City litigators set to press ahead with judge appraisals
The UK's top judges are to be appraised by court users, with litigators taking the matter into their own hands after plans for non-peer reviews were rejected by the judiciary. The Commercial Litigators Forum (CLF) is pushing ahead with proposals that will see judges subjected to upward reviews, even though the suggestions were snubbed by a working group set up by the Judges Council and overseen by Commercial Court head Mr Justice Andrew Smith earlier this year. The CLF has formed a sub-committee within the last month to come up with a framework for the appraisals, with members including litigation partners Hilton Mervis of SJ Berwin, Lovells' Neil Fagan, Herbert Smith's Tim Parkes, Simon Willis of Mayer Brown and John Reynolds of White & Case.
December 11, 2008 at 12:48 AM
2 minute read
The UK's top judges are to be appraised by court users, with litigators taking the matter into their own hands after plans for non-peer reviews were rejected by the judiciary.
The Commercial Litigators Forum (CLF) is pushing ahead with proposals that will see judges subjected to upward reviews, even though the suggestions were snubbed by a working group set up by the Judges Council and overseen by Commercial Court head Mr Justice Andrew Smith earlier this year.
The CLF has formed a sub-committee within the last month to come up with a framework for the appraisals, with members including litigation partners Hilton Mervis (pictured) of SJ Berwin, Lovells' Neil Fagan, Herbert Smith's Tim Parkes, Simon Willis of Mayer Brown and John Reynolds of White & Case.
The appraisal system, which will be set up from 2009, could see the committee receiving anonymous feedback forms from users at the end of each court term detailing how individual judges have handled cases. The reviews will then be compiled into an annual report.
The feedback form is likely to cover whether the appraising party lost the relevant application or trial.
Details to be decided in the new year include issues such as who should receive the report and whether generic conclusions could be drawn for public use.
Mervis said: "This is a move to combine positive feedback to the judiciary on case management matters which have worked, together with feedback on aspects that can be improved."
This content has been archived.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 AllSwiss Mining Company Initiates Arbitration Case Against Guatemalan Government
UK Supreme Court Upholds €1.3B Judgment Against Argentina
Quinn Emanuel Must Reveal Source of 'Forged' Document After Deripaska Wins Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
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