the negotiated resolution of disputes and their efficient management to affordable decision.”  The very same principle applies to this project – involving the assigned judge early in the process to identify the key issues, narrow the dispute, and chart a sensible course for efficient resolution.

We understand that the Supreme Court, New York County has a great number of diverse and frequently complex cases to contend with, and that there is a tradition of affording the parties a significant degree of latitude in shaping the scope and pace of their own cases.  At the same time, there is a growing sense among judges, practitioners and members of the public that a “cultural change” is warranted in order to promote greater efficiency and access to justice in New York State courts (and courts throughout the country, for that matter).   The Chief Justice’s recent initiatives – including the Excellence Initiative and the Presumptive ADR Program – have inspired belief that meaningful change is possible.  With your support, we would like to create a task force, with judicial participation, to design a pilot project that would incorporate many of the elements of, but would not necessarily be identical to, the Florida project, for implementation in New York.

The architects of the project in Florida were meticulous in tracking their results, so that statistical comparisons could be made against the cases following their traditional model.  Although it will depend on the work and consensus of the task force, we envision rolling out a similar project in several courtrooms in New York, and likewise tracking the results for future analysis and discussion.

We thank you for your consideration and look forward to discussing this potential task force with you in greater detail.  And we hope that you, your family and your colleagues remain healthy and well.

Respectfully,

Roger Juan Maldonado
President, New York City Bar Association

Michael P. Regan
Chair, Council on Judicial Administration

Bart J. Eagle
Chair, State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction Committee

John M. Lundin
Chair, Litigation Committee

Steven M. Kayman
Chair, Efficiency Working Group of the Council on Judicial Administration

Mitchell Berns
Member, Council on Judicial Administration

Cc (by email):

Hon. Janet DiFiore
John S. Kiernan, Esq.
Eileen Millett, Esq.