Justice for Philadelphia Courts - Final (1)

8/13/2019 Justice for Philadelphia Courts - Final (1)

1/37

!"#$%&' )*+,-!./0, $%, *12$'*3$ &4 $%, 5&3#+,6$ %,',7 .%, *12$'*3$ 82 $/083*99/ * 2%&'$ 2#++*'/ &4 $%, 3&6$,6$2 &4

$%, 5&3#+,6$7-

:#2$83, 4&' ;%89*5,90%8*


2/37

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts

Taking Back Our Courts

2

Intentionally Left Blank For Printing Purposes>


3/37


4/37



4

INTRODUCTIONThe Current State of Philadelphia Courts

The performance of the Philadelphia court system, and in particular,the Complex Litigation Center, has been the subject of great

debate for years, generating extreme passion among its supporters

and detractors.

To its supporters and many of the attorneys who practice their craft

there, the Philadelphia Court system is an efficient, balanced system

that provides predictability. Independent analysts and the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court have routinely lauded it for its

efficiency and fairness.

To others, it is a place where corporations are unfairly burdened,

juries provide jackpot justice to unworthy litigants, harming job

growth and abandoning basic fairness. Of special focus has been

the Complex Litigation Center (CLC), which has, according to well a

funded national special interest group, won the dubious distinction

of making Philadelphia a judicial hellhole.

Both of the above simply cannot be true. And unlike some partisan

debates, the one over our courts isnt about sound bites and

fundraising opportunities. It has a real impactthe rights of

individuals and corporations are impacted by how the courts are

perceived by legislators, the public and even members of the

judiciary. This is no small matter in the city where our rights andprotections as Americans were first enshrined.

Taking Back Our Courts, a project of Keystone Progress, is issuing this

report, which for the first time looks at what is actually happening in


5/37



5

Philadelphias courts and compares it to other court systems both in

Pennsylvania and to courts that are similar in size and scope

nationally.

It is critical to note that due to the complex nature of the courts in

the United States, no two state court systems are exactly alike.

Annual judicial reports by state courts can vary widely. Therefore, it

requires a strategic and systematic approach to collect the data

from each state to allow for comparison across state and county

lines.

For example, until now the Philadelphia courts were the only courts in

the statethat counted their cases from first filing as trial ready. Thismeant that whereas Philadelphia courts counted 100% of their civil

cases, all of the other counties in Pennsylvania on average countedonly 30% of their civil cases. [This is according to the most recent

assessments by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts(APOC)].

Starting this year, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts is

changing how they collect Pennsylvania counties civil caseloaddata. The total civil caseload for the rest of the counties in the state

is estimated to jump up to 300% because of the new, more accurateways of counting civil cases. 1

This underlines the degree of difficulty it requires to put together

comprehensive and accurate judicial reports. It is also why officialgovernment judicial data prepared by U.S. Department of Justice

and the National Center for State Courts is so important. It is by

including much of their work that we believe that this report is themost accurate declaration of the reality of Philadelphia courts todate.

Our data comes from the most reliable sources on the matter of

judicial statistics including 2012 data from the National Center for


6/37



6

State Courts, 2012 data from the Administrative Office of

Pennsylvania Courts, a 2011 report by the Court Statistics Project, a2009 study by Cornell University Law School, a 2004 comprehensive

study by the National Center for State Courts, official Capitol Hill

testimony by expert witnesses, data from the First District ofPhiladelphia Courts, the Rand Institute for Civil Justice, the Bureau ofJustice Statistics, the American Bar Foundation, the General

Accounting Office, and the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

We believe the following analysis, and the conclusions it supportsabout the Philadelphia Court system, is unprecedented in its scope.

Unlike other reports all sources are cited so others can verify ourdata and our conclusions.


7/37



7

Executive SummaryThe most recent official reports comparing Philadelphia courts to

other civil and complex litigation courts in the United States paints a

far different picture than the portrait constructed by national

lobbying and advocacy groups. Far from being a judicial hellhole

overrun by frivolous cases, the

data shows that Philadelphias

court system not only has an

appropriate number of cases

relative to its size, but it handles

them quickly and efficiently withno apparent favoritism towards

plaintiffs.

The following are some of the highlights:

! The NCSC recognizes that the Philadelphia court's handling of

civil jury cases is now better than that of anylarge urban trial

court in the United States. 2 Furthermore, the NCSC praised the

Philadelphias Complex Litigation Center (CLC) due to its high

levels of success in accuracy and fairnessof a large number of

complex cases in its courts.

! Comparing the plaintiff median amounts awarded in tort trialsto other courts in the most populous counties in the United

States,Philadelphia courts are significantly below the nationalmedian. For example, the median award amount of winners in

New York, NY was $227,000, in Miami (Dade), FL it was $128,000and in Los Angeles, CA it was $106,000. Philadelphia tort trial

plaintiffs won a median amount of $20,000. 3


8/37



8

! Philadelphia ranks in thebottom 30% of major metropolitanareas in terms of median final damage amounts awardedtoplaintiffs in tort trials. 5

! According to the two most recent Bureau of Justice Statisticsreport on the matter, Philadelphia dropped 40% in tort trialmedian amounts awardedfrom 2001 to 2005. The total medianamount awarded in 2001 was $49,000. The total in 2005 was

$20,000.14, 15

! In regards to the Philadelphia CLC, "there was consensus thatthe Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas was able to dispose

of mass tort cases far more expeditiously than the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvaniaor any federal'Multidistrict Litigation' (MDL) court." 29

The Philadelphia courts have been one of the most awardedcourts in the country. On page 19, the list highlights only asampling of the awards that the First District Court has won overthe past 7 years. Some of the awards included the National

Association of Court Managements 2009 Justice Achievement

Awardand the Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent VIPsGovernment Participation Award.4

! An independent analysis of the Judicial Hellhole report titled,

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Liability Survey: Inaccurate,

Unfair, and Bad for Business outlines the reasons why the

Judicial Hellholes reportis biased towards large corporations

and their attorneys. The study specifically states the Judicial

Hellholes report as presenting evidence that the survey issubstantively inaccurate and methodologically flawed.35


9/37



9

Data on Philadelphias CourtsThe following data compares Philadelphia to other Pennsylvania

courts as well as to courts nation-wide. The data comes from several

official reports and offers a clear-eyed perspective of the nature ofPhiladelphia courts.

The facts below are taken from the 2010 United States Census, 2010

Administrative Office of Pennsylvania

Courts(APOC), Caseload Statistics

report, the 2009 Court Statistics Project

(CSP) Caseloads report, the 2009 CSP

Tort Trend in General Jurisdiction Courts

2000 - 2009 report, the 2009 CSP Total

Civil Caseloads, the 2009 CSP Drop in

Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice report, the 2007 National Center

for State Courts Analysis of State Courts Caseloadsreport, and the

2005 U.S. Dept. of Justice*Tort Bench and Jury Trial Stats report.

[*The 2005 U.S. Department of Justice reports on the majority, but not all, of the most populous counties inthe United States. A limited number of counties were unable to be compared evenly across various

statistical categories.] 6

Philadelphia vs. Pennsylvania CourtsPlaintiff Winners in Philadelphia Tort Trials Won Less on Average Thanin Other Pennsylvania CourtsAccording to the most recent official report, the total median

plaintiff awards from tort trials places Philadelphia 3rd out the 4

Pennsylvania counties surveyed*.7 Despite some reports claiming that

when compared to other Pennsylvania county courts Philadelphia is

extreme. This actually places Philadelphia courts behind much

smaller courts in terms of total median awards in tort trials.

(Appendix, Table 5,http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf&

from data provided by Cornell University Law School)


10/37



10

Total Civil Caseloads in Philadelphia Courts are Proportionate To Its

Population; Even When Compared to Other Counties

Though recent reports have attempted to frame Philadelphia courts

as extreme, they are actually well within the bell curve for total civil

caseload in respect to population when compared to other

counties.8, 9

The following charts on pages 12 & 13 reflect the ratio of each

Pennsylvania County to the total population reported in the 2010

Census. The data comes from the Administrative Office of

Pennsylvania Courts and the 2010 Census website. Specifically, the

graphs use 2010 total incoming civil caseload by county inPennsylvania and the 2010 total population by county in

Pennsylvania. 11, 12

The ratio indicates that Philadelphia courts are right where they

ought to be (2.24%) in terms of total civil caseload. When one

compares Philadelphia courts to other counties its civil caseload

ratio is actually lower than smaller in size Monroe (2.68%) and Pike

(2.49%) counties.

This must mean that though Philadelphia County stands at 12.2% of

the states population (not including metropolitan population) the

largest city by far in the state of Pennsylvania it still maintains a ratio

of civil cases to population that is well within the normal ratio of civil

cases to population for Pennsylvania.

Furthermore, until now the Philadelphia courts were the only courts inthe state that counted their cases from first filing as trial ready. This

meant that whereas Philadelphia courts counted 100% of their civil

cases, all of the other counties in Pennsylvania on average counted

only 30% of their civil cases. With data collection changes being


11/37



11

implemented this year, the total civil caseload for the rest of the

state is estimated to jump up to 300%. [This is according to the most

recent assessments by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania

Courts].10


12/37



12


13/37



13


14/37



14

Philadelphia vs. Courts Nation-WideThe following data uses the most recent comprehensive informationavailable comparing Philadelphia to courts nation-wide. The

comparison includes plaintiff award amounts, winner percentagerates and rate of medial malpractice cases.

Philadelphia Ranks In the Lowest 30% in Total Damages Awarded inTort Trial CasesPhiladelphia ranks in the lower 30% of all major metropolitan areas in

terms of median final damage amounts awarded to plaintiffs in torttrials. The range of median plaintiff awards in the top 70% across the

most populous counties are from $21,000 to $227,000. For example,

the median award amount of winners in New York, NY was $227,000,in Miami (Dade), FL it was $128,000 and in Los Angeles, CA it was$106,000. The median total in Philadelphia was $20,000*. 13

(Appendix, Table 5,http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf)

Median Amount of Total Trial Awards Decrease 40% in 4 years in

Philadelphia Courts

According to the two most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report

on the matter, Philadelphia dropped 40% in tort trial medianamounts awarded from 2001 to 2005. The total median amount

awarded in 2001 was $49,000. The total in 2005 was $20,000*. 14, 15

(2005, Appendix, Table 5 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf

& 2001, Appendix F http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ctcvlc01.pdf)

Plaintiff Winners in Philadelphia Tort Trials Received Less Than the Top

50% of Tort Trial Plaintiff Winners When Compared to Most PopulousCounties

Despite some claiming Philadelphia as plaintiff-biased, Philadelphias

tort awards are well below other counties nation-wide. Comparing

the median amount awarded to other courts the most populous


15/37



15

counties, plaintiff award amounts in Philadelphia courts are

significantly smaller than the national median. The U.S. Bureau of

Justice Statistics found that 60% of all tort plaintiff winners win on

average $50,000 or less*. 16

Philadelphia tort trial plaintiffs won a median amount of $20,000 or

less.17

(Appendix, Table 5, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf&

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/cbjtsc05.txt)

Philadelphia Ranks Outside Top 12 Metropolitan Areas per Rate of

Tort Trial Plaintiff WinnersPhiladelphia tort trial plaintiffs winning percentage ranks outside the

top 12 metropolitan areas surveyed. According to the most recentcomprehensive official government study, the total percent of

plaintiff winners in Philadelphia courts was at 57.5%. 18

This number is significantly lower than other courts where plaintiffswinning rates rise as high as 83.3% (Mecklenburg, NC) and 71.9%

(Franklin, OH)*. 19

Furthermore, this places plaintiffs in Philadelphia courts as nearlysplitting the decisions with the defense in tort trial cases. This is

establishes Philadelphia courts as far from the extreme that some try

to illustrate them to be.



16/37



16

Philadelphia Ranks Significantly Lower In Percentage of MedicalMalpractice Cases When Compared to Others; Rate of Such CasesDroppingAccordingto the most recent data compiled by the Bureau of

Judicial Statistics, Philadelphia medical malpractice cases accountfor only 11.7% of the total tort cases. This is in comparison to thehighest percentage, found in Wayne, Michigan - in which medical

malpractice cases account for 37.5% of its total tort cases. Thisactually puts Philadelphia in the bottom 20% of the most populous

counties in America in terms of the ratio of medical malpracticecases to total tort cases. 20


In fact, Pennsylvania as a whole dropped 42% over the last decade

in the total amount of medical malpractice cases. This is the highestdrop in states surveyed by the 2009 Court Statistics Project report. 21

(http://www.courtstatistics.org/Civil/CivilMedicalMalpractice.aspx)

[*The 2005 U.S. Department of Justice reports on the majority, but not all, of the most populous counties inthe United States. A limited number of counties were unable to be compared evenly across various

statistical categories.]


17/37



17

Official Acclaim & Recognition for

Philadelphia

National Center for State Courts Describes PhiladelphiasComplex Litigation Center (CLC) as Impressive

In one of the most recent comprehensive studies of civil courts, the

NCSC focused on Philadelphias Complex Litigation Center (CLC),reporting on its high levels of success in accuracy and fairness of a

large number of complex cases.

The NCSC concluded that, during the past 12 years, the(Philadelphia) Civil Section has undertaken an impressive effort to

eliminate its case backlog and improve the flow of cases. This efforthas met with considerable success in reducing the size of its pending

civil inventory and the age of cases at disposition. 22

The NCSC pointed to the Philadelphia CLC as a court system as anexample that other courts could model. Some of the key findings are

as follows:

! "The Court's handling of

civil jury cases is now

better than that of any

large urban trial court in

the United States." 23

! The Philadelphia "Civil

Section of the Trial

Division in thePhiladelphia Court of

Common Pleas one of the finest and most successful urban trial

courts in the country." 24


18/37


19/37



19

Pennsylvania Courts Recognized for Work To Increase

EfficiencyPhiladelphia Common Pleas Court Helped Set Standard

As recent as December 2011, the Pennsylvania courts wererecognized by the U.S. Department of Justice and the National

Center for State Courtsfor their work toincrease efficiency in the court system.

The civil cover sheet that theAdministrative Office of Pennsylvania

Courts (APOC) created has had a directimpact on increasing the efficiency in

the First District Courts in Philadelphia. 30

The sheet increases efficiency forjudges, litigants, and attorneys involved in the case by consolidating

the key facts related to the civil cases coming before the courts. Thedata gained from the civil cover sheets will allow for Pennsylvania

courts to continue leading the country in the most up-to-date courtreporting practices.

The work to make this happen took over three years and APOC had

to collaborate with judges, litigants, and attorneys closely to makeaccomplish this. The end product has made the courts even more

appealing for all those involved in trying civil court cases inPennsylvania.

This is only the most recent example of how the Pennsylvania andPhiladelphia court systems lead the nation in innovative ideas to

make the justice system a better place to obtain fair access tojustice for everyone.


20/37



20

Award-Winning Philadelphia CourtsThe Philadelphia courts have been awarded a number ofaccolades. The list below highlights only a sampling of the awards

that the courts have won over the past 7 years.

National Association of Court Managements 2009 JusticeAchievement AwardThe First Judicial District was awarded the National Associationof Court ManagementsJustice Achievement Award for

Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Pilot Program. 31

2009 Philadelphia VIPs Government Participation Award byPhiladelphia Volunteers for the Indigent

Presented by the Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent,Awarded to the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania ResidentialMortgage Foreclosure Program. 32

2008 John Neufeld Court Achievement AwardThe First Judicial District was awarded the Mid-AtlanticAssociation for Court Managements 2008 John Neufeld Court

Achievement Awardfor Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion PilotProgram. 33


21/37


22/37



22

The Chambers willingness to vilify statesand counties to

promote both itselfand legislation may be the product of the

same mentality that has led to shocking business failures.

Companies, such as General Motors, with once seemingly

impregnable market positions, spent excess time and effortlobbying for and against laws rather than seeking to improve

their products. 36

The U.S. Chamber may be leading other members down a

similar path.A credible argument exists that the Chamber

harms businessby irrationally discouraging investment. Based

on the views of risk managers and those who seriously study the

effect of the tort system, the Chamber may also unnecessarily

endanger the public safety by decreasing tort laws deterrenteffect. 37

Additionally, official testimony on Capitol Hill in 2004, supports the

Cornell Law School study pointing out the inherent flaws in the U.S.Chamber of Commerces Judicial Hellholes report.

Key findings presented in the testimony are explicated from work

provided bythe Rand Institute for Civil Justice, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, the American Bar Foundation, and the GeneralAccounting Office. The highlights are as follows:

! The notion of awards increasing and lawsuits increasing is not

supported by the facts.

! The Rand Institute of Civil Justice researchers in a recent articlein the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies did a 40-year long-term study of awards. They found, ''the growth or decline in

awards does not appear to be substantial enoughto supportclaims of radically changing jury behavior over the past 40years.'' 38


23/37



23

! The Government's Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms a 10-year decline in median tort awards. 39

! The National Center for State Courts, which is the leading

clearinghouse for State court statistics, shows tort filings havedeclined in recent years, over the last decade. 40

! Americans are far from the most litigious large industrializednation. All serious studies of punitive damages find they arerarely awarded.They are awarded largely in cases ofintentional misbehavior. They are modest, and they are strongly

correlated with the harm done by the defendants. 41

In reference specifically to the U.S. Chamber of CommercesJudicial Hellholes Report:

! We've been told that the Bronx is a crazy jurisdiction forplaintiffs. In fact, Professors Vidmar and Roe have studied the

Bronx and found no unusual damage patterns. 42

! We were told that Alabama was crazy on punitives. The RandInstitute of Civil Justice studied that and found no unusualpattern of punitive awards in Alabama. We just don't have the

evidence to back up the behavior. 43


24/37



24

Wright Report Skews Data on Philadelphia Courts

Another fact chect was completed on a report authored by Joshua

D. Wright, an author from George Mason University. The report, which

looked to confirm bias in Philadelphia courts is titled, Are Plaintiffs

Drawn to Philadelphia Courts?

Several statistics were skewedto frame

Philadelphia courts as extreme.

As mentioned above until now the

Philadelphia courts were the only courts in

the state that counted their cases from firstfiling as trial ready. This meant that

whereas Philadelphia courts counted 100%

of their civil cases, all of the other counties in

Pennsylvania on average counted only 30%

of their civil cases. With data collection changes being implemented

this year, the total civil caseload for the rest of the counties in the

state is estimated to jump up to 300%because of the new, more

accurate ways to count cases. 44

This meant Mr. Wright made a fundamental mistake in trying to show

Philadelphia courts as having a significantly higher degree of cases

than the rest of the state.

Additionally, Mr. Wright claims an exceptionally high rate of win

percentage in Philadelphia when compared elsewhere. In the

study, Mr. Wright shows a chart in his report (Figure 6 on page 22)

that shows in 2010 less than 24% of plaintiffs won their medical

malpractice cases. For Mr. Wright to claim that less than a quarter of

the time plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases win their casesand

Joshua D. Wright


25/37



25

yet this data shows a bias towards plaintiffs shows a fundamentally

flawed logic. If anything this data shows a plaintiff to the defense

side, in effect the defense has won 76% of the cases. 45

The Wright report was inherently flawed, because the statistics he

used were not evenly comparable data. The data that will be

coming out in the 2012 Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts

annual report will be significantly more useful for more accurate

analysis.


26/37



26

ConclusionNow that a comprehensive analysis of all the most recent official

reports has been completed, it seems safe to say that Philadelphia

courts are well respected by many national judicial watchdogs and

even has been found to be a model for other large urban courts.

Judging from the data we found when comparing Philadelphia to

both other counties in Pennsylvania and across the country,

Philadelphia is by far from extreme. Much of the civil caseload data

points to Philadelphia being within the norm in total caseload. As

new civil caseload data comes in this year, the Administrative Officeof Pennsylvania Courts will have its most accurate totals yet. These

totals will likely place the ratio of Philadelphias population to total

civil caseload even lower.

Additionally, much of both the tort trial plaintiff winner rate

percentage and median plaintiff awards capture an image of

Philadelphia as actually on the much lower end than other counties

similar in size and scope. When we discovered this, we were amazedthat recent reports did not include this data in their estimation of

fairness and accuracy of Philadelphia courts.

Much of what we found in our report is eye-opening and seems to

strongly suggest that Philadelphia courts has been largely unfairly

painted as extreme. With this new data, there is an opportunity to

correct this image and provide balance to the scales of justice.


27/37



27

AppendixKey Concepts

What is a class action?The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) defines a class action asa lawsuit in which a single person, or a small group of people,

represents the interests of a larger group that is similarly situated. 11

What is a tort?A tort is a civil wrong that. It is something a person,

an organization, or a business unfairly does to harm

your physical health, emotional health, or lose outfinancially due to negligence.

What is mass tort?The NCSC defines a mass tort as a civil actioninvolving numerous plaintiffs suing a few, common

corporate defendants in state or federal court for an action arisingfrom a single accident or exposure to some product or substance. 46

What models have worked best for complex litigation cases likeclass action or mass tort?The NCSC describes preferable models as those courts that focus on

improved efficiency, improved quality of judgments, predictability,better-prepared parties and judges, and judges who are

experienced in the subject matter.

Philadelphia, PA courts use the method of complex litigation docketswhich includes jurisdiction over business and non-business cases

alike.

The NCSC has recognized the Philadelphia courts for their methodfor dealing with mass tort and class action suits as their method has


28/37



28

been evaluated favorably amongst other courts across the

country. 46

What is the Philadelphia Complex Litigation Center?

The Complex Litigation Centerwas the first courthouse in the UnitedStates designed exclusively for complex, multi-filed Mass Tort caseswhen it opened on February 10, 1992. For example, as of March

2012, thousands of women have banded together under the label ofmass tort implicating that after using Bayers Yaz and Yasmin drugs

they caused significant and severe to their health. Cases like theseare how many consumers harmed by the same negligence file their

case.

Who is the National Center for State Courts?The National Center for State Courts(NCSC) is an independent,

nonprofit court improvement organization. The NCSC is theorganization courts turn to for authoritative knowledge and

information, because its efforts are directed by collaborative workwith the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State

Court Administrators, and other associations of judicial leaders.

What is the Court Statistics Project?

The Court Statistics Project(CSP) is a collaborative effort by the U.S.Department of Justice, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

Conference of State Court Administrators, and the National Center

for State Courts. The CSP provides a systematic means to develop a

valid, uniform, and complete statistical database that details the

operation of state court systems. It provides high-quality, baseline

information on state court structure, jurisdiction, reporting practices,

and caseload volume and trends.

What is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is not a department of the United

States government. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a lobbying


29/37



29

group. The Chamber of Commerces main efforts focus on

protecting the interest of businesses. It is the largest lobbying firm in

the countryand some estimates suggest they spend 5 times as much

on lobbying ($145,000,000) than its next closest competitor, Exxon

Mobil.

What is the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA)?

The American Tort Reform Association is a lobbying group that works

closely with groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to influence

citizens understanding of the judicial system, judicial elections, and

tort law. For example, as recent as 2011, the American Tort Reform

Association (ATRA) spent millions in judicial campaigns(WithPennsylvania leading the country). ATRA has been very successful in

electing judicial candidates of its choosing, who support their hyper

pro-corporate interests.


30/37



30

Resources on Business Courts and

Complex Litigation Centers

Applebaum, Lee The Steady Growth of Business Courts. Future

Trends in State Courts 2011. This article reviews the two-decade

evolution in the creation of business or complex litigation courts

or dockets within state trial courts.

Tennille, Hon. Ben F. and Corinne B. Jones. Developments at the

North Carolina Business Court.Future Trends in State Courts

2010. This article provides an update on the North CarolinaBusiness Court, which was first established in 1996.

Hannaford-Agor, Paula. "Comment: Federal MCL Fourth and

Suggestions for State Court Management of Mass

Litigation."(2006). This article provides general ideas and

suggestions for caseload management in the context of the

most common types of procedural environments in state

courts.

"Managing Complexities in Civil Cases."NCSC, National

Association of State Judicial Educators, and National Judicial

College. (2006). This curriculum was designed to assist state trial

judges in developing and presenting educational programs for

their colleagues.

Hannaford-Agor, Paula. "Complex Litigation: Key Findings from

the California Pilot Program."Civil ActionVol. 3 No.1 (2004). This

article covers the NCSC's evaluation of the California Complex

Litigation Program. It traces the improvements in the three


31/37



31

years since the program's inception and provides guidelines for

future improvement and evaluation.

Hannaford-Agor, Paula, Nicole Mott, and Timothy Faulsko.

"Evaluation of the Centers for Complex Civil Litigation Pilot

Program."NCSC and the California Administrative Office of the

Courts (June 2003). This pilot program required a report

evaluating the effectiveness of the program, including the

number of complex cases filed, the impact of the pilot program

on case and calendar management, and their impact on the

trial courts, the attorneys, and the parties.

Hannaford, Paula, David Rottman, and Roxana

Gonzalez. "Focus on Business and Complex Litigation

Courts."Civil Action: Vol 1 No 1 (August 2000). This issue

addresses commercial courts, business courts,

Aikman, Alexander B. Managing Mass Tort Cases: A Resource

Book for State Trial Court Judges. (December

1995).Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts Thisresource book for state court trial judges was created from the

discussion at the first National Mass Tort Conference.

The following statelink provides information on specific

programs in 26 states including the Philadelphia programs:

http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Specialty-Courts/Business-

Specialty-Courts/State-Links.aspx?cat=Business Courts and

Complex Litigation


32/37



32

Pennsylvania Courts Diagram


33/37



33

Endnotes1 This assessment was given by calling the Court Administrator at the

Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.

2National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in thePhiladelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report.

3United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005.

4 List was obtained by contacting the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

5United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of


6 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of


7 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau ofJustice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005.

8 This assessment was given by calling the Court Administrator at the


9 Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, 2010, Caseload Statistics of the

Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania.

10 Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, 2010, Caseload Statistics of

the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania.

11 The United States Census, 2010, Data, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

12 The United States Census, 2010, Data, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.13 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau

of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005.

14 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau



of Justice Statistics, April 2004, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts in

2001


of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005.17 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau





34/37



34





21 Court Statistics Project, Tort Reforms Can Shape Medical MalpracticeCaseload Trends, 2000 2009, 2009.

22 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report.23 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the



Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report.26 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in thePhiladelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report.

27 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the



Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report.30 National Center for State Courts, December 2011, Caseload Highlights,Implementing a Civil Cover Sheet, The Pennsylvania Experience.

31 List was obtained by contacting the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

32 Obtained by contacting the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

33 Obtained by contacting the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

34 United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives, 108thCongress, June 22, 2004,

Safeguarding Americans From a Legal Culture of Fear: Approaches

To Limiting Lawsuit Abuse, Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell University

School of Law.

35 Cornell University, School of Law, September 2009, U.S. Chamber of

Commerce Liability Survey: Inaccurate, Unfair, and Bad for Business.




35/37



35





Safeguarding Americans From a Legal Culture of Fear: ApproachesTo Limiting Lawsuit Abuse, Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell University

School of Law.





School of Law.


House of Representatives, 108th

Congress, June 22, 2004,Safeguarding Americans From a Legal Culture of Fear: Approaches


School of Law.





School of Law.

42 United States House of Representatives, Committee on the JudiciaryHouse of Representatives, 108thCongress, June 22, 2004,



School of Law.





School of Law.

44 This assessment was given by calling the Court Administrator at the


45 International Center for Law and Economics, Are Plaintiffs Drawn to

Philadelphias Civil Courts?, Joshua D. Wright

46 National Center for State Courts, 2012, Complex Litigation FAQs.


36/37



36

NOTES

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________


37/37

3-4+(5 6-74 80% /$0%&1 C DDDE&-4+(59-74$0%7$0%&1E$%5 C

; #%$

Documents

Justice for Philadelphia Courts - Final (1)