Fifty Years is Enough

Over a year ago (14 Forum 25, Jan/Feb 1996) this column called attention to the demise of Sta-Fed, and argued that it was merely a symptom of the real problem, inordinate delay. There is no motive to settle in the absence of immediate exposure to trial. Because trials are delayed so long, defendants show no interest in mediating cases for quick disposition. Indeed, this is why insurance carriers invariably instruct their attorneys to claim their cases for jury trial, and why nearly all of the carriers have taken arbitration out of their automobile uninsured motorist policies. We proposed that the Chief Justice appoint a special study group consisting of lawyers and judges to view the problem of inordinate delay closely, analyze it, determine what can be done to eliminate it, and report in a reasonable time. We renewed that same request earlier this year (15 Forum __, May/June 1997).

In September 1996 the Chief Court Administrator, Judge Aaron Ment, circulated a booklet entitled "Planning for the Future of the Connecticut Judicial Branch." The booklet addressed the problem of delay. We printed the booklet in its entirety in 14 Forum 381 (Sept/Oct 1996). It calls for the appointment of 20 judges and 58 support staff, and solicits the bar’s support. CTLA supported the Judicial Branch in this endeavor.

We continue to support the Judicial Branch in this endeavor, as do all trial lawyers. But we are not sure that it ever had any chance of solving the problem. In the past expanded resources and new staff and judges have been directed to criminal, domestic and juvenile matters. Civil jury matters have been left out. The booklet circulated by Judge Ment does not address this aspect of the issue, except in a general way that the Judicial Branch can do more with more.

While we continue to support the Judicial Branch in its request for more personnel, we are puzzled by its approach when considered against the events of the past 18 months. On March 29, 1996, 178 judicial workers were laid off because of a $7.1 million shortfall in the judicial department budget brought about by a wage arbitration award. The legislature and governor could not get together to legislatively correct the situation. Whatever the reason for the failure of the legislative bailout, 178 judicial workers lost their jobs. There was no stand by the Judicial Branch - an independent branch of our government - to demand that the legislature or governor find the funds somewhere. There was no claim that the Judicial Branch could not do its job efficiently without these employees. Rather, it acquiesced and laid off the 178 workers.

At the time of the layoffs there was talk of a state budget surplus. Publicity concerning the amount of the surplus began in June 1996, when the Hartford Courant reported that because of the improved economy tax receipts were likely to lead to an $89 million surplus. By July 20, 1996 the Courant was reporting an estimated surplus at $212 million, and by Labor Day we were advised by the press that the state "seized a $250 million surplus." This surplus is nearly twice the entire Judicial Branch’s budget. If you subtract the income generated, it is more than three times the net cost of the entire Judicial Branch.

Judge Ment was quoted in the Stamford Advocate on August 10, 1996 as stating that there was a 20,000 civil jury case backlog, and that he could not "recall the civil caseload ever being as massive."

In 1954, in a series of articles published by the Hartford Courant, and later published in a booklet captioned "Justice in a Jam," Courant reporter Gerald Demeusy reported a backlog of 16,222 lawsuits. "Justice in a Jam" was hailed by then-Governor John Lodge, Chief Justice Ernest A. Inglis, and Associate Justice Raymond E. Baldwin. Mr. Demeusy, now retired and residing in Manchester, has generously loaned us a copy of "Justice in a Jam." A summary of the series of articles was published in the Connecticut Bar Journal as part of a symposium on congestion of the docket, 28 Conn. Bar J. 369-407 (December 1954). The Connecticut Bar Journal symposium also contains articles by Chief Justice Inglis, and prominent practitioners of the day - David Goldstein, Cyril Coleman, and Sigmund Miller. Mr. Demeusy’s opening article of the symposium begins with the statement (28 Conn. Bar J. at 369):

On December 10, 1978, in an article published by the Hartford Courant entitled "Old Problems Merge into Focus," by veteran reporter Thomas D. Williams, we find the lead paragraph stating:

Something is wrong here. The Judicial Branch does not complain about the 178 person layoff, and then circulates a booklet telling us that it is indispensable to add 20 judges and 58 support staff. All this in the face of a 20,000 case backlog, a history dating to World War II of similar backlogs and intractable delay, and a surplus three times the net budget of the entire Judicial Branch. We recognize that by statute the surplus must go to the State’s so-called "rainy day fund," as well as to pay off long-term debt. But the "rainy day fund" can be accessed, and on the spending side, there were "lapses," obtained through a modified hiring freeze, decreases over time and other cost-cutting measures that actually saved the State $158 million.

We have in this state in the larger counties scandalous delays - up to six years from the filing of a case to trial in some areas. This kind of delay has been intractable for 50 years. It came after World War II, was reported in 1954 by Mr. Demeusy, and in 1978 by Mr. Williams, and is still with us. (See 14 Forum 25). Countless initiatives, blitzes, ADR programs and the like have been ineffective. Aggravating the problem immeasurably is the 178 layoffs which occurred in March 1996. Where else do lawyers deal with a clerk’s office that is closed for two and a half hours out of an eight hour day? Our clerks’ offices are not open 9 to 5, rather 9 to 1, and 2:30 to 4 p.m. Our motions get calendared weeks after filing. We pick juries in conference rooms or makeshift closets. We now have early intervention conferences, or EICs, as they are called. Deadlines are set for the close of pleadings, discovery, disclosure of experts, depositions, and dispositive motions. Once all this is accomplished on an expedited timetable, the case, following the federal example, languishes for four to six years before it is reached.

The problem is a difficult one. Difficult problems involve difficult solutions. We have proposed a task force or special study group appointed by the Chief Justice to study and report on the problem. We again repeat that request.

The consensus is that delay must be met head on. We believe that more judges and larger and better facilities and staffing, especially staffing for our judges, is essential to an efficient civil justice system. We think the system needs an overhaul: maybe 100 new judges and 200 support staff, and expanded and modern facilities in nearly every judicial district. Accountability is essential, probably by the creation of an individual docket for each judge. Study is needed. Solutions must be thought out carefully.

Article 1, Section 10 of the Connecticut Constitution provides:

When Chief Justice Callahan was sworn in on August 29, 1996 he was quoted in the press as stating:

It is not only the compromise of access that is affected. It is the public and the bar’s respect for and confidence in the system that is at stake.

We printed in the September/October 1996 Forum (14 Forum 420) an editorial from the New Haven Register about the condition of the New Haven county courthouse. That editorial noted that maintenance "at the court has been neglected for decades." Conditions are so bad that raw sewage is found in the basement, dead pigeons in the air shafts, exposed asbestos throughout the building, stagnant air, and flaking lead paint. This magnificent structure in this condition has become a symbol of our civil justice system.

Fifty years is enough! It is time for action! We call on the Chief Justice to create a task force, set a deadline for its study and report of the problem, and act upon its proposals.