Since 1982 ISDLS has worked to assist countries to introduce modernizations that streamline legal processes and reduce backlog and delay in civil, and more recently, criminal courts.

As increasing numbers of cases are brought before civil courts worldwide, and as resource availability does not increase at an equal rate, civil courts are becoming increasingly backlogged. At best, backlog impedes swift resolution of cases, undermining domestic and foreign confidence in courts and hindering the growth of domestic economies. At worst, backlog causes disputing parties to seek extrajudicial solutions to legal questions, undermining rule of law and (often) exacerbating legal disputes.

In an effort to reduce paralytic backlog in civil courts, ISDLS works with governments and ministries of justice worldwide to introduce California-based case management systems and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADR) into foreign legal systems. ISDLS has successfully introduced case management, early-neutral evaluation, non-binding arbitration, judicial settlement, summary judgment, and private and court-annexed mediation into civil systems around the globe. (For further information on case management and ADR, please follow the links provided).

These mechanisms expedite the justice process by diverting cases to ADR early in the pre-trial process. By resolving cases without going to full trial, litigants and court systems are able to avoid the large and unnecessary expenses incurred in a trial. Case management practices significantly reduce backlog by requiring judges and lawyers to adhere to strict case schedules (or provide valid reasons why they cannot). In a case management system, judges create case calendars which identify firm deadlines for pre-trial and trial processes. Judges may mandate early discovery and may, if they deem it appropriate, immediately refer cases to ADR. By involving judges early in a case’s life, case management creates accountability between all parties to one another and to the deadlines set by the judge, and demonstrates the court’s willingness to resolve cases quickly and efficiently. By requiring that information be shared between parties early in a case’s life, case management allows parties to identify key points of conflict early and to determine whether or not a dispute can be resolved through ADR or should be immediately sent to trial.

As a result of the introduction of ADR and case management mechanisms, approximately 2-4% of cases in the United States are taken to full trial; the remainder are resolved through one of the many mechanisms of ADR outlined above. In contrast, in those countries where no alternatives are available, nearly 100% of cases must go to full trial. These trials draw heavily upon human and monetary resources, and pose a substantial burden on most already-under-resourced court systems.

ISDLS assists in the introduction of legal reforms by enabling foreign legal opinion leaders (Ministry of Justice or Supreme Court officials, judges, lawyers, law professors, and policy-makers) to study first-hand the litany of alternatives to trial utilized in the California courts. By studying in federal and state first-instance and appeals courts, by meeting with judges, attorneys, legal policy makers, and ADR-coordinators in the United States, and by observing ADR processes in action, study groups are able to assess the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and of the applicability of such practices within their own legal cultures.

Based on the conclusions of each study group, ISDLS assists in the design of civil justice reform models consistent with each country’s legal and cultural environment. ISDLS frequently follows up U.S. legal studies by sending experts to each host country. These experts may conduct trainings, assist in the presentation of a study group’s conclusions to the greater local legal community at a national seminar or provide consultation and clarification as necessary throughout the remainder of the reform initiative.

ISDLS study programs following this model have led to successful civil justice reforms in Egypt, Israel, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Jordan. For these and other active civil justice reform programs, please see the Info by Country section of the site.