What to do With Those Case Information Sheets — Understanding Differentiated Case Management (DCM) by Pamela S. Foresman
Pamela S. Foresman is a member of MTLA presently serving on the Trial Reporter Committee. Last year, she served as President of the Baltimore Women’s Bar, and presently sits on the Judicial Selections Committee of the Women’s Bar Association. After eight years with the firm of Dugan, Babij, Tolley & Spector, LLC, Ms. Foresman became an Assistant Attorney General with the Compliance Division of the Comptroller’s Office, and litigated sales & use tax and admissions & amusement tax cases. Since the birth of her daughter Charlotte Rose in August 2001, Ms. Foresman resigned her position to become a full-time mother.
PART I Litigation can be a long and arduous
process. The time it takes to litigate a claim can corrode the value of a plaintiff’s case. As time passes, witnesses’ memories dete- riorate and plaintiff’s damages, like the pain from the loss of a loved one, or a scar or disability, may lessen or mellow. If not cur- tailed, the time it takes to litigate a claim can whittle away the client’s recovery, and counsel’s fee as well. Undoubtedly, plain- tiff attorneys can minimize litigation time by fully investigating and organizing a case prior to filing suit.
Once a claim is filed, however, litigants find their cases on a “track” or schedule imposed and managed by the court. The courts manage cases according to a dif- ferentiated case management plan, which may vary across jurisdictional lines. The purpose of differentiated case manage- ment (DCM) is to move cases effectively and efficiently through the courts thereby reducing the delay in disposition and costs of litigation. This article is the first in a two-part series that explores the civil DCM systems of Montgomery County, Baltimore County and Baltimore City. Part I explains the practical aspects of the DCM systems of Baltimore City, Balti- more County and Montgomery County and suggests ways in which attorneys can make better use of DCM to minimize the time it takes to litigate a case and maxi- mize recovery. In Part II, to be published in the next issue of Trial Reporter, experi- enced trial lawyers discuss the effectiveness of the DCM systems.
Case adjudication is the principal busi- ness of the courts. With the increasing diversity and volume of civil cases and the broad range of case processing require- ments, the typical first-in/first-out, one-track-fits-all approach is no longer desirable or feasible.1
1
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice As- sistance Fact Sheet, Differentiated Case Management, (11/95).
Summer 2002 Rather than simply scheduling cases,
courts employ DCM to tailor the case management process to the requirements of individual cases.2
The key features or goals of DCM typically include:
• Development of multiple case pro- cessing tracks with different events and time frames that reflect the range of cases filed in a jurisdiction.
• Improved organization of court events so that each scheduled event occurs at a time and in a manner that promotes case disposition.
• Close case monitoring to ensure that each case stays within its track or is reassigned, if needed. 3
Many states, Maryland included, have adopted this relatively new approach to case administration. Under Maryland Rule 16-202, all county courts are re- quired to develop, implement and monitor a case management plan for the prompt and efficient scheduling and dis- position of actions in the circuit court.4 The Administrative Judge of each county is required to consult with the Adminis- trative Office of the Courts and with other county Administrative Judges who have developed or are in the process of devel- oping such plans in an effort to achieve as much consistency and uniformity among the case management plans as is reasonably practical.5
The Administra-
tive Judges are also required to seek assistance of the county bar association and other interested groups and individu- als.6
Although the goals of the DCM
systems of the various Maryland circuit courts are similar, there are some varia- tions in the plans themselves and their effectiveness and efficiency.
2 Id. 3 Id.
4 Rule 16-202(b)(1). 5 Rule 16-202(b)(2). 6 Id.
Trial Reporter
A. Circuit Court for Montgomery County As a result of a backlog of criminal and civil cases, Montgomery County was the first jurisdiction to begin developing a DCM plan in 1989.7
Kalil (“Kalil”) was hired as Montgomery County’s DCM coordinator.8
In 1994, Susan Kalil, an
attorney who is also the court’s Special Master, explained that Montgomery County’s system of managing cases is based on length of trial time. The Case Information Sheet, which must be filed with all Complaints and Answers,9
pro-
vides the expected length of trial time. On the basis of proposed trial length, the court sets a case on one of three tracks, Track 2, Track 3 or Track 4, and a scheduling or- der is generated.10
The tracks are classified in the following manner: (Continued on page 18) 7
See American University, Recommendations to Improve the Pre-Trial Process in Mont- gomery County, Maryland, and to Develop a Differentiated Case Management Program, a Technical Assistance Report. April 1989.
8
Susan Kalil, Esquire began practice with Montgomery County Circuit Court as a law clerk in 1990–91. She then became an as- sociate at Carr, Goodson & Lee. In 1994, she became Montgomery County’s ADR/ DCM coordinator and in 1999 she became a Special Master. Interview with Susan Kalil, DCM Coordinator and Special Master, Montgomery County Circuit Court. (Dec. 5, 2001). Comments in this article attrib- uted to Ms. Kalil are from the December 5, 2001 interview.
9 Rules 2-111 and 2-323(h). 10
Previously, Track 1 was designated for do- mestic cases. It has since been phased out. All domestic cases are filed under the Fam- ily Division Tracking System. Montgomery County, Maryland, Non-domestic Differen- tiated Case Management Plan (2001), avail- able at
http://www.co.mo.md.us/judicial/cir- cuit/services/crtadmin/admin/
admin.html
17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68