MICHAEL E_ KUNZ 

CLERK OF COURT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

U.S. COURTHOUSE 

INDEPENDENCE MALL WEST 

601 MARKET STREET 

PHILADELPHIA PA 19106-1797 

December 30, 1994 

Philip Argetsinger, Program Specialist 

Court Administration Division 

Administrative Office of United States Courts 

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building 

One Columbus Circle, N.E. 

Washington DC 20544 

Dear Mr. Argetsinger: 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

ROOM 2609 

TELEPHONE 

(215) 597-7704 

Enclosed please find the 1994 Civil Justice Reform Act Annual Report. The 

Advisory Group of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

issued this second annual report. It examines developments since the last report, the present 

state of the court's docket, and the plans of the Advisory Group for the immediate future. 

Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of assistance to you 

in this regard. 

Very truly yours, 

MICHAEL E. KUNZ 

Clerk of Court 
,",-

-b 

... 

. -

.-

Annual Report of the Advisory Group 

of the United States District Court 

for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

appointed under the 

Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 

December 1994 
Advisory Group 

Robert M. Landis, Chairman 

Alice W. Ballard 

Michael Churchill 

Andre L. Dennis 

Eve B. Klothen 

Seymour Kurland 

S. Gerald Litvin 

Edward W. Mullinix 

Members 

Arthur G. Raynes 

Robert Robinson 

Richard M. Rosenbleeth 

Daniel J. Ryan 

John O. J. Shellenberger 

Michael R. Stiles 

J. Clayton Undercofler, III 

Ex~Officio Members 

Honorable Edward N. Cahn 

Honorable Louis C. Bechtle 

Honorable Robert F. Kelly 

Honorable James R. Melinson 

Michael E. Kunz, Clerk of Coun 

A. Leo Levin, Reponer 

Jennifer R. Clarke, Assistant to the Chairman 
CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .................................. 1 

I. The Eastern District as a Pilot Court ................... 1 

II. Sources of Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

III. The State of the Docket ............................ 3 

A. The Overall Picture ........................... 3 

1. The 1993 Data: Median Times ................ 3 

2. Delayed Dispositions ...................... 4 

3. The 1994 Data .......................... 5 

4. Pending Motions and Bench Trial Decisions ........ 5 

B. Court-Annexed Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

C. Social Security -- A Problem Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

IV. Self-Executing Disclosure ........................... 7 

V. Resources in Times of Austerity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 

A. Judicial Resources ........................... 10 

B. Financial Resources .......................... 11 

VI. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 

Attachment ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 

Questionnaire on the Self-Executing Disclosure Rule ..... . .. 14-18 
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ADVISORY GROUP 

OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

APPOINTED UNDER THE CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990 

December 1994 

INTRODUCTION 

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 requires each United States district court that has 

promulgated a civil justice delay and expense reduction plan to reassess the state of its docket 

annUally. This review is intended to lead to further action where appropriate, all in the interest of 

reducing "cost and delay in civil litigation. III The statute goes on to provide that in "performing 

such assessment, the court shall consult" with the advisory group appointed under the Act. 2 

This report is in partial fulfillment of the statutory mandate. 

Since this is the second annual report of the Advisory Group it may be useful to review the 

chronology. Our original report, which included a Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan 

for the consideration of the court, was submitted August 1, 1991. That plan, with minor variations, 

was adopted by the judges of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and became effective on 

December 31, 1991. 

The Advisory Group considered it appropriate to allow for one year's operation under the 

Plan before attempting any assessment of how it was working and what impact, if any, it was 

having. Thereafter, the Advisory Group did examine the operation of the Plan and the state of the 

court's docket and in June 1993 issued its first Annual Report. 

This second annual report, which is being issued a little over a year later, examines 

developments since the last report, the present state of the court's docket, and plans of the Advisory 

Group for the immediate future. 

i 

I 28 U.S.C. §475. 
I. THE EASTERN DISTRICT AS A PILOT COURT 

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania is one of ten pilot courts, each of which is subject to 

the terms of Section 105 of the Act.3 As originally enacted, that section provided that the expense 

and delay reduction plans implemented by each pilot district should remain in effect for a period of 

three years. 4 

The three-year period has not yet expired, but it was to have done so before the next report 

of the Advisory Group. This timetable, however, was changed by statute as this report was being 

prepared. The effect of the legislation is to extend the three-year experimental period by a year. At 

the same time, it extends for one year the period during which the Rand Institute for Civil Justice 

is to complete its study of the pilot courts. 5 Finally, it extends for a like period the date on which 

the Judicial Conference of the United States is to report to the Congress on the operation of the Civil 

Justice Reform Act. 

The revised schedule thus continues the pilot program until the end of December 1995 and 

the time for the Judicial Conference to file its report until December 1996. The extension is a 

reflection of the felt need to allow the experiment to continue for an additional period before 

attempting to assess and to evaluate its success or lack of success. 

Absent strong countervailing considerations, this argues for allowing the plan to remain in 

place during the full experimental period, i.e. for four years. Of course, as developed more fully 

below, it has not precluded correcting obvious defects,6 nor does it argue against in-depth study of 

how the plan is working.7 

3 P.L. 101-650 (Dec. 1, 1990); 28 U.S.C. §471 note. 

4 §105 (b)(3). 

5 This Report is discussed more fully below. 

6 See discussion below concerning the ambiguity with respect to the operation of the selfexecuting disclosure provisions in cases assigned to the special management track. 

7 See the discussion below of the study of the operation of self-executing disclosure. 

1 
CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990 ANNUAL REPORT, DECEMBER 1994 

n. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 

The Advisory Group had the benefit of three primary sources of information which kept us 

apprised of developments and provided the basis for our deliberations. First we must credit the 

Clerk of Court, Michael E. Kunz. He and his associates have provided us with a steady flow of 

statistics relevant to the disposition of civil litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: the 

volumes of filings and terminations, median times to disposition, motions pending in excess of 180 

days, nonjury cases awaiting findings of fact and conclusions of law longer than 180 days, data on 

the operation of the court-annexed arbitration program, and data on the Eastern District's 

experimental court-annexed mediation program. This information has proved indispensable to the 

Advisory Group in its efforts to keep abreast of the situation in the district and in the preparation 

of this Annual Report. 

Second, the Advisory Group held a public hearing on May 5, 1994. The hearing was widely 

publicized and, in addition, invitations were sent to professional as well as civic groups. Eight 

witnesses appeared and offered testimony. There was a representative of the civil division of the 

office of the United States Attorney, the chair of the local Civil Rules Advisory Committee, the 

president of the Philadelphia chapter of the Federal Bar Association, the chair of the Federal Courts 

Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association, the president of the Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter 

of the National Employment Lawyers Association, a practitioner representing insurance interests, 

the chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution subcommittee of the Philadelphia Bar Association's 

Federal Courts Committee and a private litigant. 

Finally, the members of the Advisory Group themselves provided significant input based both 

on their personal experience and on what they had learned from colleagues at the bar. A diverse 

group of litigators with contacts in virtually all segments of the bar who appear in federal court, the 

members are sensitive to whatever problems may develop. They also participate in bench-bar 

programs relevant to our concerns. 

Particularly significant is the fact that the judiciary is well represented on the Advisory 

Group. Chief Judge Edward N. Cahn has been an active participant in our work and the magistrate 

judges as well as the district judges are also represented. 

2 
CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990 ANNUAL REPORT. DECEMBER 1994 

2. Delayed Dispositions 

A major concern of lawyers and litigants is the cases that drag on for many years. The Civil 

Justice Reform Act of 1990 requires the Director of the Administrative Office to make public twice 

a year the number and names of all civil cases that have not been terminated within three years of 

filing, identifying in each instance the judge to whom the case has been assigned.ll What the statute 

added was the identification of the judge; the Administrative Office has for many years collected, 

and published by court, the number and percentage of civil cases not terminated within the three 

year period. 

Measured by this standard, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has steadily improved and 

has at this juncture achieved an enviable record. Focusing first on the nonasbestos cases, as of June 

30, 1992 there were 109 that had not been terminated within three years. A year later the number 

was down to 81, and by the end of the last calendar year, December 31, 1993 the figure stood at 

67. 

As pointed out in last year's Annual Report, this was in marked contrast to the picture two 

decades earlier, when there were more than seven times as many such cases still pending after three 

years even though the number of filings was less than half and the number of judgeships a 

respectable 19. 12 

These data have excluded the asbestos cases, many of which were originally filed in the 

Eastern District and literally tens of thousands of which were transferred from other districts by the 

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Cases so transferred are considered terminated in the 

district of origin at the time of transfer, and are not reflected in the Administrative Office statistics 

for the Eastern District.13 However, asbestos cases originally filed in the Eastern District, are not 

transferred by the Panel and hence no such "termination" is recorded. 

As reported by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, on September 30, 1993 

there were 2,562 civil cases, or 29.6% of the caseload, not yet terminated three years after they 

were filed. A large number of these were, of course, asbestos cases. By September 30, 1994 that 

number had dropped to 77, or 1.5% of the caseload. 

11 § 476(a)(3). 

12 1993 Annual Report,p.4 n.6. 

13 See 1993 Federal Court Management Statistics at 167. 

4 
CIVIL .JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990 ANNUAL REPORT. DECEMBER 1994 

B. Court-Annexed Arbitration 

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania was among the first federal courts to make use of courtannexed arbitration. Its experience goes back more than a quarter of a century. The bar has 

remained unequivocal in its support and all the available evidence points to litigant satisfaction16 

and to reduced litigation expense as a result of the low incidence of trial. When, in developing its 

plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act, the Advisory Group was obligated to provide for referral 

of "appropriate cases to alternative dispute resolution programs, .. 17 the court's court-annexed 

arbitration program was included as part of the plan.18 

Authorization for court-annexed arbitration had expired by virtue of a sunset provision and 

there was a concerted effort in the Congress to refuse to renew that authorization and thus to bring 

the program to a close. The basic objection was philosophical: the courts should try cases rather 

than to encourage litigants to seek alternatives. It seemed strange indeed that the Congress would 

in one statute encourage the courts to utilize alternative dispute resolution and at the same time seek 

to restrain or eliminate such use. 

The organized bar and the court itself vigorously opposed the effort to abort the program 

and, ultimately was successful. The compromise, enacted in the last days of the session, renews the 

authorization for this district's court-annexed arbitration program until the results of the Rand study 

16 For detailed data on both attorney and litigant perceptions and preferences see 

Meierhoefer, Court-Annexed Arbitration in Ten District Courts (Federal Judicial Center 1990) 

63-83. 

For an analysis of the reasons for preferring arbitration, see Hensler, Reforming the Civil 

Litigation Process: How Court Arbitration May Help 8-9 (1984) quoted in Levin & Golash, 

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Federal District Courts, 37 U. Fla. L. Rev. 29, 35 and n. 44 

(1985). The conclusion may be summed up simply: given a fair hearing before an impartial 

decisionmaker, litigants and attorneys preferred informal proceedings over more formal 

mechanisms that involved both greater cost and delay. 

17 28 U.S.C.§ 473 (a)(6), mandatory on pilot courts. 

18 The Advisory Group also recommended continuation of the court-annexed mediation plan 

and it, too, has been continued. That program has been the subject of many complimentary 

references, but it is still in the experimental stage. Much to the court's credit, data are being 

carefully collected and the program is to be further evaluated. 

6 
CIVIL ruSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990 ANNUAL REPORT. DECEMBER 1994 

On the national level, controversy has skirted around the basic concept as well as the details. 

Moreover, the provision added to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) by the amendment 

effective December 1993, is by its own terms operative only to the extent that it has not been 

modified or nullified by stipulation, order or local rule. Approximately one-half of the districts have 

opted out of the Rule 26(a) provision. A substantial number of these, including the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania, provide for some form of self-executing disclosure, but prefer their own version 

to the one set forth in Rule 26(a). 

Following promulgation of the local Plan, two issues have been the focus of concern in this 

district. First, there was some ambiguity about the applicability of self-executing disclosure to 

complex litigation, cases that had been assigned to the Special Management Track. The Advisory 

Group, in last year's Annual Report, recommended to the court that it resolve this ambiguity and 

make clear that the provisions of Section 4:01 of the Plan do not apply to cases assigned to the 

Special Management Track. The reasoning was simple: special procedures concerning the 

development of effective plans for discovery are already in place in those cases, and these are 

expected to incorporate disclosure provisions tailored, in the first instance, by the parties themselves 

to the needs of the particular case. We are pleased that this ambiguity has been resolved as 

recommended and that this issue is no longer before us. 

The second focus of controversy is the provision of the Plan that delays other discovery until 

after disclosure. Specifically, the Plan provides that "a party may not seek discovery from any 

source before making the [mandated] disclosures ... and may not seek discovery from another party 

before the date such disclosures have been made by, or are due from, such other party. tt20 

Those who oppose this provision argue that it delays the progress of the case needlessly. The 

prevailing practice of serving interrogatories with the complaint, at least in certain types of 

litigation, is precluded. On the other side are those who argue that the economies contemplated by 

the rule will not be achieved absent such a postponement. 

The Advisory Group early determined that it would be highly desirable to attempt to learn, 

in a systematic way, precisely how the provisions of the Plan governing disclosure are working, 

whether there are any discemable benefits -- or detriments. We also wished to gain the benefit of 

20 Section 4:01 (b) of the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan (the ttPlantt) of the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

8 
CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990 ANNUAL REPORT, DECEMBER 1994 

It will be for the Advisory Group to assess the significance of the information developed 

through these efforts and to determine what recommendations to make to the court. 

V. RESOURCES IN TIMES OF AUSTERITY 

A. Judicial Resources 

In its first report, the Advisory Group focused on judicial vacancies as a major cause of delay 

in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In our 1993 Annual Report we were pleased to report that 

the court had been brought to full strength in 1992. The figures are dramatic: in statistical year 

199122 the court operated under the burden of 71.1 vacant judgeship months; two years later, the 

comparable figure was only 5.6 months. There can be little doubt that the dramatic improvement 

in the processing of civil litigation must be credited in significant measure to added judicial 

resources. 

It would be wrong to leave the impression that the number of judgeships is so great that the 

full complement of active judges alone accounts for the happy situation in which the court presently 

finds itself. Credit should be given to the senior judges for their continuing contribution, which 

makes it possible for the court to keep abreast of its workload. Their contribution on a national basis 

has been recognized. 23 What is not always recognized is the fact that without the consistent 

contribution of the senior judges, the standards being applied for the creation of new judgeships 

would have to be significantly adjusted. 

In order to appreciate why the active judges alone would be hard pressed to cope with the 

caseload, it is useful to examine some statistics that provide a sense of perspective. In statistical year 

1993, the total number of filings per judgeship, (Le. considering positions to be filled by active, not 

22 The figures are for the twelve-month periods ending on September 30 of the year 

indicated. They are taken from 1993 Federal Court Management Statistics published by the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts. This is the last compilation that has been 

published, although selected data for statistical year 1994 have been made available to us and 

have been cited elsewhere in this report. 

23 See, e.g., Wilfred Feinberg, Senior Judges: A National Resource, 56 Brooklyn L. Rev. 

409 (1990); The Third Branch, vol. 26, no.5 (May 1994) p. 1. 

10 
CIVIL ,JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990 ANNUAL REPORT , DECEMBER 1994 

constrained to address the then-impending suspension of civil jury trials. Today, our concern is that 

the clerks' offices in some courts are beginning to experience delays in the processing of court 

papers due to reduction of staff. We are pleased to report that, albeit with some effort, our clerk's 

office is making do with available resources. 

We are also pleased to report that funding for the automation program, which was in serious 

jeopardy and which would have had a seriously adverse impact on this district, has been approved 

by the Congress virtually at the end of the most recent session. We are pleased to record our 

appreciation. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

On the whole, the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan is working well in this 

district. The Advisory Group finds no need to recommend amendment at this time. It is appropriate, 

however, to record once again the very high regard in which the members of the Advisory Group 

and, more generally, the members of the bar, have for the judges of the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. 

12 
ATTACHMENT 

1. Questionnaire on the Self-Executing Disclosure Rule 

13 
Questionnaire on the Selr-Executing Disclosure Rule 

I. As a reminder. the rule for self-executing disclosure is as follows. 

The term "self-executing disclosure" as used in this questionnaire refers to the obligation imposed by 

Section W of the Plan promulgated by the United Stales District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania under the Civil Justice Refmn Act of 1990. 

That section imposes the obligation on each party to tum over to all other parties. without any formal 

request having been made. the following: (I) the name and last known address of each person likely to 

have information relevant to the claims and defenses in the lawsuit; (2) a description of all relevant 

documents. data compilations and tangible things; and (3) insurance poliCies that may satisfy any 

resultant judgment. including making the documents available for inspection and copying. 

The provisions of this section do not apply to any cases assigned to the Special Management Track 

(special procedures govern those cases). For that reason. this questionnaire does not cover what is 

generally known as "complex litigation." 

The terminology has been anything but uniform. What we have termed "self-executing disclosure" is 

sometimes referred to simply as ··disclosure" or ·<Voluntary exchange of information among litigants and 

their attorneys." It is to be distinguished from ··discovery," the process of using interrogatories. 

depositions. requests for admission. and other formal mechanisms for gaining information 

from one' s adversary. 

In thinking about your last case that was concluded at the district coon level and to 

which the promulgated rule governing self-executing disclosure applied: 

l. Were you on the side of a defendant? 

1. Yes 2. No 

2. In which of the following categories was this case (check one)? 

l. Contract-Insurance 

2. Other contract 

3. _ Personal injury 

4. _ Tort-Personal property 

S. _ Prisoner petitions 

3. When was the case terminated? 

6. _ Other civil rights 

7. Labor 

8. _ Social Security 

9. Other 

1. _ Before self-executing disclosure 

2. _ Mter self-executing disclosure but before full discovery 

3. _ After full discovery but prior to trial 

4. _ During the trial 

S. _ After the trial concluded 

14 

For Office 

Use Only 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 
4. How was the case terminated? 

1. _ By settlement or other voluntary dismissal 

2. _ By verdict or judicial action 

5. How would you characterize your level of compliance with the self-executing 

disclosure rule? 

1. _Fully 

2. _ Partially 

3. _ Minimally 

4. '_ Not at all 

6. Whether or not you complied with the rule on self-executing disclosure, indicate to 

what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements: Substantial 

compliance by you did/would have 

Stro., MDdI, MDdI, St,.., 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree 

• decrease(d) the time spent on the case. 1._ 2. 3. 4._ 5._ 

• decrease(d) the cost of litigation 

to your client 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 

• improve(d) your ability to represent 

your client 1. 2._ 3._ 4._ 5._ 

7. How would you characterize your opponent's level of compliance with the selfexecuting disclosure rule? 

1. _Fully 

2. _ Partially 

3. _ Minimally 

4. Not at all 

8. Whether or not your opponent complied with the rule on self-executing disclosure, 

indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements: 

Substantial compliance by your opponent did/would have 

Strongl, MlldI, MOdi, Siro., 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree 

• decrease(d) the time spent on the case. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 

• decrease(d) the cost of litigation 

to your client 1._ 2. 3. 4. S. 

• improve(d) your ability to represent 

your client 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 

15 

(12) 

(13) 

(14) 

(15) 

(16) 

(17) 

(18) 

(19) 

(20) 
9. Whether or not fuji self-executing disclosure occurred in this case, if the rule had been 

followed by both sides. compared to DO self-executing disclosure by either side, the (21) 

outcome of this case would likely have been: 

1. _ Greatly different 

2. _ Somewhat different 

3. _The same 

II. Now think about the self-executing disdosure rule more generally: 

1. In how many of your cases that were instituted since the beginning of 1992 did this 

rule apply? 

O-s _6-10 _11-19 More than 20 

(22) 

2. Of these cases. in what percentage was the self-executing disclosure rule followed to (23) 

any extent by any party? 

1. _ Less than 10% 

2. _ 10% up to 30% 

3. _ 30% up to 70% 

4. _ 70% up to 90% 

S. More than 90% 

3. At the time it became relevant in these cases. what was your knowledge about the 

self-executing disclosure rule? 

1. _ Was unaware of the rule 

2. _ Had general knowledge of the existence of the rule 

3. _ Had working knowledge of the rule 

4. _ Knowledge of the rule varied from case to case 

4. Which of the following reasons for not following the self-executing disclosure rule 

would generally apply to you (Please check yes or no). 

• Would hurt my case 

• Did not believe my opponent would comply 

• Did not believe the judge would enforce it 

• Did not know the rule 

1. Yes 

1. _Yes 

1. _Yes 

1. Yes 

2. No 

2. No 

2. No 

2._No 

S. (a) In any case in which you participated. was there a motion for sanctions relating 

to self-executing disclosure? 

I._Yes 2 No 

(b) Was any such motion granted? 

1. Yes 2. No 

16 

(24) 

(25) 

(26) 

(27) 

(28) 

(29) 

(30) 
(c) In general, what is your perception of the judges' attitude to the self-executing 

disclosure rule? 

1. Favorable 

2. _ Neutral 

3. _ Hostile 

4. _ Court seemed unaware of rule 

5. _ Varies 

6. In applying the self-executing disclosure rule, have you faced any issue of attomeyclient privilege or of work product protection? 

7. 

8. 

1. _ Yes, but easy to resolve 

2. _ Yes, but difficult to resolve 

3._No 

Assuming some kind of self-executing disclosure will remain. what are your feelings 

about the following? 

Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree 

• Pennit a party to institute discovery 

without awaiting any developments 

with respect to self-executing disclosure 1. 2. 3._ 4. 5. 

• Pennit a party to institute discovery 

once the party has made its selfexecuting disclosures without 

necessarily waiting for the opposing 

party's self-executing disclosure. 1. 2. 3._ 4. 5._ 

• Define more specifically to what the 

obligation of disclosure applies. 1. 2. 3._ 4._ 5._ 

• Expand to what the obligation of 

disclosure applies. 1._ 2._ 3._ 4._ 5._ 

What is your opinion of the current self-executing disclosure rule? 

1. _ Strongly in favor 

2. _ Mildly in favor 

3. _ Indifferent 

4. _ Mildly against 

5. _ Strongly against 

9. Do you think a self-executing disclosure rule should remain in effect? 

1. Yes 2. No 

10. Has the obligation to disclose under the self-executing disclosure rule caused any 

problem with your clients? 

1. Yes 2._No 

17 

For Off_ 

U_Only 

(31) 

(32) 

(33) 

(34) 

(35) 

(36) 

(37) 

(38) 

(39) 
1 1. Please indicate any general comments you might have about the self-executing 

disclosure rule: 

In. At this point we would like to obtain a little background information about 

you. Please be assured that this information is for survey purposes only, and 

all such data will be amalgamated across respondents to ensure confidentiality. 

1. In what percentage of your cases that were instituted since the beginning of 1992 

were you 

__ on the side of a plaintiff? 

__ on the side of a defendant? 

2. Of the cases you handled in which suit was filed in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania since the beginning of 1992. what were the percentages (to add up 

to 100%) in the following categories: 

__ Contract-Insurance 

__ Other contract 

__ Personal injury 

__ Tort-Personal property 

__ Prisoner petitions 

__ Other civil rights 

__ Labor 

__ Social Security 

__ r=Oth=e.::..r _~ ____ -, 

__ I Total (must equal 100%) I 

3.. In which category does your age fall? 

1. _ Under 30 years 4. _ 50-59 years 

2. _ 30-39 years 5. _ 60 years or over 

3. _ 40-49 years 

4. What is your gender? 1. Female 2. 

5. How many years have you been in practice? 

1. _ Less than 5 years 

2. _ 5-9 years 

3. _ 10-14 years 

4. _ 15-19 years 

5. _ 20-29 years 

6. _ 30 years or over 

Male 

6. What is the nwnber of lawyers in the firm in which you practice (at all offices)? 

Fewer than 5 _ 5-9 _ 10-29 _ 30-49 _ 50-99 _100 or more 

18 

For Office 

Use 0aIy 

(40)_ 

(41)_ 

(42)_ 

(43)_ 

(44.45.46) 

(47.48.49) 

(50.51.52) 

(53.54.55) 

(56.57.58) 

(59.60.61) 

(62.63.64) 

(65.66.67) 

(68.69.70) 

(71.72.73) 

(74.75.76) 

(77) 

(78) 

(79) 

(SO)