Auditors in Massachusetts as Antidotes for Delayed Civil Courts

Abstract

AUDITORS IN MASSACHUSETTS AS ANTIDOTES FOR DELAYED CIVIL COURTS * iIVZAUICE ROSEN-BERG t AND ROBERT H. CHAN-IN I breaking the backlog which existed in Massachusetts but a short time ago. Too much cannot be said for their contribution." ' Despite this vigorous endorsement, no other state has chosen to adopt the auditor procedure. In New York, California, and Illinois, its adoption has at various times been specifically considered. 7 All 2 Worcester County. See MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT, REPORT ON THE STATUS OF CIVIL JURY CASES SHOWING TIME LAPSE FROM DATE OF ENTRY To DATE OF TRIAL; ORIGINAL ENTRIES AND REMlOVALS As OF JULY 1, 1959 IN THE SEVERAL COUNTIES As AGAINST PRIOR YEARS [hereinafter cited as REPORT ON STATUS OF CIVIL JURY CASES]. "Delay" as used throughout this Article refers to the period indicated in the preceding title and relates to "removed" cases, i.e., those transferred from the district court to the superior court, rather than to "original entries." 3 This is the trial court of general civil and criminal jurisdiction. MASS. ANN. LAWS ch. 212, § § 4, 6 (1955). Trial delay in Massachusetts has generally been confined to the superior court. See 3 EXEC. SEC'Y ANN. REP. TO THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT (1959) [hereinafter cited as ExEC. SEc'Y REPORT with the appropriate volume number and year]. By July 1, 1955, delay in civil jury cases in the Superior Court of Massachusetts exceeded two years from the date of entry to trial in 10 of 14 counties. See REPORT ON STATUS OF CIVIL JURY CASES (1955). A Judicial Survey Commission, created in 1955, produced recommendations which became the basis of the court's 1956 program.