NCJ Number
87703
Date Published
1981
Length
27 pages
Annotation
Although the new court rules instituted by the Ohio Supreme Court reduced judicial autonomy in the interest of more efficient case flow, sufficient autonomy remained for the judges to deflect or avoid some of their new administrative responsibilities and increased work.
Abstract
Technocratic judicial reform aims at expanding the resources available to courts and making more efficient use of all resources, unlike the 'professional' strategy which uses the quantitative expansion of judicial resources (e.g., more judges), and the 'bureaucratic' strategy, which fashions hierarchical administrative structures. Faced with burgeoning dockets and declining State revenues, the Ohio Supreme Court instituted major technocratic administrative reforms intended to achieve a qualitative expansion of the resources used to process cases and to enhance case-processing efficiency. By making judges responsible for the status of their dockets, the State Supreme Court induced judges to move their cases more quickly. In rewarding this behavior, the court emphasized the significance of administrative prowess; in establishing uniform standards throughout the State, it ensured the dominance of centralized procedures over the predilections of local judges, thereby undermining judges' autonomy in operating their courts. Judges feared that qualitative aspects of their work, such as concern with individual justice and substantive legal issues, would be sacrificed for administrative expedience. Still, sanctions for not conforming rigidly to the new rules were loose enough to enable judges to delegate or avoid some of their new administrative responsibilities. The use of referee and arbitration systems as well as visiting judges are examples of remaining professional prerogatives. Forty-three references are provided. (Author summary modified)