Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:05:32.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Private Justice: California's General Reference Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Barlow F. Christensen
Get access

Abstract

Under a California procedure, parties to litigation may agree to have their cases referred to retired judges for private trial. While the procedure affords substantial benefits in some kinds of cases, it does involve problems that will probably limit its more general use.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Bar Foundation Research Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , Winter 1982 , pp. 79 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1982 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 638–645 (West 1976 & Cum. Supp. 1981) (enacted in 1872).Google Scholar

2 See G. Christian Hill, Rent-a-Judge, Wall Street J., Aug. 6, 1980, at 1; Ronald Yates, State's Rent-a-Judge Plan Offers Speedy Justice, Chi. Tribune, Dec. 14, 1980, § 3, at 22.Google Scholar

3 E.g., Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60–253 (1976); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 515.010-.230 (Vernon 1949); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25–1129 to -1137 (1979); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, rule 53 (1969); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 624 (1960); S.C. Code §§ 15–31-10 to -150 (1977 & Cum. Supp. 1980); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 4.48.010-.100 (1962).Google Scholar

4 Hillel Chodos, James H. Craig, and Seth M. Hufstedler. From conversations with Hufstedler.Google Scholar

5 Seth M. Hufstedler. Id.Google Scholar

6 Seth M. Hufstedler. Id.Google Scholar

7 See works cited in note 2 supra. None of the cases referred to in those works has yet been reported.Google Scholar

8 Cal. Gov't Code § 75080 (West 1976).Google Scholar

9 Frank Zolin, administrator, Superior Court of Los Angeles County.Google Scholar

10 Cal. Gov't Code § 75083 (West 1976).Google Scholar

11 Hillel Chodos, as quoted in Yates, supra note 2, at 22, col. 4.Google Scholar

12 Chodos, as quoted in Hill, supra note 2, at 12.Google Scholar

13 Chodos, as quoted in Yates, supra note 2, at 22, col. 1.Google Scholar

14 Estimate by Frank Zolin, administrator, Superior Court of Los Angeles County.Google Scholar

15 This observation is supported, perhaps, by a comparison of the reference procedure with judicial arbitration. Under the Judicial Arbitration Act (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1141.10-.32 (West Cum. Supp. 1981)) about 24,000 suits were diverted from the regular court system during the program's first year of operation, as compared with only a few hundred cases diverted each year by the reference procedure. Yet, a recent study suggests that the reduction in court congestion effected by judicial arbitration may not be as substantial as proponents of the program had hoped. Deborah R. Hensler, Albert J. Lipson, & Elizabeth S. Rolph, Judicial Arbitration in California: The First Year 93–94 (Santa Monica, Cal.: Institute for Civil Justice, Rand Corp., 1981).Google Scholar

16 See Ala. Code §§ 6–6-1 to -16 (1975); Alaska Stat. §§ 09.43.010-.180 (1973); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 12–1501 to -1517 (Supp. 1957–80); Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 34–501 to -532 (1962 & Cum. Supp. 1981); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1280–1294.2 (West 1972 & Cum. Supp. 1980); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 13–22-201 to -223 (Cum. Supp. 1980); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 52–408 to -424 (West 1958 & Cum. Supp. 1981); Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §§ 5701–5725 (1974); Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 682.01-.22 (West Cum. Supp. 1981); Ga. Code Ann. §§ 7–101 to -224 (1973); Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§ 658–1 to -15 (1976); Idaho Code §§ 7–901 to -922 (1979); Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 10, §§ 101–123 (1979); Ind. Code Ann. §§ 34–4-2-1 to -22 (Burns 1973 & Cum. Supp. 1981); Iowa Code Ann. §§ 679.1-.18 (West 1950 & Cum. Supp. 1981–82); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 5–401 to -422 (1975 & Cum. Supp. 1980); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 417.010-.040 (Baldwin 1970 & Cum. Supp. 1980); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9:4201-:4217 (West 1950); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, §§ 5927–5949 (1964); Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 3–201 to -234 (1980); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 251, §§ 1–19 (Law. Co-op. 1980); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 600.5001-.5065 (West 1968 & Cum. Supp. 1981–82); Minn. Stat. Ann. §§ 572.08-.30 (West Cum. Supp. 1981); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11–15-1 to -37 (1972); Mo. Ann. Stat. §§ 435.350-.470 (Vernon Cum. Supp. 1981); Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. §§ 27–5-101 to -304 (1979); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25–2103 to -2120 (1979); Nev. Rev. Stat. 38.015-.205 (1979); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 542.1-.10 (1974); N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A:24-1 to -10 (West 1952); N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 44–7-1 to -22 (1978); N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law §§ 7501:1-7514:2 (McKinney 1980); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1–567.1 to .20 (Supp. 1979); N.D. Cent. Code §§ 32–29-01 to -21 (1976 & Cum. Supp. 1981); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2711.01-.16 (Baldwin 1977); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 801–818 (West Cum. Supp. 1980–81); Or. Rev. Stat. 33.210-.340 (1975); Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 7301–7320 (Purdon Pamph. 1981); R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 10–3-1 to -20 (1969 & Cum. Supp. 1980); S.C. Code §§ 15–48-10 to -240 (Cum. Supp. 1980); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§ 21–25A-1 to -38 (1979); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29–5-101 to -118 (1980); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. arts. 224–238.6 (Vernon 1973 & Cum. Supp. 1980–81); Utah Code Ann. §§ 78–31-1 to -22 (1977); Va. Code §§ 8.01-577 to -581 (1977); Wash. Rev. Code §§ 7.04.010-.220 (1961); W. Va. Code §§ 55–10-1 to -8 (1981); Wis. Stat. Ann. §§ 298.01-.18 (West 1958) (renumbered in 1980–81 supplement as 788.01-. 18); Wyo. Stat. §§ 1–36-101 to -119 (1977). Vermont appears to have no general arbitration statute but does have a provision for the arbitration of labor disputes (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, §§ 521–554 (1978)) and medical malpractice claims (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §§ 7001–7008, & app. X (Cum. Supp. 1981)). Other states have similar special arbitration statutes in addition to the general statutes. While North Dakota has a general arbitration statute, a separate provision specifically makes prior agreements to arbitrate unenforceable. N.D. Cent. Code § 32–04-12 (1976).Google Scholar

17 Those of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.Google Scholar

18 Uniform Arbitration Act §§ 1–25, 7 U.L.A. 1–82 (1978).Google Scholar

19 E.g., N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law §§ 7501.1-7514.2 (McKinney 1980).Google Scholar

20 Not all voluntary arbitration is conducted under the statutory provisions, however. Some, including the hearing of many highly technical and important issues, may be entirely contractual and completely private. Certain arbitration in the insurance field, determining disputes between insurance companies on such issues as subrogation and overlapping coverage may be of this type, for example. See Bernard L. Hines, The Insurance Industry's Arbitration Systems, American Bar Association, Section of Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law, Committee on Arbitration and Other Non-Judicial Determination of Disputes, Addresses (1974).Google Scholar

21 Uniform Arbitration Act § 2, 7 U.L.A. 23 (1978).Google Scholar

22 Id. § 3, at 35.Google Scholar

23 Hepburn and Loiseaux have written:. What are the formal qualifications for this work? The only essential qualification is an ability to understand the dispute and to make a “fair,” rational and dispassionate decision. For this task parties have selected business men, lawyers, ministers, engineers, sociologists, economists, and, in particular controversies, persons from almost every walk of life. University professors with training in law, business, economics or sociology are very frequently appointed. Hepburn, William M. & Loiseaux, Pierre R., The Nature of the Arbitration Process, 10 Vand. L. Rev. 657, 660 (1957).Google Scholar

24 See Goldman, Alvin L., A Proposed Arbitration Act for Kentucky, 22 Arb. J. 193, 196–97 (1967).Google Scholar

25 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1141.10-.32 (West Cum. Supp. 1981). This statute provides for the compulsory arbitration of civil actions in which the amount in controversy will not exceed $15,000. Id.§ 1141.1 (a). It also permits arbitration of any cause upon stipulation of the parties. Id.§ 1141.12.Google Scholar

26 Id. § 1141.18(b).Google Scholar

27 Uniform Arbitration Act § 5, 7 U.L.A. 38 (1978).Google Scholar

28 Committee on Arbitration, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, An Outline of Procedure Under the New York Arbitration Law 9 (Dec. 1970).Google Scholar

29 Id.Google Scholar

30 Goldman, supra note 24, at 197.Google Scholar

31 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ U41.10-.32 (West Cum. Supp. 1981).Google Scholar

32 See Hensler et al., supra note 15, at.Google Scholar

33 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1141.10-.32 (West Cum. Supp. 1981).Google Scholar

34 See Frances Kellor, American Arbitration: Its History, Functions and Achievements 63–73 (New York: Harper & Bros., 1948).Google Scholar

35 Committee on Arbitration, supra note 28.Google Scholar

36 Id. at 26.Google Scholar

37 Wilkins v. Allen, 169 N.Y. 494, 495, 62 N.E. 575, 576 (1902).Google Scholar

38 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1141.20 (West Cum. Supp. 1981).Google Scholar

39 Id. § 1141.23.Google Scholar

40 Id. § 644 (West 1976).Google Scholar

41 Note, The California Rent-a-Judge Experiment: Constitutional and Policy Considerations of Pay-as-You-Go Courts, 94 Harv. L. Rev. 1592 (1981).Google Scholar

42 Id. at 1601–8.Google Scholar

43 Id. at 1608–10.Google Scholar

44 See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 377–79 (1971); United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973); Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656 (1973) (per curiam).Google Scholar

45 It should be noted that the proponents of this due process argument recognize this problem with their conclusion. Note, supra note 41, at 1607.Google Scholar

46 Id. at 1608.Google Scholar

47 Id. See Shrewsbury v. Poteet, 202 S.E.2d 628 (W. Va. 1974); State ex rel. McLeod v. Crowe, 272 S.C. 41, 249 S.E.2d 772 (1978).Google Scholar

48 Note, supra note 41, at 1601–6.Google Scholar

49 See id. at 1602–3.Google Scholar

50 See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239–41 (1976).Google Scholar

51 See Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 321–26 (1980); Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 471 (1977); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 29 (1973); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970).Google Scholar

52 Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971).Google Scholar

53 Note, supra note 41, at 1603–5.Google Scholar

54 See id. at 1604.Google Scholar

55 Id. at 1605 (citing Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252, 257 (1959); Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 611 (1974); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 77–79 (1972)).Google Scholar

56 Id. at 1608–10.Google Scholar

57 Id. at 1609 (citing Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242, 257–58 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 912 (1976)).Google Scholar

58 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980).Google Scholar

59 See text at note 13 supra.Google Scholar

60 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976). But note that this section makes an exception for actions brought against the United States or its agencies, officers, or employees. The jurisdiction amount is also eliminated in federal question jurisdiction.Google Scholar

61 See Knight, H. Warren, Private Judging, 56 Cal. St. B.J. 108 (1981). Some idea of the use of arbitration may be gained from the following, which deals only with judicially ordered arbitration in Orange County (Cal.):. Last year approximately 2,249 cases were ordered to arbitration [under the 1978 judicial arbitration statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1141.10-.32 (West Cum. Supp. 1981)]. Awards were filed in 1,528 cases and a little more than 900 cases were settled before the hearing. There were 586 requests for trial de novo (38 percent of the awards filed). It is important to note that of the 2,249 cases ordered off the civil active list, only 23 (or about 1 percent) were actually tried. Id. at 109.Google Scholar

62 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1141.10-.32 (West Cum. Supp. 1981).Google Scholar

63 While raising doubts about the overall effectiveness of judicial arbitration in reducing court congestion, the Institute for Civil Justice study found that arbitration does probably reduce delay substantially for those litigants who make use of it voluntarily. Hensler et al., supra note 15, at 80. Presumably, even parties whose actions might ultimately be ordered to arbitration because the amount in issue is under $15,000 might petition for voluntary arbitration under the act and thus avoid the delay that seems to occur with the compulsory arbitration process. See id. at 70–80.Google Scholar

64 One judge has said, “The only … reason some people want certain civil cases to be open is because of the sensational copy it makes.” Yates, supra note 2, at 22, col. 4.Google Scholar

65 See Hill, supra note 2, at 12.Google Scholar

66 Id. at 1.Google Scholar

67 It might be suggested, for the same reasons, that a similar open hearing policy be imposed upon arbitration under the various arbitration statutes.Google Scholar

68 Note, supra note 41, at 1610. See generally id. at 1610–14.Google Scholar

69 Id. at 1611.Google Scholar

70 See id.Google Scholar

71 This is so if only because a judge whose decisions are consistently reversed on appeal will probably not continue long to find employment as a private judge.Google Scholar

72 Undated news release, Administrative Office of the Courts, Commonwealth of Kentucky.Google Scholar

73 Information supplied by Frank Zolin, administrator, Superior Court of Los Angeles County.Google Scholar

74 Information supplied by Frederick Whisman, administrator, Superior Court of San Francisco County.Google Scholar

75 Information supplied by John Kazuvowski, administrator, Superior Court of Santa Clara County.Google Scholar

76 Information supplied by William Pierce, administrator, Superior Court of San Diego County.Google Scholar

77 Information supplied by Stan Collis, administrator, Superior Court of Alameda County.Google Scholar

78 Information supplied by Ralph Gambell, court administrator, state of California.Google Scholar

79 This organization of the statutes is based on the extent to which they contain provisions that would allow for all of the elements of the present innovative use of the California general reference statute, making possible replication of the California system. A somewhat different organization of the material, using different criteria, produces some differences in categorization, but the conclusions are generally similar. See Note, supra note 41, at 1592–97.Google Scholar

80 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60–253 (1976) (source: G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 291–298).Google Scholar

81 Mo. Ann. Stat. 1949, §§ 515.010-.230 (Vernon 1949) (source: 1889, § 2137).Google Scholar

82 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25–1129 to -1137 (1979) (source: R.S. 1867, Code § 298, at 444).Google Scholar

83 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, rule 53 (1969) (source: 1967, ch. 954, § 1).Google Scholar

84 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §§ 612–615 (source: st. 1893, § 4181).Google Scholar

85 S.C. Code §§ 15–31-10 to -150 (1977 & Cum. Supp. 1980) (source: 1870 (14) 487 § 297). See also regarding referees' fees, id.§§ 14–11-10, -310, -320.Google Scholar

86 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 4.48.010-100 (1962) (source: laws 1854, § 206, at 168).Google Scholar

87 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 638–645 (West 1976 & Cum. Supp. 1981) (enacted 1872).Google Scholar

88 Fed. R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

89 DeCosta v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 520 F.2d 499, 507 (1st Cir. 1975), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 1073 (1976). See discussion of this issue in Note, supra note 41, at 1594, pointing out that the result of the DeCosta case has now been authorized by statute. Federal Magistrate Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96–82, 93 Stat. 643 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (Supp. III 1979)).Google Scholar

90 Ala. R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

91 Ariz. R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

92 Colo. R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

93 Idaho R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

94 Ind. Trial R. 53.Google Scholar

95 Ky. R. Civ. P. 53.01-.04 (Cum. Supp. 1980).Google Scholar

96 Mont. R. Civ. 53.Google Scholar

97 Nev. R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

98 N.M. R. Civ. P. for the Dist. Cts. 53.Google Scholar

99 N.D. R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

100 S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 15–6-53 (1967 & Supp. 1980).Google Scholar

101 Utah R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

102 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 805.06 (West 1977).Google Scholar

103 Wyo. R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

104 Alaska R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

105 Mass. R. Civ. P. 53 (1974 & Cum. Supp. 1981).Google Scholar

106 Ohio R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

107 R.I. Super. Ct R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

108 Tenn. R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

109 Vt. R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

110 E.g., “The order of reference to the master may specify or limit his powers and may direct him to report only upon particular issues or to do or perform particular acts or to receive and report evidence only.” Alaska R. Civ. P. 53(b).Google Scholar

111 R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 53(a).Google Scholar

112 E.g., Massachusetts, where the statute provides:. (a) The court in which any action is pending may appoint a master therein. (b) The court may appoint a master in all cases where the parties agree that the case may be so tried. Mass. R. Civ. P. 53(a), (b). See also Ohio R. Civ. P. 53(A).Google Scholar

113 N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law §§ 4301–4321 (McKinney 1963 & Supp. Pamph. 1964–80) (source: C.P. [Field Code] 1848, §§ 269, 272).Google Scholar

114 Id. rule 4311 (1963).Google Scholar

115 Id. § 4317 (1963). See also rule 4312 (1963 & Supp. Pamph. 1964–80).Google Scholar

116 Id. § 4318 (Supp. Pamph. 1964–80).Google Scholar

117 Id. § 4319 (1963).Google Scholar

118 Id. rule 4321 (1963).Google Scholar

119 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 519:9 (1974) (source 1874, 97:13).Google Scholar

120 Id.Google Scholar

121 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 1151 (1964).Google Scholar

122 Id.Google Scholar

123 Id. tit. 14, § 1155.Google Scholar

124 E.g., Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 1319 (1974); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:4818 (West 1968) (which limits references to concursus proceedings—similar to interpleader—and to cities over 400,000); Tex. R. Civ. P. 171; Va. Code §§ 8.01-607, -608, -610 (1977); W. Va. Code §§ 51–5-1, -2, 56–7-1 to -20 (1966 & Cum. Supp. 1981); W. Va. R. Civ. P. 53.Google Scholar

125 Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52–434 (West Cum. Supp. 1981). While these state referees are retired judges, only those designated as trial referees by the chief justice of the supreme court may hear matters of an adversary nature. While references to such referees are made by the superior court with consent of the parties, the parties do not appear to have control of the selection. The compensation of referees is set by statute at $75 per day in addition to the judges' retirement compensation.Google Scholar

126 Pa. R. Civ. P. 1514.Google Scholar

127 Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 604–5(e) (1976).Google Scholar

128 Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Washington.Google Scholar

129 Alaska, Massachusetts, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont.Google Scholar

130 Frank Zolin, administrator, Superior Court of Los Angeles Country.Google Scholar