Why You Want A “Managerial” Judge

In the last post I talked about the concept of a “managerial” judge.  Some have suggested that having an overly involved or controlling judge may not be a good thing.  Having litigated several cases before micro-managing judges over the years, I’ve come to believe that, in most instances, my clients will tend to benefit from our case being assigned to a judge who employs “hands-on supervision of cases from the outset, using various procedural tools to speed the process of dispute resolution.”  Here’s why.

First, parties and lawyers involved in a civil dispute need someone to take charge and crack a whip.  Picture, if you will, a giant sandbox filled with sand toys.  In each corner there is a 3 year-old who is told by his/her parent to “do whatever it takes, but be courteous” to capture all of the sand toys.  The ensuing exchange among the toddlers–admonition to “be courteous” notwithstanding–would soon turn ugly.  This is what many lawsuits turn into, despite the involvement of lawyers who are reputed to be educated, ethically duty bound professionals.  Without a strong, hands-on judge, a dispute over the breach of a contract will too often turn into the equivalent of a toddler sandbox fight.  Even with a strong judge lawsuits frequently devolve into bare knuckle brawls.  (I still have bruises.)

Second, I find that hands-on, managerial judges tend to be more consistent in their rulings than judges with a more laissez-faire style.  It is much easier to plan and execute strategy when you know how your judge typically handles a particular issue.  Managerial judges often issue their own set of rules regarding how they want pretrial matters handled.  Get these rules and follow them religiously!  You will likely remain in pretty good stead with the judge.  In fact, following a managerial judge’s rules is a great way to gain an advantage over a disorganized opponent who fails to strictly follow the rules.

Finally, managerial judges tend to put a lot of energy toward settling cases.  A laissez-faire judge will allow a case to take its own course and the parties to enter settlement negotiations whenever they feel the timing is right.  This is almost always in the days or weeks just before trial.  The problem with this approach, and the reason a managerial judge is better in my view, is that parties can save a lot of fees and costs if they are forced to explore settlement earlier.   Also, when cases settle earlier it helps free the clogged courts.  This, in turn, allows other cases to get to trial (or otherwise resolve) sooner, which gives judges freedom to give more individualized attention to their dockets.

Make no mistake, appearing before managerial judges can be difficult.  They develop and impose their view of how the case should progress and the parties go along for the ride.  On balance, however, I think there are benefits to a heavy-handed judge which outweigh the difficulties, and I’d pick one over a hands-off, laissez-faire judge any day.