Fifteen Eighty Four

London:

Judge: I offer congratulations. No one can be more pleased than me. It’s always better that the parties settle themselves. Do you want a Tomlin order [a form for a confidential written settlement]? I don’t want to rush you into that… if the parties reach a settlement I never rush. Take all the time that you need and when you have a minute make it signed… Proportionality is on your side. I congratulate the parties!

Tel-Aviv:

Judge: I suggest that you show generosity and reach a compromise. From the nature of things, if this reaches trial it can go either way….I’d like to help you come closer – would 110,000 work? Or 100,000? How much would your client agree to add?

Florence:

Judge: I thought that, perhaps, a mediation order would be appropriate in this case… It would allow the sides to communicate again. What do you say in this regard?

Defendant’s lawyer: Your honour, I would suggest continuing with the negotiation.… There is a strong conflict between the sides and I am afraid that productive communication between them will take much time.

These are just a few snapshots of the role of judges not as arbiters of the law but as agents of compromise. It is part of a wide-ranging research study, funded by a European Research Council (ERC) grant, looking at the changing role of judges across legal systems.  Focusing on England, Italy, and Israel, researchers on our team conducted court observations, interviews with judges and other legal actors, a statistical analysis of court dockets, and a survey of public data to describe the current role of judges. How much is dedicated to the trial? How much is dedicated to the procedures focused on compromise? How do judges in different legal systems go about their role? How does this affect the pursuit of justice as a whole?

The research also took a deep look into the judicial role in the United States as it became apparent that it was the place from which many of the judicial reforms originated. Thus interviews were conducted with legal actors which drew upon public data of case trajectories in the US federal system.  We benefited from the cooperation of the US Government’s Federal Judicial Center and the Justice Ministry in Germany in compiling further data analysis for this research. The insights gained provide an in-depth understanding of legal transplants, adding significantly to the field of comparative law.

The findings of the five-year study presented in the book, Vanishing Legal Justice, provide a multi-dimensional account of today’s judicial role in both civil and criminal justice. This role is inextricably connected to the wider function of legal systems:  Legal systems seem to be moving at a different pace from trial-based decision-making to a pre-filing emphasis. The pace of each country along this trajectory reflects the central values of the legal systems, such as their interpretation of access to justice, the role of law, and the institutional function of courts. Looking at additional countries, we show that legal systems might be classified into three dynamic types and describe how the movement from trial-based decision-making to a pre-filing emphasis is related to current developments in AI-based dispute resolution.

This research has implications for various critical questions: What are the current roles of judges and legal systems? How do judges implement changes to their roles in the courtroom? How might their roles change – or disintegrate –  over time, especially with the movement towards a pre-filing emphasis and technology advancement? We invite you to enter the courtrooms of the different countries, view the data, and probe the wider contexts researched in this book.