Diagnostic Tools for Judicial Reform

Diagnostic Tools for Judicial Reform

Moving Beyond the Sector Assessment

January, 2004

Some Personal Biases

• We are doing development projects, not just making loans

• Projects should aim at resolving societally significant problems with effective remedies

• Judicial reform projects could do better here – impacts as opposed to just outputs

• Information and analysis are key

Why we need better tools

• Sector assessments give overview

• Methodology emphasizes “what everyone knows”

• Perspectives of the usual suspects

• Remedies reflect fads and too often produce Christmas trees

• No baseline for measuring progress

Alternatives

• Not to replace SA, but to expand on and validate its contents

• All have strengths and weaknesses

• Applicability depends on resources and problems to be explored

• While offer more “precision,” it is important to recognize their limitations

Public Opinion Surveys

• Examples: WBI country surveys, cross-country governance indicators, Investment Climate Analyses, cross national polls like Latinobarometro

• Strengths: demonstrate perceived problem, can put in comparative perspective, get leaders’ attention

• Weaknesses: perceptions, insufficiently specific, may reflect past not present, don’t tell you what to do.

Related tools

• “Sherwood” focus on costs of justice

• Doing Business

• Strengths: same as above, but look more “scientific”

• Weaknesses: quality of data, question of what they are measuring, do respondents interpret the questions the same way?

Analysis of Aggregate Statistics

• Where any are available, they can test some conventional wisdom (Are workloads excessive? Are budgets too small? Is litigation rate high?)

• Also identify some unsuspected trends• Interpretation requires comparative data• Poor quality calls for caution – incomplete,

inconsistent categories, bad data entry• Work best in more developed systems or most

developed sectors of underdeveloped

Analysis of Raw Data

• With more automation, increasingly possible to access data on individual cases

• Allows to disaggregate categories, cross variables, give better picture of what is happening to workload.

• Same cautions as above – poorly managed systems contain many errors, inconsistent or unintelligible classifications

• Still, over time will replace next example – sampling of case files

Case File Analysis

• Here, manual style– random sample of physical case files drawn and analyzed

• Data extracted on characteristics of interest (e.g. times, parties, amounts, stages)

• Strengths – best way of tracking what happens to real cases

• Weaknesses: expensive, slow, works best in more organized courtrooms, requires courts’ permission

Case File Analysis: Examples

• Can test common beliefs – all plaintiffs are bankers, there is much delay, judicial bias

• Can uncover unsuspected trends – most cases are not resolved, delays are in enforcement, attachment is an obstacle.

• Can use flow charts to demonstrate alternative trajectories of cases

• With a large enough sample can do statistical analysis of sections – crossing variables to identify internal trends

In-depth Institutional Analysis

• Methodology like sector assessment, but problem focus (informed by other studies)

• Combines inputs from various sources, statistics, interviews, informed observation

• Best done by experienced specialist, but also requires multi-disciplinary approach and appreciation for broader impacts.

• Probably a second-stage tactic, after initial problem identification

A Note on Judicial Governance

• Focus has been on reform projects, for donors and dialogue with counterparts.

• However, analysis is important for judicial managers, as part of their standard repertoire.

• Their involvement in process, discussion of product can help reorient ideas about management.

• Good management requires good information – at least in LAC, this is the forgotten element.

TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS

AGGREGATE STATISTICS

FIGURE I: Comparative Statistics on Judicial Workloads

Country

Filings (dispositions) per 100,000 Population

Judges per 100,00

Population

Filings (dispositions)

per Judge Honduras 1,200 8.8 136 Venezuela 2,375 6.3 377 El Salvador 2,454 11.8 208 México, Federal District only 2,600 4.0 650

Brazil (federal, labor, and state only—military, electoral and juizados especiais not included)

7,171 5.3 1,357

Argentina 9,459 10.9 875 Colombia 3,298 7.7 430 Costa Rica 21,000 15.9 1,320 England and Wales (concluded) (9,800) 11 (891) France (concluded) (6,200) 13 (477) Italy (concluded) (14,000) 20 (700) Germany (concluded) (15,600) 23 (678) US, District of Colombia (civil only)

20,321 10.21 1,992

US, Maine (civil only) 2,821 1.29 2,187


AGGREGATE STATISTICS

FIGURE II: Comparative Statistics from Brazil’s National and State Court Systems (excluding juizados especiais

Court system 1st instance judges

1st instance filings

Average filings per

judge

Population 2002

1st Instance

Judges per 100,000

inhabitants Federal courts 766 1,097,964 1433 169,799,170 0.5 Labor courts 2,070 1,742,571 842 169,799,170 1.2 State courts -- all 6,190 9,489,657 1533 169,799,170 3.6 São Paulo 1,599 3,720,381 2327 37,032,403 4.3 Rio de Janeiro 567 910,913 1607 14,391,282 3.9 Pará 160 107,580 672 6,192,307 2.6

Ceará 355 213,107 600 7,430,661 4.8

Pernambuco 340 135,166 398 7,918,344 4.3

Rio Grande do Sul 531 1,088,087 2049 10,187,798 5.2

Brasilia 136 184,143 1369 2,051,146 6.8


AGGREGATE STATISTICS,DISAGGREGATED BY MATERIAL

FIGURE III: Brazil, Annual First Instance Filings per Judge (1999-2003)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

trabalhista federal comun

FIGURE IV: Brazil, Annual First Instance Dispositions per Judge

(1999-2003)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003



AGGREGATE STATISTICS,DISAGGREGATED BY MATERIAL

FIGURE V: Brazil, First Instance Filings Over Time

(Labor Courts 1941—2003; Federal Courts 1967—2003; State Courts 1990—2003)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Mil

ho

es


TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLSAGGREGATE STATISTICS,

DISAGGREGATED BY MATERIAL


CASE FILE DATA

FIGURE VI: Brazil, Ratio of Second Instance Filings to First Instance Dispositions

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federal Comun Trabalho


CASE FILE DATA

FIGURE VII: Mexico, Juicios ejecutivos MERCANTILES (JEM)

TYPE OF PLAINTIFF IN CIVIL AND PEACE COURTS,

PERCENTAGES, FILED CASES

Type of Plaintiff Civil Peace Financial Institution 25.20 4.30 Other type of firm 43.10 42.00 Other type of organization 3.00 0.70 Individual 28.70 53.00 Total 100 100

FIGURE VIII: Mexico, JEM, Value of Claims


CASE FILE DATA

Graph IX-1: Distribution by Size of Claim

38.40%

45.00%

14.60%

2.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Filed

CATEGORIES

PE

RC

EN

T

1 ($ 0.00 to $14,000)

2 ($ 14,001 to $ 150,000)

3 ($ 150,001 to $ 1,550,000)

More than $1,550,000


CASE FILE DATA

FIGURE IX: Mexico, JEM, Duration from initiation to closure

Period

Median (days)

Minimum (days)

Maximum (days)

Cases concluded before Judgment

Filing to End-of-Trial Decree (withdrawal of complaint, expiration, payment or settlement)

176 3 819

Filing- Admission 3 0 397 Admission- notification 52.5 0 678

Notification – Judgment

111 10 959

Filing- Judgment 223.5 29 977 Admission –Judgment 199.5 22 975

Period of Trial

Final summons – Judgment

9 0 45

Judgment - Accrued Interest Calculation

182 15 990

Accrued Interest Calculation- First Bid

268 250 822

Period of Execution

Verdict- First Bid 467 224 948


CASE FILE DATA

FIGURE X Mexico, Juicios Ejecutivos:

Characteristics associated with an increase in the time to judgment

Characteristic Prevalence (ratio of cases having the referred characteristic)

Pearson’s Correlation

Sig. bilateral

Cases with more than one defendant

30% .247 >.00

Cases requiring action by another judge (exhorto)

37% .231 >.00

Cases in which the debtor responds to the complaint

47% .398 >.00

Cases with interlocutory appeals

19% .317 >.00

Cases where the amount in dispute was larger than average

NA .169 >.00

FIGURE X Mexico, Juicios Ejecutivos:

Characteristics associated with an increase in the time to judgment

Embargo & Notification

38%

Judgments 54%

Auction or Appropriation

3.6%

Out of 100 Admitted

Out of 100 Notified

FORMAL EXIT 19%

Dismissal 12% Formal Withdrawal 66% Payment 4% Settlement 18%

INFORMAL EXIT 43%

De fact withdrawal 56% Exhortos 25% Debtor refuses notice 13% Debtor cannot be found 6%

FORMAL EXIT 23.3%

Payment 35% Settlement 15% Plaintiff desists 50%

INFORMAL EXIT 76%

No information

FORMAL EXIT 15%

Formal Withdrawal 36% Payment 43% Settlement 21%

INFORMAL EXIT 31% Informal withdrawal or lack of further action

Of 100 judgments that favor the plaintiff

Documents

Diagnostic Tools for Judicial Reform