How Do We Maintain Financial Order in the Court?
As Connecticut continues its financial convulsions, nary a word has been uttered about attempting to make the operation of the judicial branch more efficient.
February 09, 2018 at 02:30 PM
3 minute read
As Connecticut continues its financial convulsions, nary a word has been uttered about attempting to make the operation of the judicial branch, in conjunction with those functions of the executive branch which involve the justice system, more efficient. Rather, the approach to this crisis has been ad hoc layoffs with little consideration to the conduct of business leaving some offices critically short of personnel while others have undergone little or no impact. In some courts there are as many public defenders, who have a portion of the docket, as there are prosecutors who have the entire docket. Some clerk's offices have been gutted while others have been barely impacted.
A more comprehensive approach is warranted.
Few would argue that our courts are models of business efficiency. Perhaps the nature of its task, to ensure the dispensing of justice, is not entirely consistent with a model that would pass muster at a reputable business school. Yet the now-chronic fiscal woes of the state demand some effort be made to develop ways in which to run our judicial system in a more efficient manner.
The criminal justice system provides an excellent example of a governmental function that could be operated for less money. The current number of personnel, prosecutors, and public defenders was developed decades ago to meet a growing crime rate that required additional help to address expanding court dockets. That crime rate has substantially abated to levels that have not been seen for many years. A casual observer of the criminal courts will notice that many courts conclude their docket during the morning session and lie empty all afternoon.
However, the personnel levels have not been adjusted to reflect this substantial reduction in the number of cases. Given the deplorable state of our budget, the time has long passed for the judicial system to consider what reductions can be made without compromising its function.
Two ideas merit consideration. One, reinstitute part-time employees. Decades ago both the prosecutors and public defenders used part-time employees on a statewide basis. They were useful and productive in providing services only when they were needed at less cost than a full-time employee. They were eliminated many years ago for unknown reasons. Given the reduced state of the current dockets, this approach should be resurrected.
Second, consider the consolidation of some of the G.A. courts. There is simply little or no reason for some of these low-volume courts, with their full complement of personnel and cost of operating the facility, to exist in this dire fiscal environment. It would provide no undue hardship for a portion of the state population to require them to travel somewhat further to attend court nor would it adversely impact the quality of justice. Courts that are functioning on what is essentially a part-time basis are currently far too expensive to continue to operate.
We support the formation of a task force to determine ways to operate the criminal justice system more efficiently. Connecticut's financial crisis, whose origins extend far past the borders of the judicial system, will never be resolved by a more fiscally responsible court system, but it will help and perhaps provide a positive example for the other branches of government.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Stormy Daniels 'Hush Money' Trial: Donald Trump Should Be Very Worried
7 minute readShining a Light on Opposing Hate: The Palestinian Protesters Who Defended New Haven's Menorah
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1NY District Attorneys Are Still No Fans of Revamped Misconduct Watchdog
- 2ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 3Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 4Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 5Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250