Views from the Front lines: Observations by Chicago Lawyers About the System of Civil Discovery

Author:

Brazil Wayne D.

Abstract

This is the first in a series of articles that will report the results of a pilot effort to assess how well the system of civil discovery is working and to identify the principal problems which burden that system. The study revolves around interviews with 180 Chicago area litigators. This first essay, which synthesizes observations, insights, and complaints by interviewed attorneys, suggests that the world of civil discovery is not one monolithic whole, but consists of subworlds which exhibit clearly distinguishable features and problems. In addition to describing the principal problems which afflict the discovery system in its two major subworlds, the author reports what the interviewed lawyers suggest are the primary causes of those problems. While the litigators identify many ways in which the character of lawyering encumbers and disrupts the discovery process, they also locate much of the blame for the system's problems in the behavior of judges and the inefficiency of the judicial machinery. The interviews produced a dramatically widespread appeal to the courts to increase use of sanctions as a means of restraining discovery abuse.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Reference61 articles.

1. Another respondent opined that larger firms are guilty of meter running because “they have young lawyers, paralegals, and researchers who they must keep busy and bill time for”.

2. One attorney observed that “the larger the cases, the more discovery is essentially self-generating. Big cases are routinely overdiscovered—so you end up with mounds of documents and, especially, pages of deposition transcripts that are useless and irrelevant”.

3. The data to support this proposition will be presented systematically in a subsequent issue of the Research Journal.

4. Id.

5. For the definition of “big case” litigators, as used here, see note 7 supra.

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. The Economics of Civil Procedure;SSRN Electronic Journal;2015

2. COSTLY EVIDENCE AND SYSTEMS OF FACT-FINDING;Bulletin of Economic Research;2009-04

3. Preface;Lawyers in the Dock;2008-12-01

4. Foreword;Lawyers in the Dock;2008-12-01

5. Traditional Equity and Contemporary Procedure;SSRN Electronic Journal;2003

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3