1. Keren Weinshall-Margel, Inbal Galon & Ifat Taraboulos Case Weights for the Assessment of Judicial Workloads in Israel Israeli Courts Research Division

2. What Are Case Weights? The burden on the judiciary is at the focus of public debate and plays an influential role on socio-legal trends - and yet, the concept of judicial burden has remained obscure. The case weight measurement is an objective tool which enables quantification of the judiciary burden. Case weights serve to assess and to compare the judicial workload resulting from different case types in the judiciary. In a system without case weights, workloads are estimated based on the number of cases (in fact, case weights = 1 for every case type).

3. What Are the Uses of Case Weights?  Allocation of judicial resources (cases, judicial manpower, or legal staff), and appointment of judges with expertise in the various legal fields, in accordance with the weighted caseloads;  Standardization of the judicial needs of the judiciary;  Foreseeing future managerial challenges and identification of trends;  Case weights as a basis for informed normative discourse;  Case weights as a tool for planning reforms and for evidence- based decision making.

4. How are Case Weights Determined in Judiciaries around the World?  Case weights are calculated by comparing the varying amounts of judicial time needed to process different case types.  We identify three generations of case weight methodologies: 1. A general and relative comparison of broad categories of cases: the U.S. Federal Judicial System in the late 70s; Switzerland in the 2000s, etc. 2. Time reports: the U.S. State Courts in the 90s; the Israeli Military Courts, etc. 3. Event-based case weighting - an accurate method of time evaluation based on the average occurrence of events: the U.S. Federal Judicial System since the 2000s; the method recommended today by the U.S. National Center for State Courts.

5. Computation of Case Weights in Israel  Our study developed and refined prevalent case-weight methodologies, thus leading to a higher resolution of case weights.  Event-based case weights - An “event” is defined as any stage of the proceeding which requires judicial time. Case weights are modeled based on the interaction of: 1. Event frequency - how often a specific event is likely to occur, on average, in a particular case type (number); 2. Event complexity - the average amount of judicial time required to accomplish each of the case events.

6. Case Events in the Israeli Judiciary

7. Computation of Case Weights in Israel Our study developed and refined prevalent case-weight methodologies, thus leading to a higher resolution of case weights. Event-based case weights - An “event” is defined as any stage of the proceeding which requires judicial time.  Case weights are modeled based on the interaction of: 1. Event frequency - how often a specific event is likely to occur, on average, in a particular case type (number); 2. Event complexity - the average amount of judicial time required to accomplish each of the case events. Case Weights = For each Case Type, the Case Time Normalized into the Base Unit Average Case Time

8. Case Time Computation - an Illustration for a Specific Case Type Calculation of the average judicial time invested in a regular civil procedure case in the magistrate courts (not including auto accident personal injury cases):

9. Methodology We planned and carried out four independent studies: 1. Court data reports - frequency of hearings and written motions; 2. Representative samples of cases - distribution of case resolutions; 3. Regression analysis - length of hearings; 4. Delphi method.

10. The Delphi Method The Delphic Oracle. Kylix by the Kodros painter, c. 440-430 BCE. From the Collection of Joan Cadden. Time Assessments (by Judges) of Written Decisions and Preparation  Overview of the technique  Delphi groups  Delphi day

11. Methodology: Validation of the Research Designs The outputs of the four independent studies were combined during the final stages of the research, providing us with the total time required, on average, to process a case of each type. The results were validated in several ways:  Data obtained from each of the research designs was corroborated with data from at least one other research design.  The final case weight results were verified with numeric data and trends regarding dispositions of common case types in the judiciary.  Review by judicial group.

12. Average Hours Invested in 22 Case Types (Partial Results)

13. Case Weights (partial list) Cases Pending Cases Closed Cases Filed Case Weights - Judicial Panel Case Weights Case Type (instance-proceedings-type) 289337738394641Magistrate-Arrests-Search/Entry Warrant 20471449684058021Magistrate-Small Claims-Small Claims 59523558215686234Magistrate-Civil-Fast Track 1244123551259352Magistrate-Arrests-Until the End of Procedures 44765432233710256Magistrate-Criminal-Criminal Offense 29333221792086874Magistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure (Paltad) 61515475444486Magistrate-Youth-Criminal Offense 179701762614577118Labor-Civil-Labor Dispute 588593684432934122Magistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure (w/o Paltad) 5899841069139District-Bankruptcy & Liquidation-Liquidation 133314261494242District-Criminal-Criminal Offense 848040093931460District-Civil-Regular Procedure 921416663527District-Civil-Class Action 484413355weight for panel chair - 770 weight for other judges - 528 weight for entire panel -1826 District-Criminal-Serious Criminal Offense

14. Distribution of Caseload Versus Weight Weight Number of Cases 1826 Severe Criminal Offenses

15. Case Weights as a Tool for Court Management 1 Allocation of Resources in Accordance with the Workloads (the Weighted Caseloads)

16. Case Weights as a Tool for Court Management 2 Standardizing the Judicial Needs of the Judiciary Given the current number of judges and the time currently invested in court cases, a judge works, on average, more than 10 hours a day only on cases.

17. Foreseeing Future Managerial Challenges Workloads have increased at a greater rate than caseloads. This means that in the near future, we should expect a rise in the overall burden on the courts, as the cases processed are becoming “heavier” and more complex: Caseload of Opened CasesWorkload of Opened Cases

18. Case Weights as a Basis for Informed Normative Discourse Significant Relationship between the Average Time for Writing a Judgment, and the Probability of Writing a Judgment: Average Time (in minutes) for Writing a Judgment on the Merits in Magistrate Courts Probability of Writing a Judgment on the Merits

19. Case Weights as a Tool for Planning Reforms Average Judicial Time for Processing Criminal Cases in Magistrate Courts, With and Without Plea Bargains:

20. Limitations of Case Weights Case weights are derived from the current and average judicial time invested in different case types:  The weights are subject to the Law of Large Numbers;  Case weights were computed based solely on judicial time;  Case weights are a static snapshot of the current situation;  The weights assess the workload of an average case processed by an average judge, from filing to disposition.

21. Conclusion  Case weights are a valuable tool for the management of the courts - allocation of resources and evidence-based decision making;  Case weights are also a research tool - contribution to the academic discourse on both empirical and normative levels;  We recommend creating normative case weights - to reflect the optimal combination between efficiency and justice in the Israeli judiciary;  Thank you for your attention! The Israeli Courts Research Division