by Judy Joyce

Created on: June 06, 2009   Last Updated: June 10, 2009

How Do You Choose Whether to Sue or Not to Sue

Understanding that Courts Do Not Necessarily Provide Justice.

In 1993, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas issued the final report of the Commission on the Future of California Courts entitled Justice in the Balance 20/20. The report outlined the complexities of reorganizing the then overburdened and under financed California Court System after determining a plethora of deficiencies in the administration of justice to the public. California courts are not unique in this regard.

While too numerous to detail at this time, a major element of the report acknowledged that access to justice by the ordinary citizen has been greatly compromised. Among the administrative factors named causing the decline is the sheer number of cases that are filed each year system wide. Using a county as an example, a litigant must recognize that the choice to sue is the choice to seek money damages in a civil claim.

While these civil matters are important to the parties involved, money damage suits must take a back seat to criminal cases that involve issues of imprisonment. To address this problem, California instituted what came to be known as Fast Track rules. This had the effect of guaranteeing that a Civil matter must be heard within a five year period of time. Civil matters can be bumped from court calendars when criminal matters usurp the time.

When a litigant understands the legal axiom that justice delayed is justice denied, a first consideration in filing a lawsuit is the length of time between the event, the filing and the trial.

When evidence becomes stale or issues arise in trial not anticipated years earlier when the event that caused damages occurred, even the best case can be undermined.

Evidence not Righteousness Wins the Day in Court

Trials are intended to provide litigants with the opportunity to state their case and find justice from doing so. However, litigants must be prepared to understand that even when evidence of wrongdoing is available and witnesses prepared to testify, that evidence may be inadmissible. When a key piece or several key pieces of evidence are not admissible in a trial, the righteousness of the case and the litigant pursuing it can not prevail.

Alternatives to Court

When the Commission on the Future of the California Courts took at serious look at caseloads, they came to realize that criminal trials, at least in San Francisco at the time, needed to provide translators

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>