Court Opinion

ID: 9642238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:52:53.086488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:45.125041
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion.
This case presents us with great difficulty. In providing justice to a large population in a highly urbanized area, it is indeed essential that a rigorous scheduling policy be maintained and enforced. What can appear to be harsh in certain cases is the price we pay to keep the machinery of our system of justice operating. With this in mind, we must be careful lest we succumb to the almost inevitable institutional syndrome of neglecting the very purpose of the institution for the mere sake of the institution in and for itself. The purpose of the judicial institution is to provide justice, and providing justice efficiently and promptly is, of course, *437inherent in that purpose. Accommodating this balance provides us with a difficult task.
Examining the record in this case, it is noted that the court was “. . . in the course of operating a five week schedule to dispose of something in excess of 3,000 arbitration appeals ... A backlog [had] built up and there [was] a drive to make a substantial dent in the number.”
Counsel for the appellee, a single practitioner apparently relied upon a perception of professional courtesy and, when made aware that a bona fide conflict of trial dates confronted her, communicated by letter with counsel for the appellant, advising of her difficulties with the trial date, both as to the trial conflict and in the task of securing the appearance of a witness located outside of Pennsylvania. She requested counsel to seek a “date certain” for the trial, certainly not an unreasonable request. True, counsel could have, herself, petitioned the court, but she, as it appears, unfortunately, sought the cooperation of her opposing fellow member of the Bar.
The record is clear that the court was aware of the problems besetting counsel for the appellee but, in total disregard of the very purpose of the judicial institution, chose instead to serve only the institution, as is evident by the statements:
. .. She said she was engaged in Montgomery County. We are not accepting engagement slips from other counties . ..
The other counties are not accepting our busy slips. So, with a program like this in front of us we’re not accepting theirs, either . . .
Again, I repeat, we have no busy slip ....
I told Mr. Berkowitz last week, I guess before Friday, when this question of a continuance first came up, that Ms. Harkins must follow the regulations or the case will go on trial. So, the case is now going to trial. (Emphasis Supplied.)
*438Obviously, the judge was primarily interested in eliminating the case — not in doing justice: even if a “busy slip” would have been filed, it would have been arbitrarily disregarded; he “. . . told Mr. Berkowitz ...” not Ms. Harkins, the judge all the while being aware of the problems. The only concern of this judicial officer, it would appear, was to get rid of this particular case so that it would be out of the system.
The case went to “trial” and the jury did not consider the defense or the counterclaim.
This case provides an illustration of a myopic misperception of duty, too often occurring, both on the part of the court and counsel. Arbitrary and transparent attempts to reduce court congestion at the expense of the very purpose of the judicial institution cannot be tolerated by this Court. We believe there is experience which demonstrates that court efficiency can be achieved and maintained consistent with the highest traditions of due process — no matter how great or small the amount or subject of the controversy.