Jaws In A Robe

I read an interesting essay on judging the other day. The author noted that the image of a federal trial judge sitting dispassionately at trial calling balls and strikes should be supplanted by a new image: the manager, sitting by his or her computer checking out case reports and researching case law on pending motions.

That is not a reassuring image.

Many reasons are given for the vanishing trial. Filings in the District Court have increased, but the number of cases going to trial has decreased. There have been no new rules of procedure that would account for the decline in trial. The increase in filings suggest we are more litigious than ever.

So what hidden causes account for the vanishing trial?

I am aware of at least two: First, the self-conscious managerial ethos of the District Court and second the pernicious growth of legal doctrines designed to keep cases from trial.

The managerial ethos is not evil per se. It springs from a well-meaning, if someone literalistic, commitment to the prompt, speedy and inexpensive resolution of disputes. But the law of unintended consequences kicks in here. When a trial court decides it needs more reports on the status of a case, costs increase. Lawyers meet and confer, report to the Court, draft pleadings, contact clients and engage in hours of collateral chatter that often have the look and feel of litigation but, in fact, contribute but little to a case.

Nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of trial. Talking months, or sometimes years, in advance of trial about what a dispute will look like sometimes has the look and feel of talking about sex: Glasses get all fogged and steamy, hearts throb, commitments get made. But after all the small talk judicial management often produces little more than billable hours.

The burden of this additional time falls hardest on small plaintiff’s firms, the sort of shops in which lawyers struggle to meet payroll, client demands and the requirements of professional norms governing the practice of law. Most plaintiffs can’t afford to pay hourly rates. Add a few hours small talk and the foreplay associated with judicious interruptus to the litigation of a federal case, and that is simply work for which most plaintiff’s lawyers go uncompensated. Not so on the defense side of the ledger, where the hourly billing machine ticks, ticks, ticks into infinity.

Multiply the need for judicial pillow talk times ten or so files in a small firm and a week’s time disappears into territory even Einstein could only imagine.

But the real bugbear responsible for the vanishing trial, at least in the context of official misconduct claims, is the doctrine of qualified immunity. This judicial get out of jail card is a recent phenomenon. Mentioned nowhere is the Constitution, this judicial doctrine gives the Court power to dismiss a case in all but the most egregious claims of misconduct. Defendants now file motions for summary judgment routinely. It is almost malpractice not to file them when the changes for success are so high.

Once again, defense counsel sets her clock a-ticking and churns out reams of paper. Thousands of dollars later, a motion is filed in the court. The plaintiff’s counsel, the same soul working most likely on a contingency fee or working off a small retainer, must respond. If the plaintiff survives, the case advances to trial. Many cases die at the summary judgment phase with a plaintiff never having seen the inside of a courtroom or the whites of a judge’s or juror’s eye.

I won’t go so far as to say that summary judgment violates the Seventh Amendment, although law review articles advancing that claim make for good reading. But it is clear that the new managerial court enervates our commitment to trial by jury.

One reason the founders cut there ties from England was that King George had reduced the colonists’ right to trial by jury. No distant king does so today. Instead a judiciary empowered by doctrine and an agenda that values efficiency above participation churns along like a great white shark, eyes rolled back and a thin smile on bloody lips: "Trial? Trial?" belches the beast, as it slaps its tail on troubled waters and vanishes from public view.

Reprinted courtesy of the Connecticut Law Tribune.
Comments (1)
Posted on July 12, 2009 at 5:20 pm by Anonymous
For me, nothing I’ve experienced has been as disap...
For me, nothing I’ve experienced has been as disappointing and appalling as the failure of my court to reflect American values and to abide by our laws. I watched and listened in disbelief as the officers of the court uttered lies back and forth before a judge about me, the nature of my lawsuit, including my motives. These were absolute, willful lies intended to deceive, and not mere misinterpretations of the truth. They fabricated these lies.
After engaging in and permitting several minutes of these exchanges, there was a lull. I never said a word in court before, but I mustered the courage and I spoke up. (I was never asked to respond.) "Your Honor, you are being told things that are not accurate, that are not true, and I don't think that's fair to me." "Well, now is not the time to bring that up. You may at some point be allowed to bring that up, but now is not the time," he stated. By this point, he had called me a "criminal, criminal" and threatened to incarcerate me. In a subsequent hearing, I asked him why he had threatened me in a previous hearing. He categorically denied ever threatening me. His words, this threat, are on the record and so is his refutation.
I assure you, I had not done anything illegal or wrong.
I Motioned the court for the opportunity to see and to respond to the evidence upon which the court relied to refer to me as a criminal and to threaten me. According to his Denial, the court could not let me respond to what it did not have.
These problems barely scratch the surface. Most alarming, if the judge could handle me like this, isn’t almost everyone at some risk?
For Display:
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Link must be approved,
then will show on this page.

What color is the ocean?

About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website


Law Firm Website


I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis


Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video