U.S. Civil Court System Needs Major Overhaul, New Book Declares
Articles Blog

U.S. Civil Court System Needs Major Overhaul, New Book Declares

December 14, 2019

bjbjLULU GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, a portrait
of the American judicial system. The highest court in the land began its term this month
with an unusually high number of consequential cases awaiting appeal, touching on subjects
from health care reform to illegal immigration. Drawing less attention are the 30 million
civil court cases filed every year over everyday issues like traffic tickets, divorce and personal
injury. A new book, “Rebuilding Justice: Civil Courts in Jeopardy and Why You Should Care,”
argues Americans don’t understand how the courts work and that the system itself needs
a major overhaul. Ray Suarez talked with the book’s co-author on the campus of Georgetown
University Law Center’s Supreme Court Institute. RAY SUAREZ: Rebecca Love Kourlis, welcome.
REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS, “Rebuilding Justice: Civil Courts in Jeopardy and Why You Should
Care”: Thank you so much. RAY SUAREZ: Well, the book reads like a 230-page indictment.
What’s the problem? REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: Well, it’s not that complicated — or it shouldn’t
be. If you get in a car wreck, and there’s an argument about who should be paying damages,
your assumption is that you can go to court to have that case resolved. The truth of the
matter is that’s probably the last place you want to be, because the fees and the costs
will ultimately be more than your car is worth, even if you drive a really nice car. Or businesses
— businesses need confidence in the fact that if they have a contract dispute, they
can go to court, get a resolution for a reasonable amount of money in a reasonable amount of
time. So, the first thrust is, we have to convince people that this really matters,
that it’s very important to our social contract to have a civil justice system that is accessible,
efficient and accountable. RAY SUAREZ: Instead of making trials faster or cheaper or better,
you say the tech revolution made them slower and more expensive and churned up a lot of
extraneous material in the process. REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: It sure has. First of all, very
few cases are getting to trial. Only 1 percent of civil cases actually get to trial. All
the rest of them settle, and not necessarily on the merits. They settle because one or
both of the parties have run out of money or think they’re going to run out of money.
Into that process, then drop the electronic age. It’s no longer a box of documents that
the attorneys are going to uncover in the discovery process. It is millions of documents,
emails and text messages and voice messages, all of which are the discoverable. The corporate
attorneys will say that a lawsuit that would require $2 to $3 million in legal fees, so
a big lawsuit, can require another $2 to $3 million in the costs of producing and reviewing
electronic information. RAY SUAREZ: So, no more continuances, no more lawyers appearing
before judges and asking for another three weeks to review all the documents? That — doesn’t
that drive the cost? REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: Yes. RAY SUAREZ: Isn’t that contributing a
lot to the cost? REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: Absolutely it does. And there are cases, as I’m sure
you know, where everybody shows up in the courtroom ready to go, witnesses, you know,
all of the evidence, and the case gets continued because the judge has a criminal case on which
there’s going to be a speedy trial expiration or a juvenile case. That can’t happen. Civil
cases are really important. And they need to be treated as really important, both by
the funding entities and by the judges and lawyers handling them. RAY SUAREZ: A lot of
the people who want to see civil court reform are just saying, let’s just blow up the process.
Put very high limits on getting your ticket punched to get into court, so cut out the
stuff at the bottom, or putting a cap on awards and saying, these great big cases, forget
it. A company shouldn’t be in jeopardy of being run out of business by losing one case
— sort of the two ends of the rope being cut off by people who want to really, severely
change the way we do that. Are those answers? REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: No, I don’t think so,
at least not fundamental answers. The answer is to fix the system. The answer is to assure
that anyone with a legitimate claim or a legitimate defense has access to a system that works,
and to assure that judges are weeding the wheat from the chaff because they understand
that’s part of their job. You know, all of us, if in a position where we would need to
be a plaintiff or in a position where we were sued as a defendant, we want to know that
we can go to court and that there will be a cost-effective, just process in place. RAY
SUAREZ: One of the ways that people are talking about addressing dysfunctional courts is looking
at the way judges are chosen. We have kind of a mix in the United States, don’t we? REBECCA
LOVE KOURLIS: Oh, it’s a hodgepodge. There are almost no two states that are exactly
alike. RAY SUAREZ: And what’s the problem there? REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: Oh, the problem
is huge. Let’s remember, first of all, that federal judges are appointed for life. As
much as you can decry the political process at the outset, they’re appointed for life.
And that’s part of the United States’ constitutional promise. States are all over the map on this
front. States, many states, have partisan, contested elections. Other states have systems
that look like the federal system. And then there are a bunch of states that are in between,
that have achieved this balance between impartiality and accountability. RAY SUAREZ: But in a country
that doggedly resists having the same answers to the same questions when it comes to how
we run our state, can you recommend a model that would work in Missouri and Florida? REBECCA
LOVE KOURLIS: Sure. Sure. And, in fact, we do. The appointing authority, usually the
governor, appoints, and then that judge serves a provisional term in office, during which
there’s a judicial performance evaluation, a report card, if you will. And that’s about
the kinds of things we have been talking about. Is the judge running the courtroom well? Is
the judge making decisions in a timely and understandable way? Is the judge well-prepared,
knowledgeable on the law? That information is packaged and available to the voters. And
then the voters vote yes, no, up, down on that particular judge as to whether they want
that judge to stay in office. RAY SUAREZ: Have televised trials, have reality TV shows,
have court TV shows, which have now proliferated across syndicated television, helped Americans
understand how their legal system works? REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: Oh, I suppose, at some level,
all the way back from “Perry Mason” to current court TV, it’s important to keep the court
system in the minds of the public. And there are pieces of information that come through
that are helpful, but there’s a lot of information that’s inaccurate and is, in fact, destructive.
The fundamental premise that people don’t get — and I bet if you walked out into the
street now, or maybe even if you were to ask law students or lawyers — the fundamental
problem is this notion that judges, like members of the executive or legislative branch, have
some duty to listen to their constituency, to put their finger in the air to see which
way the wind is blowing before they make a decision, rather than being accountable just
to the rule of law and the Constitution, and having as their job description impartiality
and integrity and a fealty to the laws and fact in a particular case. RAY SUAREZ: “Rebuilding
Justice: Civil Courts in Jeopardy and Why You Should Care,” Rebecca Love Kourlis, thanks
a lot. REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: Thank you. hdD: hdD: urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags
place urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags
PlaceType urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags country-region urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags
State GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, a portrait of the American judicial system Normal Microsoft
Office Word GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, a portrait of the American judicial system Title
Microsoft Office Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *