What’s Your Biggest Rant About …
October 9, 2015 § 13 Comments
What changes would you make if you could? How would you improve them?
Comments by lawyers and judges are welcome and invited. You may post as anonymous or use a screen name, but you must include a valid email address so that I can verify that you are a member of the legal profession. Your email address will not appear.
No personal attacks. Please do not name particular lawyers or judges. Please be brief and to the point. All comments by persons who have not been approved before are moderated, so it may take a while for your comment to appear if it is approved.
Have at it.
There should be a rule requiring judges to decide bench trials within a certain time period, like within 6 months of the completion of post-trial briefing.
I echo the previously made sentiments regarding scheduling orders, specifically in cases involving expert disclosures, as well as subpoenas. It seems somewhat unnecessary to require all subpoenas, particularly for medical records, to be served personally.
I would also like a more uniform system for obtaining hearing dates, specifically when opposing counsel will not respond to numerous requests or agree to an order setting a hearing date.
1. Mandatory scheduling orders at the beginning of a case as in federal court;
2. Amend Rule 4 to allow for in-state service of process by certified mail for individuals and business corporations alike.
1) Requirement of initial disclosures.
2) Mandatory scheduling orders entered 30 days after answer
3) Scrap the Uniform Chancery and Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules (because, in my experience, they are applied ad hoc at best), particularly the 90 day discovery deadline.
4) Create some version of a magistrate judge to decide non-dispositive matters.
In the words of Professor Aaron Condon, “We don’t need a modern system of pleading. What we need is more archaic pleaders.”
Since the early 1980’s there has been a Pharasaic profileration of Rules. Many of these Rules seem to have risen as a knee-jerk reaction to specific practice area demons.
I would love to see MRCP, URCCC, and Youth Court have a single rule for subpoenaes and subpoenaes duces tecum.
I would love to have clarification on the authority of Family Masters. The statute says FM makes “recommendations.” Some Chancellors are requiring that post-trial reconsideration be presented to the FM and are requiring FM to sign orders preceded by “So Ordered and Adjudged”. I can’t find authority in the statutes for FM’s to Order anything. Judge Griffith’s monumental work describes the ancient and accepted procedure for Special Masters. I also muse about the impact of a statute concerning “Family” masters on law which is stare decisis as to “Special” masters.
1.Clarify service of process on Counterclaims subject to Rule 81 versus Rule . Some courts require personal service of counterclaim which seems so unnecessary.
2.No “emergency” orders that do not comply with Rule 65.
Chancery Rule 1.10 setting discovery deadline is only applied as a sword of sixty days or otherwise ignored. If counsel opposite does not want to move a case forward they can easily delay things particularly with courts which require an agreement of counsel before matters can be set.
1. Allow lawyers to issue subpoenas through the MEC.
2. Not sure how to address this, but there needs to be a mechanism in place to assist with setting hearings in courts where an agreed order is required and the other party will not respond or agree.
I think we should have a state wide, uniform procedure for temporary hearings in divorce.
Default position should be no hearing for non-dispositive motions, & judges should be required to self-report tonAOC all such motions not resolved within 30 days of reply memo’s date.
Federal courts do this, but with a six-month deadline.
Has Judge Wingate heard of that, Reid?
He’s usually appearing in the six-month report with one of the longest lists of still-pending motions in the country. Henry “Honey Badger” Wingate don’t…well, anyway.