A New Model for Civil Case Management: Efficacy Through Intrinsic Engagement

Most trends in reforming our civil litigation system in recent decades have been based on a “high tech” paradigm—reformers assume the system will be more efficient if we create enough self-executing procedures that issues are resolved automatically and people are kept away from the courthouse. The paradigm is akin to an automated system for answering the telephone at a busy company; just push the right button and you will automatically be transferred to your destination. This article suggests an alternative “high touch” approach1 that applies the principles of procedural justice to achieve more efficient “distributive justice” (a fair and just result). The testing experience of a seven-year pilot program and the behavioral science research underlying procedural justice are consistent with the following thesis: A civil case management system should achieve greater efficiency, participant cooperation, and participant satisfaction by eschewing the modern trend of dispute suppression and prefab case management in favor of a philosophy that, informed by the behavioral sciences, is based on disputant engagement that tailors case management to the individual needs of the case. Put more succinctly, effective civil case management is tailored to the individual needs of the participants. While a controlled evaluative study is needed, the pilot testing and the existing behavioral science research tell us that the goal of civil case management should be giving each civil case the degree of management it needs (whether greater or lesser) through early, hands-on, and individualized engagement of the judge with the disputants. To continue the telephone analogy, rather than an automated telephone-answering system, a live, knowledgeable, and engaged receptionist will be more effective for the company and the customer, more satisfying for the customer, and more economical and efficient for all

Editor\u27s Note, Vol. 56, No. 2

In this issue we bring you a collection of articles addressing judicial leadership and management skills. This is a topic of particular interest to me and one that I think has been given far too little treatment in the resources provided to judicial officers. Most of us in the judiciary have not had the luxury of formal, or even informal, training in management, administrative, or leadership skills. Yet, because of our positions, we are routinely placed in roles requiring these skills in depth. More often than not, the nature of the issues we are called upon to address mean that we not only need to have these skills, we need to employ them at a high level of expertise. One of my long pet projects has been to bring resources to judges to help them with these challenges. I have been lucky enough to be part of a judicial branch that has valued and, at times, emphasized development of leadership skills in judicial officers. My hope is that we at Court Review will build a strong portfolio over the years to come of judicial leadership and management reference materials to help you. In the interest of full disclosure, I should also mention that I teach these skills for the National Judicial College

A New Model for Civil Case Management: Efficacy Through Intrinsic Engagement

Most trends in reforming our civil litigation system in recent decades have been based on a “high tech” paradigm—reformers assume the system will be more efficient if we create enough self-executing procedures that issues are resolved automatically and people are kept away from the courthouse. The paradigm is akin to an automated system for answering the telephone at a busy company; just push the right button and you will automatically be transferred to your destination. This article suggests an alternative “high touch” approach1 that applies the principles of procedural justice to achieve more efficient “distributive justice” (a fair and just result). The testing experience of a seven-year pilot program and the behavioral science research underlying procedural justice are consistent with the following thesis: A civil case management system should achieve greater efficiency, participant cooperation, and participant satisfaction by eschewing the modern trend of dispute suppression and prefab case management in favor of a philosophy that, informed by the behavioral sciences, is based on disputant engagement that tailors case management to the individual needs of the case. Put more succinctly, effective civil case management is tailored to the individual needs of the participants. While a controlled evaluative study is needed, the pilot testing and the existing behavioral science research tell us that the goal of civil case management should be giving each civil case the degree of management it needs (whether greater or lesser) through early, hands-on, and individualized engagement of the judge with the disputants. To continue the telephone analogy, rather than an automated telephone-answering system, a live, knowledgeable, and engaged receptionist will be more effective for the company and the customer, more satisfying for the customer, and more economical and efficient for all

One Judge’s Journey to Why — A Search for Meaning and Purpose

The week had been one of those that make you question your choices in life. Monday, as always, started with my criminal docket. It was probably my attitude, but working through the 80 cases, one after another, had an impersonal, assembly-line feel to it. The day had started poorly with the People seeking to dismiss one case due to the defendant’s death—one of our more promising probationers. She had one of those rare personalities that shined through her orange scrubs and silvery shackles at the podium. Though she recited the clichés of change learned in countless hours of mandated therapy, she gave you the impression she could make it. Unfortunately, this time her demon was heroin and the dose was too high. The start to this day drew me back to an all-too-familiar ground, wondering why I do this, what the point is... went through the rest of docket mechanically, guarding my reserves as much as possible. But then came one of my self-representeds late in the day. Usually intelligent, insightful, and engaging (if also aggravating), he had gotten it into his head on this day that he needed to speak his own version of legal latin while in the courtroom. I could not coast through that one and mustered what procedural fairness skills I could, struggling to decipher what he was trying to communicate and make him feel heard. After my third, “I’m sorry Mr. Jenson, I’m just not following you,” he growled in exasperation “officio juris ignorante.” Despite my mood, this had me fighting to control a smile. I acknowledged that I had understood him this time and that he may well be right

The Fiction of Atticus Finch Meets the Reality of James Prince

For nearly all of us, To Kill a Mockingird served as one of the major milestones on our paths to heeding the call to serve the rule of law. For me, Harper Lee’s iconic novel shaped my journey from a slightly different perspective. Legal professionals routinely praise the inspirational bravery and integrity of the central character, lawyer Atticus Finch. But two other pieces of the story were more formative for me. When prompted, most can remember that tension-filled scene in which unarmed Atticus Finch tried to face down a mob intent on lynching his client, Tom Robinson, an African- American accused of raping a white woman in racist America. Atticus doesn’t make much progress until his daughter, Scout, and two other children show up. Scout greets members of the mob by name, takes away their anonymity within the mob, and shames them with her innocence. The mob mentality is broken not by force, authority, or persuasion as in the classic Hollywood western but by individual humanity. Everybody lives to witness Atticus’s brilliant and spirited defense of Mr. Robinson in court. I find that far too many people forget the second piece of the story that so impacted me. Despite Atticus’s utterly convincing defense, Mr. Robinson was found guilty in a clear miscarriage of justice. Given the time, Tom Robinson was, in all likelihood, executed a short time later. And so I was always left to wonder, what was the point of it all? It seemed to me that the community just made a lynching look like a legitimate legal proceeding

Editor\u27s Note, Vol. 55, No. 4

We present you with a number of thought-provoking items in this issue on a variety of topics touching those working in and around the judiciary. This issue brings our annual review of recent criminal decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the debut of our new reporter, Michigan Law Prof. Eve Brensike Primus. Prof. Primus teaches criminal law and is a coauthor of one of the leading criminal procedure casebooks. On behalf of all the readers of Court Review across the continent, welcome, Prof. Primus. Her coauthor for this issue is Kristin Froehle of Williams & Connolly LLP

Editor\u27s Note, Vol. 57, No. 4

In this issue, we bring you our annual round up of criminal law and procedure cases issued by the United States Supreme Court. Prof. Eve Primus and her co-author Lily Sawyer-Kaplan provide an informative and thoughtful review of the developments from the Supreme Court’s last term on issues like search, flight, tribal authority, and the shadow docket. If you handle any cases in the criminal arena, you will want to keep their summary nearby even after you have read it

A New Model for Civil Case Management: Efficacy Through Intrinsic Engagement

Most trends in reforming our civil litigation system in recent decades have been based on a “high tech” paradigm—reformers assume the system will be more efficient if we create enough self-executing procedures that issues are resolved automatically and people are kept away from the courthouse. The paradigm is akin to an automated system for answering the telephone at a busy company; just push the right button and you will automatically be transferred to your destination. This article suggests an alternative “high touch” approach1 that applies the principles of procedural justice to achieve more efficient “distributive justice” (a fair and just result). The testing experience of a seven-year pilot program and the behavioral science research underlying procedural justice are consistent with the following thesis: A civil case management system should achieve greater efficiency, participant cooperation, and participant satisfaction by eschewing the modern trend of dispute suppression and prefab case management in favor of a philosophy that, informed by the behavioral sciences, is based on disputant engagement that tailors case management to the individual needs of the case. Put more succinctly, effective civil case management is tailored to the individual needs of the participants. While a controlled evaluative study is needed, the pilot testing and the existing behavioral science research tell us that the goal of civil case management should be giving each civil case the degree of management it needs (whether greater or lesser) through early, hands-on, and individualized engagement of the judge with the disputants. To continue the telephone analogy, rather than an automated telephone-answering system, a live, knowledgeable, and engaged receptionist will be more effective for the company and the customer, more satisfying for the customer, and more economical and efficient for all

Dissecting the role of plant immunity in plant-aphid interactions

Aphids are economically important phloem-feeding insects that cause loss in plant productivity worldwide. This occurs through the removal of photoassimilates and the vectoring of hundreds of plant viruses. Plants possess a complex immune system in order to defend themselves from a range of pathogens including bacteria and fungi. I aimed to discover if this immune system was also involved in defence against aphids. I found that aphids have proteins that trigger plant immune responses. The aphid Myzus persicae contains several protein elicitors with varying molecular weights. These proteins are perceived by the plants Nicotiana benthamiana and Arabidopsis thaliana. In A. thaliana the perception of a 3 to 10 kDa elicitor fraction requires the leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase (LRR-RLK) BAK1, as a mutant in this gene was deficient in immune responses activated by this elicitor. Plant recognition of the elicitor is unlikely to depend on a single non-arginine-asparate (non-RD) RLK. In addition, aphids possess the means to modulate the plant immune response. I helped to identify three aphid effectors that modulate plant processes. I then investigated the role of one of these effectors, a M. persicae chemosensory protein (CSP) known as Mp10, in suppressing the immune responses triggered by the aphid elicitors. Mp10 is likely to disrupt the function of plant genes near the top of the immune signalling cascade in N. benthamiana in order to suppress elicitor-triggered immunity. Surprisingly, the homologs of this CSP in other aphids also show the same ability to suppress plant immune responses, suggesting an important role for Mp10 in plant-aphid interactions. This is the first report of a role for elicitor recognition by plants in aphid defence, the use of plant cell surface receptors to detect insects, and aphids’ attempts to suppress plant immunity

One Judge’s Journey to Why — A Search for Meaning and Purpose

The week had been one of those that make you question your choices in life. Monday, as always, started with my criminal docket. It was probably my attitude, but working through the 80 cases, one after another, had an impersonal, assembly-line feel to it. The day had started poorly with the People seeking to dismiss one case due to the defendant’s death—one of our more promising probationers. She had one of those rare personalities that shined through her orange scrubs and silvery shackles at the podium. Though she recited the clichés of change learned in countless hours of mandated therapy, she gave you the impression she could make it. Unfortunately, this time her demon was heroin and the dose was too high. The start to this day drew me back to an all-too-familiar ground, wondering why I do this, what the point is... went through the rest of docket mechanically, guarding my reserves as much as possible. But then came one of my self-representeds late in the day. Usually intelligent, insightful, and engaging (if also aggravating), he had gotten it into his head on this day that he needed to speak his own version of legal latin while in the courtroom. I could not coast through that one and mustered what procedural fairness skills I could, struggling to decipher what he was trying to communicate and make him feel heard. After my third, “I’m sorry Mr. Jenson, I’m just not following you,” he growled in exasperation “officio juris ignorante.” Despite my mood, this had me fighting to control a smile. I acknowledged that I had understood him this time and that he may well be right