Justice
too
long
delayed
is
justice
denied.
—
Dr.
Martin
Luther
King
It’s
axiomatic
that
if
a
litigant
has
to
wait
years
for
a
ruling,
or
for
wrongs
to
be
remedied,
the
delay
can
cause
ongoing
harm,
loss
of
evidence,
financial
hardship,
and
emotional
toll.
The
delays
also
increase
costs
for
litigants,
often
with
no
clear
end
in
sight.
Moreover,
our
market
economy
thrives
on
trust
that
disputes
will
be
resolved
quickly
and
fairly
under
the
rule
of
law.
When
litigation
drags
on
for
years,
that
trust
erodes
and
public
respect
for
the
justice
system
gives
way
to
cynicism
and
self-help.
Indeed,
according
to
a
2024
study
by
the
United
States
Courts,
the
average
time
between
filing
a
civil
case
and
trial
is
a
little
over
two
years.
In
many
of
these
overworked
courts,
the
average
time
between
filing
and
trial
is
much
longer,
often
three
to
four
years.
So,
there
are
lots
of
reasons
we
need
to
look
for
ways
to
assist
our
judiciary
to
resolve
disputes
expeditiously
and
reduce
backlogs.
Judicial
Workflow
Against
this
backdrop,
one
of
the
more
interesting
vendor
discussions
I
had
at
this
year’s
ILTA
conference
was
with
LexisNexis
representatives
about
a
product
in
the
works
to
assist
judges
in
drafting
opinions.
The
platform,
which
assures
privacy
and
security
of
the
work
product,
allows
judges
to
upload
case
files
into
the
system.
The
system
will
then
prepare
a
list
of
the
key
facts
and
the
legal
issues
for
the
judge
to
review.
Based
on
the
judge’s
input,
the
“drafting
agent
goes
to
work
on
a
full
draft
opinion
that’s
based
on
the
legal
issues
and
the
relevant
facts
and
authoritative
LexisNexis
content,”
says
Serena
Wellen,
LexisNexis’
Vice
President
of
Product
Management.
The
judge
does
have
the
option
of
adding
or
editing
the
facts
and
legal
issues.
The
result
is
a
first
draft
in
a
matter
of
minutes
instead
of
days
and
weeks.
According
to
Wellen,
the
“workflow
is
built
to
adapt
to
the
judges’
thinking,
their
analysis,
their
voice
on
the
bench.”
The
product
is
called
Judicial
Workflow,
and
it
will
be
housed
with
the
Protégé
platform.
LexisNexis
believes
it
will
be
ready
for
distribution
this
fall.
According
to
LexisNexis
representatives,
judges
report
the
drafts
are
typically
as
good
as
their
clerks’
work,
sometimes
better.
If
it
works
and
is
implemented,
Judicial
Workflow
could
potentially
transform
those
two-to-four-year
case
timelines
into
something
far
more
reasonable.
Why
It’s
Important
The
importance
of
the
tool,
if
it
works
as
represented,
is
obvious.
Many
of
our
judges,
both
state
and
federal,
are
quite
simply
overworked
and
overstressed.
Too
many
cases.
Too
many
motions
in
every
case.
Too
many
issues
briefed
by
very
knowledgeable
lawyers
on
subjects
the
judges
know
little
about.
The
result
is
motions
and
matters
that
aren’t
timely
decided,
leaving
the
parties
in
limbo.
And
it’s
a
confounding
impact.
Delay
in
deciding
one
motion
means
delay
in
deciding
the
next
one
and
on
and
on.
Cases
that
should
be
resolved
in
months
take
years,
again
leaving
the
parties
in
a
no
man’s
land.
On
the
state
court
level,
the
problem
can
be
even
worse.
State
court
judges
often
don’t
have
the
luxury
of
law
clerks
to
help
them
decide
matters
leaving
them,
like
the
litigants,
adrift
in
a
no
man’s
land
while
trying
to
live
up
to
standards
in
some
jurisdictions
to
timely
move
cases.
The
situation
inevitably
leads
to
a
reduced
quality
of
decisions
which
can
lead
to
more
appeals,
further
lengthening
the
process.
And
as
I
have
written
before,
we
may
be
on
the
cusp
of
even
more
cases
being
brought
due
to
AI
and
automation
tools
which
make
filing
easier
and
justifiable
from
a
cost
benefit
analysis.
Add
to
this
the
always
constant
funding
crisis
that
impact
many
judicial
systems,
and
you
have
a
perfect
storm
for
increased
dissatisfaction
with
and
lack
of
respect
for
our
courts
and
the
rule
of
law.
It’s
critical
that
we
find
some
solutions.
But
Wait
The
problem
with
adoption
of
tools
like
Judicial
Workflow,
of
course,
is
multi-fold.
First,
legislatures
have
to
be
convinced
to
fund
this
technology
for
the
judges.
That
could
be
a
tall
order
since
it
means
convincing
legislators
of
the
benefits
of
an
AI
tool.
That
may
be
harder
than
convincing
a
room
full
of
lawyers.
Second,
even
if
funded,
the
judges
must
be
convinced
to
use
the
tools.
That
means
the
tool
must
be
intuitive
and
easy
to
use.
It
also
means
companies
like
LexisNexis
need
to
commit
to
offer
the
training
and
support
systems
to
help
judges
effectively
use
the
platform.
The
final
problem
is
the
lawyers.
I
can
easily
picture
a
dissatisfied
litigant
appealing
a
decision
on
the
basis
that
a
judge
used
an
AI
tool
in
making
the
decision.
Given
the
number
and
publicity
of
lawyers
and
even
judges
not
reading
cases
that
other
tools
have
hallucinated,
that’s
a
real
possibility.
They
will
argue
judicial
decision
making
is
too
important
to
be
left
to
AI.
So,
What
Can
We
Do?
As
a
profession,
we
need
to
realize
that
our
judicial
system,
our
rule
of
law,
and
even
our
professional
way
of
life
is
under
threat.
It’s
under
threat
in
a
number
of
ways,
but
not
the
least
of
which
is
the
proliferation
of
litigation,
and
the
backlog
judges
are
facing.
It’s
under
threat
when
our
judges
on
which
we
depend
are
overworked
and
overstressed,
often
leading
to
the
best
and
the
brightest
leaving
the
judiciary.
So,
we
need
to
ensure
that
judges
have
access
to
and
use
tools
like
Judicial
Workflow
and
other
AI
opportunities
to
move
and
decide
cases
and
enable
our
system
to
properly
function
for
everyone’s
benefit.
It’s
All
About
Education
Again,
it’s
all
about
education.
Companies
like
LexisNexis
and
others
if
they
want
to
be
in
this
space
have
to
educate
judges,
legislatures,
bar
associations,
and
lawyers
of
the
problem
and
the
validity
of
their
offering.
They
must
demonstrate
that
the
tool
works
and
that
the
number
of
hallucinations
and
inaccuracies
can
be
managed
given
that
the
tool
works
on
the
LexisNexis
legal
data
base.
They
have
to
show
that
the
tools
have
built-in
protections
to
reduce
errors
by
checking
the
citations
against
the
Shepard
data
base.
And
when
the
tool
is
used,
judges
need
to
be
transparent
with
litigants
about
use.
Perhaps
judges
even
need
to
provide
options
to
litigants:
I
can
use
the
Workflow
and
have
you
a
decision
next
week.
Or
I
can
do
it
without
the
tool
and
have
you
a
decision
next
year.
Appellate
judges
too
need
to
be
educated
so
that
there
is
not
a
knee-jerk
reaction
of
a
decision
made
by
using
the
tool.
Bar
associations
also
need
to
play
a
role
in
championing
tools
like
these
and
educating
attorneys
accurately
about
the
tools,
the
benefits,
and
the
risks.
A
Final
Responsibility
And
it
also
goes
without
saying
that
companies
like
LexisNexis
who
get
into
this
space
have
a
significant
responsibility
to
make
sure
the
products
work,
that
judges
use
them,
and
that
all
are
educated
both
as
to
the
merits
and
the
perils
of
not
doing
something.
It’s
not
just
making
products
to
sell,
it’s
about
making
sure
you
help
protect
the
system
within
which
the
products
are
expected
to
work.
It’s
Up
to
All
of
Us
Tools
like
the
Judicial
Workflow
can
address
some
of
these
issues.
It’s
up
to
all
of
us
to
see
that
tools
can
be
and
are
put
to
use.
It’s
up
to
all
of
us
to
do
everything
we
can
to
help
our
judges
and
protect
the
rule
of
law.
Our
livelihood
and
our
system
depend
on
it.
We
need
to
show
that
justice
is
enhanced
through
the
use
of
AI,
not
diminished.
Justice
delayed
is
not
only
justice
denied.
It’s
no
justice
at
all.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.