Courts

Judiciaries Need More Resources During This Difficult Time

Ensuring that judiciaries have the resources necessary to administer justice is a nonpartisan issue.

By  
on

This column has previously discussed how judges and court employees are heroes of the pandemic who have worked tirelessly under unprecedented conditions to administer justice during an unpredictable time. Because of the public-facing role of the judiciary, many judges and court officers are essential workers who were at risk of exposure to COVID-19, and many passed away due to the virus. The ongoing pandemic has made many court operations difficult to conduct, since jury trials, filings, and other parts of the judicial process were suspended at various times over the past year. This has led to a backlog in cases, and litigants and criminal defendants are having a difficult time obtaining judicial resolutions in many circumstances.

To make matters worse, many states have cut judicial budgets in order to deal with financial pressures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, I have read several articles about how New York and other states have slashed judicial budgets in order to deal with financial difficulties caused by the virus, which has forced many judges to retire early and has potentially left judges on the bench with less resources. Of course, we can all understand how governments need to reduce budgets to deal with this extraordinary time, and I readily admit that I am not familiar with the policy and political reasons behind moves to reduce the resources allocated to the judiciary. However, a strong and independent judiciary is extremely important to our system of government, and judiciaries likely need more, and not less, resources during this difficult time.

The main reason why judiciaries need more resources is because forced retirements of judges and less resources for the judicial system will result in delays in the litigation process (and could possibly cause interruptions on the criminal side, but I am not too familiar with criminal law matters so I will focus on the effects on litigation). Before the pandemic, it often took many years for litigation to run its course. Indeed, I once argued a summary judgment motion for a case that was initiated when I was a freshman in high school, and the case was still pending when I left the firm to pursue other work. Judiciaries have implemented innovative alternative dispute resolution techniques to try to resolve as many matters as possible in a judicious manner, but the crowded dockets of many judiciaries meant that before the pandemic, lawsuits took a while to resolve.

The pandemic has exacerbated this situation. Many judiciaries were unable to hold jury trials during the pandemic, so there is a backlog of cases to be tried by juries (and in some cases a backlog of cases to be resolved by bench trial) in many jurisdictions. In addition, I have heard anecdotally (and I’d love for someone to confirm this) that resources are being applied to criminal matters that used to be devoted to civil matters in order to ensure criminal defendants get speedy trials. However, this is seemingly making it even more difficult for civil matters to be resolved than under normal operations. There is an old expression that goes “justice delayed is justice denied,” and judiciaries should receive as much funding and other resources as possible to ensure that the backlog of cases created by the pandemic can be handled in an efficient manner.

It is also important to provide more resources to judiciaries during this difficult time so that judges and court employees do not need to work extra hard right now or be responsible for more tasks than they typically handle. In my own practice, I have seen judges and judicial officers working tirelessly and under exceptional circumstances in order to keep administering justice during this unprecedented period. Indeed, I have seen judges and court officers send emails at all times of the day and night, hold conferences from their living rooms, establish ad hoc systems seemingly overnight, and implement other strategies to deal with challenges posed by COVID-19.

It is not fair to add more challenges to judiciaries by cutting judicial budgets. Judges and court officers have done an admirable job during the pandemic, and they should not be “rewarded” with less resources. Judiciaries should be granted more resources so that they can normalize operations and not overly burden personnel with challenges posed by the pandemic.

Bar associations and lawyers can have a role in helping to minimize the impact of budget cuts. Ensuring that judiciaries have the resources necessary to administer justice is a nonpartisan issue that affects lawyers and pretty much everyone else in our society. Judges and court officers are often constrained in the statements they can make because judicial ethics often require that individuals in the judiciary do everything they can to maintain their independence and avoid the appearance of impropriety. However, legal professionals can and should step in to convey the challenges faced by the judiciary and how cuts to judicial budgets can have a negative impact on the administration of justice.

Sponsored

All told, even though judges and court officers have acted commendably to administer justice throughout the pandemic, many judiciaries face budget cuts. Such reductions in judicial resources can have a devastating impact on operations of many courts. Legal professionals and bar associations can do more to convey how judicial budget cuts may be destructive and support judiciaries during this unprecedented time.

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Sponsored

Topics

, , ,