Keren Weinshall-Margel, Inbal Galon &

Ifat Taraboulos

Case Weights for the Assessment of Judicial

Workloads in Israel

Israeli Courts Research Division

What Are Case Weights?

The burden on the judiciary is at the focus of public debate and plays an influential role on socio-legal trends - and yet, the concept of judicial burden has remained obscure.

The case weight measurement is an objective tool which enables quantification of the judiciary burden.

Case weights serve to assess and to compare the judicial workload resulting from different case types in the judiciary. In a system without case weights, workloads are estimated based on the number of cases (in fact, case weights = 1 for every case type).

What Are the Uses of Case Weights? Allocation of judicial resources (cases, judicial manpower, or

legal staff), and appointment of judges with expertise in the various legal fields, in accordance with the weighted caseloads;

Standardization of the judicial needs of the judiciary;

Foreseeing future managerial challenges and identification of

trends;

Case weights as a basis for informed normative discourse;

Case weights as a tool for planning reforms and for evidence-

based decision making.

How are Case Weights Determined in Judiciaries around the World?

Case weights are calculated by comparing the varying amounts of judicial time needed to process different case types.

We identify three generations of case weight methodologies:1. A general and relative comparison of broad categories of cases: the

U.S. Federal Judicial System in the late 70s; Switzerland in the 2000s, etc.

2. Time reports: the U.S. State Courts in the 90s; the Israeli Military Courts, etc.

3. Event-based case weighting - an accurate method of time evaluation based on the average occurrence of events: the U.S. Federal Judicial System since the 2000s; the method recommended today by the U.S. National Center for State Courts.

Computation of Case Weights in Israel

Our study developed and refined prevalent case-weight methodologies, thus leading to a higher resolution of case weights.

Event-based case weights - An “event” is defined as any stage of the proceeding which requires judicial time.

Case weights are modeled based on the interaction of: 1. Event frequency - how often a specific event is likely to occur, on

average, in a particular case type (number);

2. Event complexity - the average amount of judicial time required to accomplish each of the case events.

Case Events in the Israeli JudiciaryPreparation for the First Pretrial/ Preliminary Hearing

First Pretrial Hearing

Preparation for Additional Pretrial Hearings

Additional Pretrial Hearings

Preparation for the First Main Hearing/ Trial

First Main Hearing

Preparation for Additional Main Hearings

Additional Main Hearings

Decisions re Written Motions (at any point in the proceedings)

Decision re the Resolution/ Disposition of the Case

Technical; Voluntary

Withdrawal etc.

Consent/ Agreed Judgement

Default Judgement

Section 79a(a) of the Courts Act

Judgement on the Merits

In Criminal Proceedings: Preparation for the Sentencing Hearings

In Criminal Proceedings: Sentencing Hearings

In Criminal Proceedings: Decision re Sentencing

Sentencing with AgreementSentencing without Agreement

Decision re Written Motions after Case Disposition

Legend: Preparation of the Case Court Hearings Writing Judicial Decisions

Computation of Case Weights in Israel

Our study developed and refined prevalent case-weight methodologies, thus leading to a higher resolution of case weights.

Event-based case weights - An “event” is defined as any stage of the proceeding which requires judicial time.

Case weights are modeled based on the interaction of: 1. Event frequency - how often a specific event is likely to occur, on

average, in a particular case type (number);

2. Event complexity - the average amount of judicial time required to accomplish each of the case events.

Case Weights = For each Case Type, the Case Time Normalized into the Base Unit

Average Case Time

Case Time Computation -an Illustration for a Specific Case Type

Calculation of the average judicial time invested in a regular civil procedure case in the magistrate courts (not including auto accident personal injury cases):

After Disposition

Case Event Preparation

for FirstPretrial

FirstPretrial

Preparation for

AdditionalPretrials

AdditionalPretrials

Preliminary WrittenMotions

Preparation for First

MainHearing

First Main

Hearing

Preparation for

Additional Main

Hearings

Additional Main

Hearings

Written Motions

after( preliminary )proceedings

Judgement on theMerits

Decision according to Section

79a)a(

DefaultJudgement

AgreedJudgement

Technical/ Withdrawal/

Lack of Prosecution

Written Motions

Following Case

Disposition

Judicial Time Invested (min.)

23 17 14 22 20 35 162 15 145 17 591 34 11 8 6 13

Event Frequency )or probability, for disposition events(

0.7 0.7 0.55 0.55 4.3 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1 0.14 0.046 0.08 0.41 0.32 0.5

Pretrial Proceedings Trial Written Decision re Case Resolution

Methodology

We planned and carried out four independent studies:

1. Court data reports - frequency of hearings and written motions;

2. Representative samples of cases - distribution of case resolutions;

3. Regression analysis - length of hearings;

4. Delphi method.

Case Preparation Events Court Hearings Events Writing Judicial Decisions

Designs for Computation of Judicial Time Spent on an Event

Designs for Computation of Event Frequency

Delphi Technique (including

log)

Delphi Technique (including

log)

CourtDatabases

CourtDatabases

Samples of Cases

CourtDatabases

Samples of Cases

+

+ +

Regression

The Delphi Method

The Delphic Oracle. Kylix by the Kodros painter, c. 440-430 BCE. From the Collection of Joan Cadden.

Time Assessments (by Judges) of Written Decisions and Preparation

Overview of the technique Delphi groups Delphi day

Methodology: Validation of the Research Designs

The outputs of the four independent studies were combined during the final stages of the research, providing us with the total time required, on average, to process a case of each type.

The results were validated in several ways: Data obtained from each of the research designs was corroborated with data from at least one other research design.

The final case weight results were verified with numeric data and trends regarding dispositions of common case types in the judiciary.

Review by judicial group.

Average Hours Invested in 22 Case Types

(Partial Results)

0510152025303540

District-Criminal-Serious Criminal OffenceDistrict-Civil-Regular ProcedureLabor-Civil-Industrial DisputeDistrict-Criminal-Criminal OffenceDistrict-Civil-Shortened TrackDistrict-Bankruptcy&Liquidation-LiquidationDistrict-Arrests-Until the End of ProceduresMagistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure (w/o Paltad)Labor-Civil-Labor DisputeMagistrate-Family-Family CaseMagistrate-Youth-Criminal OffenseDistrict-Civil Appeals-Civil AppealMagistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure (Paltad)Magistrate-Criminal-Criminal OffenseMagistrate-Arrests-Until the End of ProceduresMagistrate-Civil-Fast TrackMagistrate-Civil-Shortened TrackMagistrate-Small Claims-Small ClaimsMagistrate-Traffic-Car AccidentMagistrate-Arrests-Before IndictmentMagistrate-Traffic-Traffic CaseMagistrate-Arrests-Search/Entry Warrant

Overall Preparation Time Overall Hearings Time Overall Time for Written Decisions

Case Weights (partial list)

Case Type (instance-proceedings-type)

Case Weights

Case Weights -Judicial Panel

Cases Filed

Cases Closed

Cases Pending

Magistrate-Arrests-Search/Entry Warrant 1 39464 37738 2893

Magistrate-Small Claims-Small Claims 21 40580 44968 20471

Magistrate-Civil-Fast Track 34 56862 55821 59523

Magistrate-Arrests-Until the End of Procedures

52 12593 12355 1244

Magistrate-Criminal-Criminal Offense 56 37102 43223 44765

Magistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure (Paltad) 74 20868 22179 29333

Magistrate-Youth-Criminal Offense 86 4444 5475 6151

Labor-Civil-Labor Dispute 118 14577 17626 17970

Magistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure (w/o Paltad)

122 32934 36844 58859

District-Bankruptcy & Liquidation-Liquidation 139 1069 984 589

District-Criminal-Criminal Offense 242 1494 1426 1333

District-Civil-Regular Procedure 460 3931 4009 8480

District-Civil-Class Action 527 663 416 921

District-Criminal-Serious Criminal Offense weight for panel chair - 770weight for other judges - 528weight for entire panel -1826

355 413 484

Distribution of Caseload Versus Weight

Weight

Number of

Cases

1826Severe Criminal Offenses

Case Weights as a Tool for Court Management 1

Allocation of Resources in Accordance with the Workloads (the Weighted Caseloads)

District-Civil District-Criminal Magistrate-

Civil-w/o Regular

Procedure

Magistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure

Magistrate-Arrests

Magistrate-Family

Magistrate-Traffic

Number of Closed CasesDistrict-Civil

District-Criminal

Magistrate-Civil-w/o Regular

Procedure

Magistrate-Civil-Regular

Procedure

Magistrate-Arrests

Magistrate-Family

Magistrate-Traffic

Actual Workload of Closed Cases

Case Weights as a Tool for Court Management 2

Standardizing the Judicial Needs of the Judiciary

Given the current number of judges and the time currently invested in court cases, a judge works, on average, more than 10 hours a day only on cases.

Foreseeing FutureManagerial Challenges

Workloads have increased at a greater rate than caseloads. This means that in the near future, we should expect a rise in the overall burden on the courts, as the cases processed are becoming “heavier” and more complex:

Caseload of Opened Cases Workload of Opened Cases

Case Weights as a Basis for Informed Normative Discourse

y = -0.001x + 0.419R² = 0.191

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0100200300400500600

´±¦¡

¨©£

±«®́

£́¥¦

´²

´«

��

��

����

´±¦¡¨ ©£ ±«®́ £́ ¥¦¬° ¨¨©̈ � � � � �

Significant Relationship between the Average Time for Writing a Judgment, and the Probability of Writing a Judgment:

Average Time (in minutes) for Writing a Judgment on the Merits in Magistrate Courts

Pro

ba

bility

of W

riting

a J

ud

gm

en

t on

the

Me

rits

Case Weights as a Tool for Planning Reforms

Average Judicial Time for Processing Criminal Cases in Magistrate Courts, With and Without Plea Bargains:

Limitations of Case Weights

Case weights are derived from the current and average judicial

time invested in different case types:

The weights are subject to the Law of Large Numbers;

Case weights were computed based solely on judicial time;

Case weights are a static snapshot of the current situation;

The weights assess the workload of an average case

processed by an average judge, from filing to disposition.

Conclusion Case weights are a valuable tool for the management of the courts

- allocation of resources and evidence-based decision making;

Case weights are also a research tool - contribution to the academic discourse on both empirical and normative levels;

We recommend creating normative case weights - to reflect the optimal combination between efficiency and justice in the Israeli judiciary;

Thank you for your attention!

The Israeli Courts Research Division