A recent podcast in the National Association for Court Management’s “Court Leader’s Advantage” series highlights a potentially alarming trend—court filings are down over the long term. The podcast is based on a newly released book that examines state trial court civil filings in five states (California, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, and Texas) and a broader national data set maintained by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC).
The podcast highlights a national decline that includes most case types, summarized in the figure below. According to a written summary of the podcast, “The NCSC put out a bulletin in 2018 stating that nationally every major case category had declined from 2008 to 2016.”
Graph from What Is Happening to State Trial Court Civil Filings? Alan Carlson and John Greacen, American Bar Association, 23 April 2024, p. 14
The authors’ examination of the NCSC data set further revealed that total per capita filings across all case categories declined by 36% nationwide from 2013 to 2021. As a court planner, this podcast led me to two important and related questions: 1) does my recent experience align with a broad national caseload decline, and 2) if so, what are the implications for court managers, especially in courthouse space planning?
Caseload as a Performance Measure
The podcast goes on to cite a variety of sources and studies to substantiate that court filings are indeed declining nationwide. My recent experience aligns with this finding, as our court clients at the federal, state, and local levels are generally experiencing prolonged reductions in filings (with some exceptions).
Interestingly, the majority of data presented in the book and podcast predate the COVID-19 pandemic. In this blog, we previously examined the potential impact of economic conditions on court caseload, focusing mainly on the COVID-19 downturn. The authors’ work demonstrates that the caseload decline is sustained over a longer period and appears relatively independent of economic conditions.
Having established the pattern of reduced filings, the podcast examines the implications of this trend for judges and court managers. It includes potential reasons citizens may rely less on the judicial process to resolve disputes and some actions and remedies to consider from a public service perspective.
For example, one of the authors, Alan Carlson, observes that filing trends have often been considered an “input measure” in a year-to-year context because of the annual impact on court budgets. In other words, court leaders paid attention to filing levels, but only in the very short term out of necessity. Handling more filings than the previous year would justify more funding in the current year and vice-versa. Long-term trends were not considered as carefully, partly because it was assumed that filings would grow over time, especially if the population grew.
The authors argue that this viewpoint should shift and that caseload filing levels should be considered a “performance measure” for courts. If filings remain down for a decade or longer, independent of population or economic trends, does that finding reflect in some way on the courts? From that perspective, the long-term decline should raise many questions about the reasons why members of the public may be increasingly reluctant to utilize courts to adjudicate disagreements or to right perceived wrongs. For example:
- Are filing costs prohibitive?
- Are counsel and legal services accessible? Are they affordable?
- Does geographic proximity to the nearest courthouse have an effect?
- Is the technology available to utilize remote filing and hearing options?
The book and podcast contain a variety of insights on these topics and raise important questions and policy issues for court leaders to consider.
What Does it Mean for Planning Courthouse Space?
Of course, as a court planner listening to the podcast, my focus ultimately turned to space and what lessons we could potentially apply from the authors’ observations. Here are a few thoughts:
A Higher Population Does Not Always Mean More Filings
Our company has long debated whether a quantifiable connection exists between population and court filings. The book’s summary notes, “Per capita civil case filing levels vary widely, both within and across states, and cannot be predicted from population levels.” In other words, the authors found that caseload declined in many places where the population grew. In this blog, we reached a similar conclusion, conducting our analysis of several case types and determining that population is not a reliable predictor of court filings.
This is a key point for court planning. While it’s important to understand the population served by a court (i.e., in terms of demographics, economics, education, age cohorts, ethnicity, etc.), court planners and architects should not automatically assume that court filings (and, by extension, personnel and space needs) will grow in proportion to the population.
There are too many other influences on the number and type of filings. A more careful observation of the trends influencing court caseload is needed. This may include some issues raised by the authors in their book, shifting prosecutorial priorities or broader legislative initiatives. Including a court planner on the design team for a courthouse renovation or construction project can ensure these issues are addressed early in the process.
Things Change, Including Space Requirements
One of our company’s most common entry points to a courthouse renovation or construction project is to review or validate a previously developed Program of Requirements (POR). A POR is a critical roadmap for any project, informing the architectural design team of the quantity and size of each space type to be included, as well as adjacency requirements and other key functional attributes.
The POR reflects a shared vision of courthouse space requirements at a specific point in time. As the authors demonstrate, it is important to recognize that circumstances may change.
In our experience, the more time passed since a POR was developed, the more likely substantive changes will be needed to ensure the POR remains current. As court planners, we look carefully at demographics, law enforcement, caseload, judgeship, and staffing trends, developing forecasts and comparison metrics where appropriate.
We also incorporate design standards that reflect jurisdictional mandates and best practices from our experience planning for over 1,200 court facilities. Combining sound analysis with current standards and practices helps ensure an up-to-date and efficient POR.
Non-Traditional and Flexible Spaces are Here to Stay
One of the authors’ most important observations about the long-term caseload decline focused on access to justice. With the data showing that fewer people are engaging in the judicial process, it seems increasingly true that more residents experience one or more barriers to accessing justice. The barriers can include geography, technology, affordability, and availability of legal services.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts were forced by circumstances to deal with these factors on a broad scale, resulting in innovations and creative uses of space. Although the pandemic has passed, some of these innovations may benefit courts in the long term and help expand access to justice:
- Hybrid court model— Identifying an appropriate mix of traditional and hybrid court spaces supports both in-person and remote proceedings.
- Online dispute resolution—This approach can benefit litigants who live far from a court or are physically unable to attend court.
- Alternative dispute resolution and restorative justice—These non-traditional approaches to adjudication can perhaps be viewed by some litigants as more welcoming and carrying less risk than traditional adversarial proceedings.
Dedicated space for pro se litigants - As the costs of filing and obtaining counsel increase, many courts have seen growth in the percentage of pro se filings. Providing dedicated space and legal resources enables courts to serve this growing customer base and might help reverse the decline in filings.
Final Thoughts
The sustained decline in filings experienced by many courts is alarming, particularly when viewed as a performance measure of courts’ ability to deliver key public services. To address this challenge, judges and court managers must carefully examine why some citizens avoid engaging in the judicial process and consider steps that may help reverse the trend.
Court planners can contribute to the solution by working with court leaders and architectural design teams to create spaces that enhance access to justice and best support the delivery of services to a changing population.
