Volume 23, No. 6 March 2013 

E-SJI NEWS SJI NEWS

In this Issue 

Status of FY 2013 

Funding 

1 

Maryland Cost/Benefit 

Analysis of ADR 

1 

IAALS Rule One 

Initiative 

2 

Legal Momentum 

NJEP Web Course 

3 

 

Page 1 

Maryland Cost/Benefit Analysis of 

ADR will have National Implications

Congress Approves Year-Long FY 2013 

Funding for SJI 

On March 20, 2013, the Senate approved the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veteran 

Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2013 (H.R. 933). The bill provided $5,121,000 for SJI – 

the same level appropriated in FY 2012. On March 21st

, 

the House approved the bill with no changes. SJI is 

subject to sequestration per the Budget Control Act of 

2011 (P.L. 112-25), and rescissions included in the FullYear Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, which will 

result in a reduction of approximately 7 percent 

($356,912) in FY 2013. 

SJI recently awarded a grant (SJI-13-N-028) to the 

Maryland Judiciary, Administrative Office of the 

Courts (AOC), and the Maryland Mediation and 

Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO) to implement 

the final phases of their policy and program analysis 

of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the 

state. 

The goals of this project are to: 1) conduct a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of ADR in several 

Maryland settings, including short and long-term 

costs to the Judiciary, litigants, and other public 

agencies; 2) assess the effectiveness of various ADR 

approaches and an understanding of what approaches 

are more effective in various settings; and 3) develop 

an understanding of the role of ADR in promoting 

access to justice. There is currently a lack of comprehensive state level data on the full costs of ADR, 

including best practices; therefore, this project will 

fill a major gap by providing a model for ADR assessment. At the end of this project, there will resources available to all state courts seeking to further 

examine the effectiveness of their ADR programs. 
E-SJI News Volume 23, No. 6 March 2013 

Page 2 

Rule One Initiative Examines Colorado’s 

Rule 16.1 Simplified Civil Procedure

In November 2012, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System 

(IAALS) at the University of Denver released 

a Rule One Initiative report titled, Measuring 

Rule 16.1: Colorado’s Simplified Procedure 

Experiment (SJI-12-N-127). The report is a 

follow-up to the IAALS 2010 publication of 

Surveys of the Colorado Bench & Bar on 

Colorado’s Simplified Pretrial Procedure for 

Civil Actions, and provides empirical answers 

to the question: “what has happened with Rule 

16.1 in Colorado?” 

In 2004, the Colorado Supreme Court issued 

Rule 16.1, a voluntary pretrial process for 

smaller dollar-volume civil cases, in an effort 

to provide timely and efficient resolution of 

these cases. Rule 16.1 now serves as the default pretrial procedure in Colorado district 

courts for most civil cases of less than 

$100,000. Parties may elect to “opt out” and 

use the standard pretrial process instead of this 

“simplified” procedure, which replaces discovery with mandated disclosures, along with 

assurances of a faster route to trial. Recovery 

under Rule 16.1, including attorney fees but 

excluding costs, cannot exceed the $100,000 

limit. 

The latest IAALS report documents the analysis of Rule 16.1, including its role and impact. 

The value of the project is magnified by the 

growing interest nationally in streamlining 

pretrial procedures, case differentiation, and 

optional processes for both civil and criminal 

cases, although civil matters have generally 

been excluded from significant pretrial process 

improvement. 

The IAALS highlighted that the analysis found 

the highest rate of Rule 16.1 cases occurred in 

consumer credit collection actions (95 percent) 

and other straightforward contract actions in 

which damages are fixed or liquidated. In 70 

percent of cases proceeding under Rule 16.1, 

there is no appearance by any defendant, and 

more than half resolve by entry of default judgment. Overall, the perception among interviewed attorneys and judges is that the cap on 

damages and inflexible limits on discovery have 

discouraged attorneys from using the procedure. 

In the 30 percent of Rule 16.1 cases that were 

contested and therefore invoked the provisions 

of the procedure, there is mixed evidence on the 

rule’s impact. Time to disposition and the 

county in which the case is filed were found to 

play a larger role than Rule 16.1. In addition, 

Rule 16.1 cases have not been shown to have a 

higher trial rate. However, Rule 16.1 is associated with a decrease in the number of motions 

filed. It is not possible to know whether the 

results would have been different if the rule was 

more frequently applied in actively litigated 

cases. 

The report provides interesting insight for state 

courts who may be considering new methods to 

ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of civil cases. The full report is available 

through IAALS Rule One Initiative website or 

the NCSC Library eCollection. 

For the latest information on 

projects, grant application 

deadlines, upcoming events 

hosted by our grantees, and 

SJI updates, connect with us 

on Facebook and Twitter. 
Page 3 

SJI Board of Directors

Chairman 

James R. Hannah 

Chief Justice 

Supreme Court of Arkansas 

Little Rock, AR 

Vice Chairman 

Daniel J. Becker 

State Court Administrator 

Utah AOC 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Secretary 

Gayle A. Nachtigal 

Judge 

Washington County Circuit Court 

Hillsboro, OR 

Treasurer 

Hernan D. Vera 

President & CEO 

Public Counsel Law Center 

Los Angeles, CA 

Chase T. Rogers 

Chief Justice 

Supreme Court of Connecticut 

Hartford, CT 

Jonathan Lippman 

Chief Judge of the State of New York 

New York Court of Appeals 

New York, NY 

David V. Brewer 

Justice 

Oregon Supreme Court 

Salem, OR 

Wilfredo Martinez 

County Judge 

9th Judicial Circuit of Florida 

Orlando, FL 

Marsha J. Rabiteau 

Executive Director 

Legal Policy Strategies Group 

Bloomfield, CT 

John B. Nalbandian 

Partner 

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 

Cincinnati, OH 

Isabel Framer 

President 

Language Access Consultants, LLC 

Copley, OH

Jonathan D. Mattiello 

Executive Director 

The State Justice Institute is a federallyfunded, non-profit corporation established by 

federal law in 1984 to improve the quality of 

justice in the state courts. 

E-SJI News Volume 23, No. 6 March 2013 

Legal Momentum’s NJEP Web Course Addresses 

Intimate Partner Sexual Abuse 

The National Judicial Education Program 

(NJEP) course, Intimate Partner Sexual 

Abuse: Adjudicating This Hidden Dimension 

of Domestic Violence Cases, is the go-to 

source for information and training on a crucial, yet overlooked, aspect of domestic violence cases. This course was supported by SJI 

in FY 2004 and 2011 (SJI-04-N-170 and (SJI11-E-154). 

Designed for judges but useful to a wide variety of justice system professionals, the web 

course’s 13 modules cover topics such as risk 

assessment and cultural defenses in domestic 

violence cases involving intimate partner sexual abuse. Four criminal and four civil case 

studies, plus interactive elements throughout, 

provide the learner with opportunities to apply 

acquired knowledge in the training modules. The course is updated as new research 

and information becomes available. Most 

recently, NJEP added data from the Center for 

Disease Control’s recently-released National 

Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. The Survey provides critical information 

on the prevalence of intimate partner sexual 

abuse. 

The web course has proved to be highly successful, as over 13,000 learners have taken the 

course. It is available free of charge at 

www.njep-ipsacourse.org.