English Abstract: This commentary examines the contribution in this edition by Roach Anleu & ... more English Abstract: This commentary examines the contribution in this edition by Roach Anleu & Mack, based on arguments that reducing judicial performance evaluation (ergo any professional performance) to that which is easily measurable removes the human aspect of that performance, and is therefore less accurate. Here, “measurable” is meant as focusing only on the “outward performance”, “interaction with stakeholders” and how judges perform in relation to numbers of cases. Compared to such organisational standards, judicial codes of ethics or other written codes reflect the more traditional values of the judiciary, such as independence and impartiality. This can be seen e.g. in the experiences of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe in supporting the use of judicial performance standards. The argument in the paper, supported by this commentator, is that such exercises are superficial and more depth is needed to capture the entirety of the judicial experience using the model presented.Spanish Abstract: Este comentario analiza el articulo de Roach Anleu y Mack en este numero, en base a los argumentos de que limitar la evaluacion del rendimiento judicial (ergo cualquier rendimiento profesional) a lo que es facilmente medible elimina el aspecto humano de ese rendimiento, y es por lo tanto menos preciso. Aqui, por “medible” se entiende lo que esta centrado unicamente en el “rendimiento exterior”, la “interaccion con los interesados” y el rendimiento de los jueces en relacion con el numero de casos. En comparacion con estas normas de organizacion, los codigos judiciales de etica u otros codigos escritos reflejan los valores mas tradicionales de la judicatura, como la independencia o imparcialidad. Esto puede verse, por ejemplo, en las experiencias de la Organizacion para la Seguridad y la Cooperacion en Europa en apoyar el uso de las normas de rendimiento judicial. El argumento del articulo, apoyado por esta autora, es que estos ejercicios son superficiales y se necesita mas profundidad para capturar en su totalidad la experiencia judicial utilizando el modelo presentado.
English Abstract: This commentary examines the contribution in this edition by Roach Anleu & ... more English Abstract: This commentary examines the contribution in this edition by Roach Anleu & Mack, based on arguments that reducing judicial performance evaluation (ergo any professional performance) to that which is easily measurable removes the human aspect of that performance, and is therefore less accurate. Here, “measurable” is meant as focusing only on the “outward performance”, “interaction with stakeholders” and how judges perform in relation to numbers of cases. Compared to such organisational standards, judicial codes of ethics or other written codes reflect the more traditional values of the judiciary, such as independence and impartiality. This can be seen e.g. in the experiences of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe in supporting the use of judicial performance standards. The argument in the paper, supported by this commentator, is that such exercises are superficial and more depth is needed to capture the entirety of the judicial experience using the model presented.Spanish Abstract: Este comentario analiza el articulo de Roach Anleu y Mack en este numero, en base a los argumentos de que limitar la evaluacion del rendimiento judicial (ergo cualquier rendimiento profesional) a lo que es facilmente medible elimina el aspecto humano de ese rendimiento, y es por lo tanto menos preciso. Aqui, por “medible” se entiende lo que esta centrado unicamente en el “rendimiento exterior”, la “interaccion con los interesados” y el rendimiento de los jueces en relacion con el numero de casos. En comparacion con estas normas de organizacion, los codigos judiciales de etica u otros codigos escritos reflejan los valores mas tradicionales de la judicatura, como la independencia o imparcialidad. Esto puede verse, por ejemplo, en las experiencias de la Organizacion para la Seguridad y la Cooperacion en Europa en apoyar el uso de las normas de rendimiento judicial. El argumento del articulo, apoyado por esta autora, es que estos ejercicios son superficiales y se necesita mas profundidad para capturar en su totalidad la experiencia judicial utilizando el modelo presentado.
Courts are the dispensers of justice between the state and the citizen (public and criminal law) ... more Courts are the dispensers of justice between the state and the citizen (public and criminal law) and between citizens (private law disputes) in 'ordinary' or non-emergency times. The basis for this duty is citizens' right to a fair trial, which is internationally recognised (e.g., under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights). People have a right to challenge government decision-making and a right to an independent and impartial court if they are being charged with a crime, as well as to defend their personal rights against another person. This right has traditionally been dependent on there being physical access to courts, representation, public hearing and public judgment. As such, procedures and structures are required to be in place for the right to be fulfilled. 2 The European Court of Human Rights has refused to interpret this right in a narrow way, 3 including calling out countries that create new specialised courts or tribunals to undermine the ordinary judiciary. 4 The operation of courts occurs at three levels. The governance structure includes the ministry of justice (or equivalent), the President of the Courts (Senior Judge) and the head of court administrations. 5 Loosely put, the government supplies the financing for the courts; the President of the courts manages the judges, their comportment and performance expectations; and the court administration manages the day-today running of the courts, alongside judges, who (usually) must manage cases and ensure they are dealt with in a reasonable time. These aspects are essential to ensuring a fair trial and that judges are and remain independent and impartial. 6 Do things go wrong? Yes, absolutely. Any situation can disrupt the management of a court, including incompetent or corrupt judges, administrators and politicians, which can cause further delays and backlogs. However, typically, constitutions and legislation are set out to mitigate situations in which judges and court administrators can be corrupt or incompetent and, thereby, minimise the impact they can have on court performance. Implementing new legislation can also cause a flood of cases to a court; however, in this case, ordinary measures are available, such as mobilising additional resources to deal with the increased caseload. 1 An earlier version of this article was presented at Condition Critical: Disruption, Disaster and Challenges to Law (online seminar) 5 September 2021. My thanks to Dr Francesco Contini, IRSIG-CNR, Bologna, Italy, and to the two blind reviewers for their comments and feedback. All mistakes remain my own.
European journal of comparative law and governance, Dec 6, 2022
It is clear from the research on the political and legal constitutions around regulatory power th... more It is clear from the research on the political and legal constitutions around regulatory power that it is a complex picture. The question for this paper is whether there is a relationship between regulatory governance and institutions and the judiciaries, i.e. are they constrained by the rule of law in the same way as classical administration? The first part of this paper will start to chart out an expansion and contraction of judicial power in relation to executive powers. The second part will provide a comparison between England and France's regulatory systems and their relationships to their respective judiciaries. The conclusion sets out to answer the main question of where the judiciary sits in an a complex political, economic and legal tapestry to control a hybrid institution that sits outside of a legal constitution.
How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning, 2018
Measuring the Unmeasurable Individual partner performance in a law firm tends to be based on meas... more Measuring the Unmeasurable Individual partner performance in a law firm tends to be based on measurable factors. Law firms capture and slice lawyer financial contributions in a variety of ways. Some individual performance metrics are fairly black and white, particularly billable hours or working attorney collections, while others, like origination or client management, are somewhat gray. Despite the gray areas, law firms tend to directly correlate dollars (or pounds or euros) with partner contributions, and as a result, compensation approaches tend to be heavily data driven. Based on our analysis across multiple firms, roughly 70-90% of partner compensation decisions in merit or subjective based systems can be explained by a handful of financial metrics. Qualitative and non-quantifiable contributions tend to receive less focus in compensation, in large part because they are difficult to measure. Firms often find that the 10-30% of compensation which is not based on financial contribution creates disproportionate partner tension, largely due to the challenges in measuring and valuing qualitative inputs. Qualitative Partner Contributions Building a successful and sustainable law firm requires creating incentives for partners to engage in all of the behaviors required to grow and build the business. As a result, in addition to valuing financial performance, best practice partner compensation systems also seek to value qualitative contributions, particularly lawyer training and development, firm and practice profile building, client service and management, teamwork and collaboration, management and leadership, contributions to diversity and inclusion, and the list goes on. The definition of which qualitative contributions should be valued and in what order of magnitude varies by firm, depending on the firm's core values, partnership culture and history, and ideally, the partnership's strategy and goals for the future.
This chapter looks at the theoretical and practical foundations for the quality of judicial reaso... more This chapter looks at the theoretical and practical foundations for the quality of judicial reasoning in England and Wales. Standards can be found in theory—judges should not forget that giving reasons is a basis for their own legitimacy and accountability. These standards appear to be entirely derived from legal principles and practices. This chapter will address the question of whether there are criticisms on the quality of judicial reasoning and their source, and whether quality management can help to alleviate these critiques without being in breach of judicial independence.
International Journal for Court Administration, 2020
As you can see, there are some exciting changes in the layout and presentation of the journal, th... more As you can see, there are some exciting changes in the layout and presentation of the journal, that are intended to improve your reading experience and increase the appeal to the Journal's diverse international audiences. The refreshing new look is partly also a consequence of our new partnership with Ubiquity Press, which has now taken over from Utrecht University as the journal's international publisher. We are confident that our readers, sponsors and contributors alike will enjoy the benefits of the extensive reach and indexing services that our new publisher offers to the journal in numerous outlets around the world. Of course, we would like to thank the team at Utrecht University for its generous support over the previous 12 years, without which the Journal's progression to the flagship international outlet in court administration would be difficult to imagine. We begin by extending our gratitude to Philip Langbroek, the Journal's inaugural Managing Editor who, with the assistance of Markus Zimmer, IACA's founding president and Journal Executive Editor, gave birth to the Journal and nursed it through its infancy. Philip has decided the time has come to pass the editorial management torch on to our new managing editors, although he will continue to serve as a Journal editor. Over time, Philip took the initiative to have the Journal's contents peer-reviewed and recognized by the U.S. government's Library of Congress and its contents listed in leading international scholarly databases, providing online access to its contents to a worldwide community. He also tirelessly promoted the Journal in international circles, building its reputation both among judicial and justice system professionals and academic and research communities in court management and administration. Overtime, he cultivated the interest of distinguished professionals, scholars and researchers in submitting their work for publication in the Journal. We owe him our collective thanks for his prodigious efforts and wish him well in his new endeavours. Next, you will see that there are some new additions to the Journal's editorial board, so please allow us to introduce and welcome our two new (co)managing editors, Dr Gar Yein Ng from Buckingham University in the UK and Dr Tim Bunjevac, from RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. Gar Yein is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Buckingham. She has taught comparative law in the fields of constitutional law and human rights. Gar Yein's most recent publications cover issues of judicial skills, the training of judges and the role of judges visa -vis the legislator from a comparative perspective. Previously, she has been an independent researcher in areas such as court and justice management, public law and procedural law, particularly at the intersection between law and technology. Gar Yein has continued to
International Journal for Court Administration, 2008
The authors of this book set out to "elevate awareness of courts as organizations" [p.146]. Even ... more The authors of this book set out to "elevate awareness of courts as organizations" [p.146]. Even though it may seem fairly obvious to many readers that courts are "organizations," courts have been neglected in research compared to the legislature and executives of many democratic countries. This research gap may be attributable to two myths. First, while the legitimacy of legislatures and executives is based on democratic principles, many view courts as institutions of justice and liberty and therefore not subject to the same rules of political accountability. Second, the gap may result from the fact that courts are seen as conservative, difficult to change, and therefore not really worth the bother. This book debunks both myths.
English Abstract: This commentary examines the contribution in this edition by Roach Anleu & ... more English Abstract: This commentary examines the contribution in this edition by Roach Anleu & Mack, based on arguments that reducing judicial performance evaluation (ergo any professional performance) to that which is easily measurable removes the human aspect of that performance, and is therefore less accurate. Here, “measurable” is meant as focusing only on the “outward performance”, “interaction with stakeholders” and how judges perform in relation to numbers of cases. Compared to such organisational standards, judicial codes of ethics or other written codes reflect the more traditional values of the judiciary, such as independence and impartiality. This can be seen e.g. in the experiences of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe in supporting the use of judicial performance standards. The argument in the paper, supported by this commentator, is that such exercises are superficial and more depth is needed to capture the entirety of the judicial experience using the model presented.Spanish Abstract: Este comentario analiza el articulo de Roach Anleu y Mack en este numero, en base a los argumentos de que limitar la evaluacion del rendimiento judicial (ergo cualquier rendimiento profesional) a lo que es facilmente medible elimina el aspecto humano de ese rendimiento, y es por lo tanto menos preciso. Aqui, por “medible” se entiende lo que esta centrado unicamente en el “rendimiento exterior”, la “interaccion con los interesados” y el rendimiento de los jueces en relacion con el numero de casos. En comparacion con estas normas de organizacion, los codigos judiciales de etica u otros codigos escritos reflejan los valores mas tradicionales de la judicatura, como la independencia o imparcialidad. Esto puede verse, por ejemplo, en las experiencias de la Organizacion para la Seguridad y la Cooperacion en Europa en apoyar el uso de las normas de rendimiento judicial. El argumento del articulo, apoyado por esta autora, es que estos ejercicios son superficiales y se necesita mas profundidad para capturar en su totalidad la experiencia judicial utilizando el modelo presentado.
English Abstract: This commentary examines the contribution in this edition by Roach Anleu & ... more English Abstract: This commentary examines the contribution in this edition by Roach Anleu & Mack, based on arguments that reducing judicial performance evaluation (ergo any professional performance) to that which is easily measurable removes the human aspect of that performance, and is therefore less accurate. Here, “measurable” is meant as focusing only on the “outward performance”, “interaction with stakeholders” and how judges perform in relation to numbers of cases. Compared to such organisational standards, judicial codes of ethics or other written codes reflect the more traditional values of the judiciary, such as independence and impartiality. This can be seen e.g. in the experiences of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe in supporting the use of judicial performance standards. The argument in the paper, supported by this commentator, is that such exercises are superficial and more depth is needed to capture the entirety of the judicial experience using the model presented.Spanish Abstract: Este comentario analiza el articulo de Roach Anleu y Mack en este numero, en base a los argumentos de que limitar la evaluacion del rendimiento judicial (ergo cualquier rendimiento profesional) a lo que es facilmente medible elimina el aspecto humano de ese rendimiento, y es por lo tanto menos preciso. Aqui, por “medible” se entiende lo que esta centrado unicamente en el “rendimiento exterior”, la “interaccion con los interesados” y el rendimiento de los jueces en relacion con el numero de casos. En comparacion con estas normas de organizacion, los codigos judiciales de etica u otros codigos escritos reflejan los valores mas tradicionales de la judicatura, como la independencia o imparcialidad. Esto puede verse, por ejemplo, en las experiencias de la Organizacion para la Seguridad y la Cooperacion en Europa en apoyar el uso de las normas de rendimiento judicial. El argumento del articulo, apoyado por esta autora, es que estos ejercicios son superficiales y se necesita mas profundidad para capturar en su totalidad la experiencia judicial utilizando el modelo presentado.
Courts are the dispensers of justice between the state and the citizen (public and criminal law) ... more Courts are the dispensers of justice between the state and the citizen (public and criminal law) and between citizens (private law disputes) in 'ordinary' or non-emergency times. The basis for this duty is citizens' right to a fair trial, which is internationally recognised (e.g., under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights). People have a right to challenge government decision-making and a right to an independent and impartial court if they are being charged with a crime, as well as to defend their personal rights against another person. This right has traditionally been dependent on there being physical access to courts, representation, public hearing and public judgment. As such, procedures and structures are required to be in place for the right to be fulfilled. 2 The European Court of Human Rights has refused to interpret this right in a narrow way, 3 including calling out countries that create new specialised courts or tribunals to undermine the ordinary judiciary. 4 The operation of courts occurs at three levels. The governance structure includes the ministry of justice (or equivalent), the President of the Courts (Senior Judge) and the head of court administrations. 5 Loosely put, the government supplies the financing for the courts; the President of the courts manages the judges, their comportment and performance expectations; and the court administration manages the day-today running of the courts, alongside judges, who (usually) must manage cases and ensure they are dealt with in a reasonable time. These aspects are essential to ensuring a fair trial and that judges are and remain independent and impartial. 6 Do things go wrong? Yes, absolutely. Any situation can disrupt the management of a court, including incompetent or corrupt judges, administrators and politicians, which can cause further delays and backlogs. However, typically, constitutions and legislation are set out to mitigate situations in which judges and court administrators can be corrupt or incompetent and, thereby, minimise the impact they can have on court performance. Implementing new legislation can also cause a flood of cases to a court; however, in this case, ordinary measures are available, such as mobilising additional resources to deal with the increased caseload. 1 An earlier version of this article was presented at Condition Critical: Disruption, Disaster and Challenges to Law (online seminar) 5 September 2021. My thanks to Dr Francesco Contini, IRSIG-CNR, Bologna, Italy, and to the two blind reviewers for their comments and feedback. All mistakes remain my own.
European journal of comparative law and governance, Dec 6, 2022
It is clear from the research on the political and legal constitutions around regulatory power th... more It is clear from the research on the political and legal constitutions around regulatory power that it is a complex picture. The question for this paper is whether there is a relationship between regulatory governance and institutions and the judiciaries, i.e. are they constrained by the rule of law in the same way as classical administration? The first part of this paper will start to chart out an expansion and contraction of judicial power in relation to executive powers. The second part will provide a comparison between England and France's regulatory systems and their relationships to their respective judiciaries. The conclusion sets out to answer the main question of where the judiciary sits in an a complex political, economic and legal tapestry to control a hybrid institution that sits outside of a legal constitution.
How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning, 2018
Measuring the Unmeasurable Individual partner performance in a law firm tends to be based on meas... more Measuring the Unmeasurable Individual partner performance in a law firm tends to be based on measurable factors. Law firms capture and slice lawyer financial contributions in a variety of ways. Some individual performance metrics are fairly black and white, particularly billable hours or working attorney collections, while others, like origination or client management, are somewhat gray. Despite the gray areas, law firms tend to directly correlate dollars (or pounds or euros) with partner contributions, and as a result, compensation approaches tend to be heavily data driven. Based on our analysis across multiple firms, roughly 70-90% of partner compensation decisions in merit or subjective based systems can be explained by a handful of financial metrics. Qualitative and non-quantifiable contributions tend to receive less focus in compensation, in large part because they are difficult to measure. Firms often find that the 10-30% of compensation which is not based on financial contribution creates disproportionate partner tension, largely due to the challenges in measuring and valuing qualitative inputs. Qualitative Partner Contributions Building a successful and sustainable law firm requires creating incentives for partners to engage in all of the behaviors required to grow and build the business. As a result, in addition to valuing financial performance, best practice partner compensation systems also seek to value qualitative contributions, particularly lawyer training and development, firm and practice profile building, client service and management, teamwork and collaboration, management and leadership, contributions to diversity and inclusion, and the list goes on. The definition of which qualitative contributions should be valued and in what order of magnitude varies by firm, depending on the firm's core values, partnership culture and history, and ideally, the partnership's strategy and goals for the future.
This chapter looks at the theoretical and practical foundations for the quality of judicial reaso... more This chapter looks at the theoretical and practical foundations for the quality of judicial reasoning in England and Wales. Standards can be found in theory—judges should not forget that giving reasons is a basis for their own legitimacy and accountability. These standards appear to be entirely derived from legal principles and practices. This chapter will address the question of whether there are criticisms on the quality of judicial reasoning and their source, and whether quality management can help to alleviate these critiques without being in breach of judicial independence.
International Journal for Court Administration, 2020
As you can see, there are some exciting changes in the layout and presentation of the journal, th... more As you can see, there are some exciting changes in the layout and presentation of the journal, that are intended to improve your reading experience and increase the appeal to the Journal's diverse international audiences. The refreshing new look is partly also a consequence of our new partnership with Ubiquity Press, which has now taken over from Utrecht University as the journal's international publisher. We are confident that our readers, sponsors and contributors alike will enjoy the benefits of the extensive reach and indexing services that our new publisher offers to the journal in numerous outlets around the world. Of course, we would like to thank the team at Utrecht University for its generous support over the previous 12 years, without which the Journal's progression to the flagship international outlet in court administration would be difficult to imagine. We begin by extending our gratitude to Philip Langbroek, the Journal's inaugural Managing Editor who, with the assistance of Markus Zimmer, IACA's founding president and Journal Executive Editor, gave birth to the Journal and nursed it through its infancy. Philip has decided the time has come to pass the editorial management torch on to our new managing editors, although he will continue to serve as a Journal editor. Over time, Philip took the initiative to have the Journal's contents peer-reviewed and recognized by the U.S. government's Library of Congress and its contents listed in leading international scholarly databases, providing online access to its contents to a worldwide community. He also tirelessly promoted the Journal in international circles, building its reputation both among judicial and justice system professionals and academic and research communities in court management and administration. Overtime, he cultivated the interest of distinguished professionals, scholars and researchers in submitting their work for publication in the Journal. We owe him our collective thanks for his prodigious efforts and wish him well in his new endeavours. Next, you will see that there are some new additions to the Journal's editorial board, so please allow us to introduce and welcome our two new (co)managing editors, Dr Gar Yein Ng from Buckingham University in the UK and Dr Tim Bunjevac, from RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. Gar Yein is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Buckingham. She has taught comparative law in the fields of constitutional law and human rights. Gar Yein's most recent publications cover issues of judicial skills, the training of judges and the role of judges visa -vis the legislator from a comparative perspective. Previously, she has been an independent researcher in areas such as court and justice management, public law and procedural law, particularly at the intersection between law and technology. Gar Yein has continued to
International Journal for Court Administration, 2008
The authors of this book set out to "elevate awareness of courts as organizations" [p.146]. Even ... more The authors of this book set out to "elevate awareness of courts as organizations" [p.146]. Even though it may seem fairly obvious to many readers that courts are "organizations," courts have been neglected in research compared to the legislature and executives of many democratic countries. This research gap may be attributable to two myths. First, while the legitimacy of legislatures and executives is based on democratic principles, many view courts as institutions of justice and liberty and therefore not subject to the same rules of political accountability. Second, the gap may result from the fact that courts are seen as conservative, difficult to change, and therefore not really worth the bother. This book debunks both myths.
Uploads
Papers by Gar Yein Ng