Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Press Release Date: February 5, 1997

For more information contact:

The Office of Public Affairs

202/273-0107

Judiciary Seeks to Balance Workload and Judgeship Needs

The Judicial Conference of the United States strives to balance the need to control growth in the number of judgeships with the resources that are appropriate for the courts' workload, a representative of the Conference told a Senate subcommittee today.

"The courts continue to introduce new tools to equalize judicial workloads and reduce requests for additional judgeships," said Chief Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, chair of the Conference's Committee on Judicial Resources. "However, even with these numerous efforts to fully utilize judicial officer resources, there are workload needs which cannot be met with the current number of judicial officers," Judge Gibbons today told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.

Workload has increased in both district and appellate courts since the last judgeship bill was enacted in 1990. From 1990 to 1996, although there was no growth in appellate and district judgeships, caseload has increased nearly 27 percent in the courts of appeals and 21 percent in the district courts.

The Judicial Conference, through its committee structure, biennially surveys the appellate and district courts to evaluate judgeship needs. This systematic review process involves not only the Conference, but each court and each circuit judicial council and takes into account up-to-date detailed caseload data and other relevant factors. The Judiciary's role in the creation and distribution of judgeships is an advisory one. Congress has the authority to establish or eliminate Article III judgeships, and also defines the jurisdiction and determines the workload of the courts.

"As part of the normal judgeship survey process or as a separate initiative, the Judiciary has used a variety of approaches to maximize the use of resources and to ensure that resources are distributed in a manner consistent with workload," Judge Gibbons said in her testimony. Among the approaches used are:

• Regular surveys of judgeship needs: The Conference has adopted more conservative criteria for determining when to recommend creation of additional judgeships in the courts of appeals and district courts.
• Recommending temporary rather than permanent judgeships: This is done in those instances where the need for additional positions is demonstrated, but it is not clear that the need will exist permanently.
• Consideration of a process to recommend not filling vacancies: In March 1997, the Judicial Conference will consider a process for not filling certain vacancies similar to the process currently used by the Conference in determining if vacant bankruptcy judgeships should be filled.
• Use of senior judges: Almost 400 senior judges are serving nationwide. In the district courts during the past five years senior judges closed 15 percent of the civil cases and criminal defendants terminated, and conducted between 16 and 19 percent of all trials. In the courts of appeals during the same time, senior judges participated in almost 15 percent of all oral hearings and submissions on briefs.
• Sharing of judgeships: District judgeship positions have been shared to meet the resource needs of more than one district without the cost of an additional judgeship.
• Intercircuit and intracircuit assignment of judges: This practice provides a short-term solution to disparate judicial resource needs of districts within and between circuits. On average, during the past ten years, 415 visiting judges disposed of 5,270 appeals and 243 visiting judges closed 2,277 cases in the district courts.
• Use of magistrate judges: Use of magistrate judges for many routine court matters allows for more effective use of Article III judges.
• Use of alternative dispute resolution: With increasing frequency, district courts are using various alternative dispute resolution procedures such as arbitration, mediation, and early neutral evaluation as means of settling civil disputes without litigation. All the courts of appeals have programs designed to encourage resolution of many civil appeals by the parties without the need for judicial resources.
• Use of technology: The Judiciary continues to explore ways to help align caseloads through technological advancements, where judges can assist other circuits and districts without the need to travel.

"Over the last 20 years the Judicial Conference has developed, adjusted, and refined the process for evaluating and recommending judgeship needs in response to congressional concerns," Judge Gibbons told the subcommittee. "The Judicial Conference is constantly evaluating the need to control growth and the need to seek resources that are appropriate to the workload."

###