Right-Sizing Justice in Lane County

Authored by Jim Hargreaves

I served on the Lane County Circuit Court for eighteen years—four of those years managing the
court as the Presiding Judge. For the last twenty years I have worked as a court and case
management consultant on various projects around the United States as well with courts in
thirteen countries on five continents. Based upon my experience with courts, as well as all of
the statistical data regarding the performance of the Lane County Circuit that is available from
the Office of the State Court Administrator in Salem, there is absolutely no doubt that what the
court is asking for in this bond measure is far beyond anything it needs to be able to do its
work effectively and efficiently, today and in the foreseeable future. By seeking far more than it
needs in terms of facilities, it has contributed to a building that is far larger and more expensive
than it needs to be. The tax payers in Lane County deserve better from their government.

Circuit Court and the Bond Measure: By the Numbers

18
The number of 12-person jury courtroom sets the court wants in the new building. A “set” is a
courtroom, jury room, small attorney conference rooms attached to the courtroom, and sound
deadening vestibules.

13
The number of trial judges generally available each day to be assigned trial work in one of the
18 requested courtrooms.

$1,418,461
The cost for each “courtroom set”, based on the county’s announced average construction cost
of $586 per square foot for construction of the courthouse. Each courtroom itself is planned to
be 1,650 square feet in size, just slightly smaller than my house. Building eighteen of those is
like wrapping a building around my entire neighborhood.

47, 178
The number of cases that the court had that needed to be disposed of in 2018. This figure
consists of 14,066 unresolved cases carried over from 2017, plus 33,112 new cases filed in
2018.
35,259
The number of cases that the court actually disposed of in 2018. This includes cases that
settled, were dismissed by the court for various legal reasons, and cases that actually went to
trial.

885
The total number of cases that the court disposed of through an actual trial in 2018. That works
out to just 17 cases a week to be distributed between 13 judges.

1
 800
The number of trials in 2018 that were heard by a judge alone, without a jury.

85
The total number of jury trials (6 and 12-person juries) conducted by the court in 2018. That is
an average of 1.6 such cases per week distributed between 13 judges.

.0024
The per cent of cases terminated by the court in 2018 that were terminated by a jury trial.

58
The total number of 12-person jury trials conducted in 2018. That is just barely over 1 case a
month, to be apportioned among 13 judges.

4.5
The average number of 12-person jury trials each of the 13 judges tried during 2018 that would
have required the use of one of the 18 courtrooms the court is seeking in the bond measure.

1.3
The average number of trials per week in 2018 that would have required the use of a
courtroom configured for a jury (6 or 12-person).

2
The number of studies done for the county by the National Center for State Courts and the
architectural firms of Robertson Sherwood working with DLR Group, the latter being the one
relied on by the county to form the basis for the county’s determination of the size for the
proposed new courthouse.

The issue of space needs (and number of judges a court needs as well) is driven primarily by the
interplay of at least seven different factors; 1. The current number of judges in the court, 2. The
number of cases the court has to deal with on an ongoing basis, 3. The mix of the types of cases
the court has to deal with, 4. The number of cases tried, 5.The average length of time it takes to
try various types of cases, 6. The presiding judge’s and docket clerk’s management of the
scheduling of cases, and 7. The diligence of the trial judges in dealing with their work load.
Inexplicably, between the two studies the county had conducted, the only factors looked at
were how many new cases were filed each year and how many judges were on the court. This
data, standing alone, does not even begin to be sufficient to form a basis for determining space
or judge needs.

The court clearly does not need the courtrooms, or the size of courtrooms, it is
asking for. This unreasonableness casts doubt on the reliability of all of the
county’s request. We need to send the county back to right-size this project.

2
 A Possible Configuration of a courthouse Floor for the Court

The actual configuration of floor space will be driven by the design footprint of the building.
This example simply shows one possible grouping of courts around a central core of courtrooms
that are sized to meet the actual working needs of the courts.