Quick Verdicts From Special Judges Under Chapter 151 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: A Tool to Combat COVID-19 Related Backlogs in Texas Trial Courts
Backlogs in Texas district courts were growing before the coronavirus became a household term. The 2019 Annual Statistical Report for the Texas…
May 20, 2020 at 03:55 PM
5 minute read
Backlogs in Texas district courts were growing before the coronavirus became a household term. The 2019 Annual Statistical Report for the Texas judiciary reflects an 11% increase in civil cases filed in district courts over the previous year. While district courts disposed of more civil cases in 2019 compared to 2018, dispositions did not keep pace with new filings, resulting in a clearance rate of 87%. Now, COVID-19 has mandated the postponement of jury trials and slowed the movement of cases through pretrial proceedings.
To be sure, Texas trial judges have risen to meet the challenge—they rule on written motions and hold Zoom hearings, and some have gone so far as conducting entire bench trials remotely. But even these heroic efforts may be insufficient to meet the continuing demand for formal, adjudicated final judgments. Even after live trials resume, social distancing protocols will limit the efficient disposition of cases.
Fortunately, Chapter 151 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, titled Trial by Special Judge, provides an invaluable mechanism to ease the looming backlog in district courts. The statute provides that, on the agreement of the parties, a district court may refer "any or all of the issues" in a civil case, "whether an issue of fact or law," to a qualified special judge selected by the parties themselves.
The referral process is simple. The parties file in the district court a motion requesting the referral, waiving a trial by jury, and stating the issues to be referred. The motion should identify the time and place for the trial, the identity of the special judge who has agreed to hear the case, and the fee that the parties have agreed to pay the special judge. The district court then signs an order of referral reflecting the parties' terms and staying the case until the special judge has completed the trial and filed his or her verdict with the district court. Any former appellate, district, statutory county, or probate judge with four years of judicial experience who meets certain ethical and experiential requirements is eligible.
The special judge conducts the trial the same way that a district court would conduct a bench trial. For example, the special judge must provide a court reporter meeting the qualifications set by the referring court and must apply the same procedural and evidentiary rules that govern the referring court. To prevent delay, the special judge must return a verdict to the referring judge within 60 days of the trial's conclusion, unless the referring order provides otherwise. Importantly, the statute preserves the right to appeal under the Texas Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.
Chapter 151 provides a useful alternative to arbitration. It differs from arbitration in three significant respects that the parties may find desirable:
- Unlike arbitrators, special judges exercise all the powers of a district judge except that their power to find a person in contempt extends only to a witness before the special judge.
- Unlike many arbitrations, trials before special judges are conducted "in the same manner as a court trying an issue without a jury," using Texas procedural rules and applying Texas choice-of-law principles.
- Unlike the extremely limited appellate review of arbitration awards permitted under the Federal Arbitration Act and Texas Arbitration Act, Chapter 151 allows dissatisfied litigants to appeal the verdicts through the Texas appellate system, and thus avail themselves of the same review as would be available to parties in a regular civil case.
Chapter 151 likewise has several advantages over trial before an assigned visiting judge:
- The parties have complete control over selecting their judge, rather than being limited to one strike per side of the regional presiding judge's choice.
- The parties have far greater control over the location, timing and pace of the trial than they would before a visiting judge, who must sit at the local courthouse.
- The parties need not wait for a visiting judge to be assigned to the court where their case pends and to reach their case; they control the trial schedule.
Particularly in complex or highly specialized cases, Chapter 151 gives parties the same type of flexibility to choose a judge with special expertise as they would enjoy in arbitration while nevertheless obtaining a neutral who both exercises more power and is subject to more formal institutional constraints than a private arbitrator. With many hundreds of qualified former judges located throughout the state—many of whom now serve as visiting judges, practicing attorneys, and law professors—litigants have a rich and diverse pool of special judge candidates from which to choose, should they avail themselves of Chapter 151 to move their disputes to a timely resolution. In short, the special judge statute provides a flexible, efficient dispute resolution procedure whose time has come.
Thomas R. Phillips, a partner in the Austin office of Baker Botts, is board certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and was a judge of a state civil district court in Harris County before serving as Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court from 1988-2004.
Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle, the partner-in-charge of the Houston office of Baker Botts and chair of the Firm's Commercial Litigation section, served as a justice of the First Court of Appeals of Texas from 2011-2017.
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 AllUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readInfant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
4 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readMass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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