Plot Your Appellate Wait By Jurisdiction

So the California Courts just put out their annual statistics on pretty much everything (.pdf). One part that struck us was just how much of a difference the jurisdiction and panel can make in the sluggishness of your civil appeal: For the most horrendously slow 10 percent of cases, there can be a seven-month gap.

As the chart to the right shows (you wanna click to enlarge) you’re way better off in the Second District Court of Appeal’s Division 5 than you are in the First District Court of Appeal’s Division 3.

Of course, that’s assuming your goal is to close the case fast. If you’re trying to drag it out, maybe, to rack up billables or drive your opponent to the poorhouse, the panels at the top are where you wanna land.

— Pam Smith

Comments

[Paul Fogel]

Pam, while I respect you enormously for the valuable contributions you have made to legal journalism over the years, I must say that I found your last comment on this post -- that lawyers who are "trying to drag [an appeal] out, maybe, to rack up billables or drive [one's] opponent to the poorhouse" would want to be in the slower-moving divisions of the court of appeal -- offensive and inappropriate. No lawyer or litigant I respect would ever want to do this; doing so would be unethical, an abuse of the court system, and possible sanctionable conduct.

Paul Fogel

[Pam Smith]

Hi Paul, Thanks for taking the time to comment. In hindsight, my billables comment probably did go too far. It was meant to be lighthearted in a hypothetical kind of way, but I can see now how it probably didn't come across that way. In any case, just wanted to assure you I didn't intend to suggest lawyers in general would advise a client to do something against their own interest just to increase billables, so if I suggested a blanket aspersion there as opposed to a "maybe there's some guy out there that does this," that was bad writing on my part. I, certainly, meet a whole lot of lawyers through this job, and so far, the vast majority I run into seem like ethical folks who never run afoul of conduct rules. But ... I'm going to stand by the substance of the poorhouse comment. I do buy into the point of view that some litigants try to encourage settlement or dismissal by prolonging litigation they think their opponents can't afford. I don't think that's necessarily unethical, either -- the party doing so may think they have a valid legal stance, and the money they have to spend may just be another tool they use to try to get what they feel is a just result. If they don't believe they have a valid point, well -- then I would put that in the same category as those plaintiffs who file nuisance suits, banking that their target will just find it more expedient to pay them than to go through drawn-out litigation. My poorhouse wording was hyperbolic, so maybe if I had been less flip I wouldn't have offended. I'm not sure if I had to write it over again if I would go more literal there or not, but I will at least think twice next time. So, thanks for posting.