Clients often trust that capable lawyers will have the most significant impact on a court, especially through presenting persuasive arguments that advocate for their position. This theory stands true when a court has sufficient time to thoroughly examine all evidence and ponder over every argument made. Consequentially, the party that puts forth the most convincing arguments is generally expected to prevail. However, in certain high volume courtrooms, this might not always apply as time is limited for each case. As noted in an article on Above the Law, there are courts so overloaded with cases that quality lawyering does not sufficiently favor their client’s position.
The writer, who regularly practices in one such extremely busy state court, shared his astonishment at the sheer number of cases being handled simultaneously. Questions are raised about the ability of these courts to lend adequate attention to each case, given the resources they currently possess.
Many of such very busy courts have developed procedures to deal with a huge volume of litigation, which could potentially dilute the effect of good lawyering. One such method involves handling discovery disputes through centralized systems requiring both parties to largely concur on discovery issues to advance the case. Furthermore, many courts offer expansive mediation services, aiming to resolve as many cases as possible, thereby alleviating the judicial system’s burden.
Suggestions from the article revealed that if lawyers aim for their cases to be better considered, federal court may present a more favorable option. The writer’s experience found that federal courts generally have more resources and smaller caseloads than state courts. Federal judges may also have more opportunity to contemplate compelling arguments that can assist a client’s cause. Large-scale (usually commercial) cases can be processed in specialized divisions within some state courts, which can be advantageous to lawyers seeking more judicial attention. Yet, it is vital that both lawyers and clients understand that extremely busy courts may not be able to accommodate optimal attention for their matter, potentially diminishing the impact of competent lawyering.
Despite the circumstances, the writer asserts that blaming judges and court officers for handling the overwhelming caseload they handle is inappropriate. He states that these public servants work incredibly hard to ensure that each case receives as much attention as possible. The potential solution lies with the legislatures who should ideally provide courts with more resources to deal with voluminous dockets. Therefore, understanding the implications of dockets’ volume on courts could influence case strategies and litigation forum choices.