Weighted caseload: a critical element of modern court administration

Matthew Kleiman, Richard Y. Schauffler, Brian J. Ostrom, Cynthia G. Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In recent years, court systems in the US and abroad have begun to adopt objective, empirically based methods for determining the need for judges. This methodology, called workload assessment or weighted caseload, provides an empirical basis to measure judicial work and assess how many judges are needed to handle the work in a particular jurisdiction, how judicial resources can be equitably allocated, and how much work any particular judge should handle. This article provides a general introduction to the basic elements and applications of the weighted caseload model in both nascent and transitional democracies, outlines the advantages and disadvantages of two alternative methods (Delphi v. time study) for developing case-weighting systems, and summarizes real-world applications in the US and other nations. The article concludes with a set of practical findings regarding the development and implementation of a case-weighting system.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)21-32
Number of pages12
JournalInternational Journal of the Legal Profession
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2 2019

Fingerprint

weighting
workload
jurisdiction
democracy
methodology
resources
Weighting
time
Resources
Methodology
Time study
Disadvantage
Workload
Delphi method
Democracy
Jurisdiction

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Strategy and Management
  • Law

Cite this

Kleiman, Matthew ; Schauffler, Richard Y. ; Ostrom, Brian J. ; Lee, Cynthia G. / Weighted caseload : a critical element of modern court administration. In: International Journal of the Legal Profession. 2019 ; Vol. 26, No. 1. pp. 21-32.
@article{6c36a990aa4a45739e7bc64598950486,
title = "Weighted caseload: a critical element of modern court administration",
abstract = "In recent years, court systems in the US and abroad have begun to adopt objective, empirically based methods for determining the need for judges. This methodology, called workload assessment or weighted caseload, provides an empirical basis to measure judicial work and assess how many judges are needed to handle the work in a particular jurisdiction, how judicial resources can be equitably allocated, and how much work any particular judge should handle. This article provides a general introduction to the basic elements and applications of the weighted caseload model in both nascent and transitional democracies, outlines the advantages and disadvantages of two alternative methods (Delphi v. time study) for developing case-weighting systems, and summarizes real-world applications in the US and other nations. The article concludes with a set of practical findings regarding the development and implementation of a case-weighting system.",
author = "Matthew Kleiman and Schauffler, {Richard Y.} and Ostrom, {Brian J.} and Lee, {Cynthia G.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/09695958.2018.1490293",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "21--32",
journal = "International Journal of the Legal Profession",
issn = "0969-5958",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

Weighted caseload : a critical element of modern court administration. / Kleiman, Matthew; Schauffler, Richard Y.; Ostrom, Brian J.; Lee, Cynthia G.

In: International Journal of the Legal Profession, Vol. 26, No. 1, 02.01.2019, p. 21-32.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Weighted caseload

T2 - a critical element of modern court administration

AU - Kleiman, Matthew

AU - Schauffler, Richard Y.

AU - Ostrom, Brian J.

AU - Lee, Cynthia G.

PY - 2019/1/2

Y1 - 2019/1/2

N2 - In recent years, court systems in the US and abroad have begun to adopt objective, empirically based methods for determining the need for judges. This methodology, called workload assessment or weighted caseload, provides an empirical basis to measure judicial work and assess how many judges are needed to handle the work in a particular jurisdiction, how judicial resources can be equitably allocated, and how much work any particular judge should handle. This article provides a general introduction to the basic elements and applications of the weighted caseload model in both nascent and transitional democracies, outlines the advantages and disadvantages of two alternative methods (Delphi v. time study) for developing case-weighting systems, and summarizes real-world applications in the US and other nations. The article concludes with a set of practical findings regarding the development and implementation of a case-weighting system.

AB - In recent years, court systems in the US and abroad have begun to adopt objective, empirically based methods for determining the need for judges. This methodology, called workload assessment or weighted caseload, provides an empirical basis to measure judicial work and assess how many judges are needed to handle the work in a particular jurisdiction, how judicial resources can be equitably allocated, and how much work any particular judge should handle. This article provides a general introduction to the basic elements and applications of the weighted caseload model in both nascent and transitional democracies, outlines the advantages and disadvantages of two alternative methods (Delphi v. time study) for developing case-weighting systems, and summarizes real-world applications in the US and other nations. The article concludes with a set of practical findings regarding the development and implementation of a case-weighting system.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049130908&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049130908&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09695958.2018.1490293

DO - 10.1080/09695958.2018.1490293

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85049130908

VL - 26

SP - 21

EP - 32

JO - International Journal of the Legal Profession

JF - International Journal of the Legal Profession

SN - 0969-5958

IS - 1

ER -