Criminal trials tend to grab headlines. But most legal disputes get settled in civil court, via lawsuits.

In his 2015 year-end note, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the country that this system enables people to fight it out without literally fighting it out. It is how little guys get their day in court and watchdogs challenge corporate malfeasance. It is also a forum for corporations to show when charges against them are insubstantial, frivolous or malicious.

This ideal is not always reached, however. The civil process, Roberts writes, “has become too expensive, time-consuming, and contentious, inhibiting effective access to the courts.”

The system is designed to be adversarial. But endless lawyering can prevent efficient justice. Particularly in larger cases, both sides can spend vast amounts of time reviewing documents that the other has requested or may request. It is more important than ever that lawyers’ demands be reasonable, not designed to lengthen proceedings, enable fishing expeditions or bury the other side in paper.

This is why the federal bench is imposing new rules, which Roberts highlighted in his note. The underlying goal of the changes is straightforward: “Express the obligation of judges and lawyers to work cooperatively in controlling the expense and time demands of litigation.”

They obligate lawyers to ensure that their demands for information are proportionate; “lawyers must size and shape their discovery requests to the requisites of a case,” Roberts writes.

Copy the Story Link