|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firm History |
|
|
|
||
|
|
News Board |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Career Opportunities |
|
|
|
||
|
|
« Previous Page |
|
10 Questions for Judge John Fullam by Peter Vaira
The following article appeared in the Spring 2003 edition of the Philadelphia Lawyer Magazine.
10 Questions for Judge John P. Fullam
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
By Peter F. Vaira
PETER VAIRA: Are there any trends or activities occurring today in the federal courts that you see as disturbing or encouraging?
JUDGE FULLAM: It should be economically feasible to litigate a small or medium-sized civil vase to a verdict in federal court, but that is becoming a less realizable goal. There is enough blame to go around. Unnecessary make-work pretrial procedures required by some courts, burdensome discovery and motion practice attributable to the �billable-hours� syndrome, and a changing statutory climate engendering confusion and uncertainty all play a role.
On the positive side, the trend towards mediation, arbitration, and similar alternative dispute resolution (ADR) measures, and the increasing willingness of attorneys to provide pro bono services in appropriate cases are encouraging trends.
There are some observers who way that the discovery process in the federal system has become excessive. Do you agree? If you encounter problems with discovery abuses, how do you alleviate them?
I agree that discovery is often excessive and unduly burdensome. I am afraid that Federal Rule 26 may be encouraging attorneys to leave no stone unturned, no matter what kind of case is being litigated. In most cases, I suspect that mandatory initial disclosures, followed by a few telephonic depositions, should suffice. Sometimes, unfortunately, counsel at deposition lose their cool or indulge in silly posturing.
I try to resolve discovery disputes by telephone conferences, without a written record, by encouraging counsel to cooperate. Issues not resolved by cooperative effort are decided abruptly, if possible.
How do you rate the performance of lawyers who come before you as trial lawyers (not litigators) in an actual courtroom setting?
Excellent, thirty-five percent; good, fifty-five percent; fair, eight percent; and poor, two percent.
The federal sentencing guidelines have taken away a great deal of federal judges� discretion in sentencing. If you had the power to do so, would you prefer the pre-guideline procedure were brought back? If not, what changes would you suggest to the Federal Sentencing Guideline process?
Before the guidelines, the sentencing regime was far from perfect. There was some disparity of sentences in similar cases, especially among various geographical regions. In attempting to remedy this situation, the guideline legislation has made matters much worse. The guidelines rival the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations in their complexity. And their implementation has imposed tremendous burdens on the federal courts, particularly the appellate courts. Instead of providing guidance, they provide a straightjacket. If I had a choice, I would adopt a true guideline system, giving judges strong suggestions as to the appropriate sentence, but with room for deviation in particular cases for valid reasons stated on the record at the time of the sentence.
There has been a great deal of emphasis on ADR. Has this caused any reduction in litigation? Have you ordered mediation or any other form of ADR to help you settle cases?
Our compulsory arbitration system has been working well for many, many years and has substantially reduced the number of jury trials. Voluntary settlements, whether with or without judicial participation, dispose of most of our cases.
Some judges take an active role in settlement of cases. What is your position?
My rule is that no case goes to trial until the possibility of settlement has been fully explored. But I do not compel mediation, nor do I actively participate in settlement discussions unless requested to do so. In non-jury cases, settlement discussions are usually referred to the assigned magistrate judge.
Do you think there should be a relaxation of the Jencks Act, which requires the prosecutor to turn over the prior statements of a government witness only after the witness has completed his testimony? Should there be a less stringent rule, permitting the judge to order pretrial disclosures up to fifteen days prior to trial?
Yes, as a practical matter. In this district, however, Jencks Act materials are ordinarily turned over in advance of trial.
What is your opinion on permitting the judge to give jury instructions on the law at the beginning of the trial, permitting jurors to ask questions (when filtered though the judge) and allowing jurors to take notes?
I have no problem with any of these suggestions. I prefer to hear the case before giving the charge because I think the lawyers should first have a chance to make their opening speeches. Jurors are, however, permitted to take notes and, on occasion, to submit written questions.
What is your opinion on fashioning a judge-made rule that permits a judge to hold a bench trial, over the objections of counsel, in a civil case, when the court finds that the subject matter is complex for a lay jury?
I suspect such a rule might be unconstitutional. In any event, I think it�s a poor idea. Juries are at least as intelligent as lawyers and judges.
Counsel have stated, in appearing before you, that you are sometimes acerbic, but always fair, is that observation correct?
That is for others to decide. My only comment is that I am glad the �sometimes� and �always� were not reversed.
Peter Vaira is a member of the Editorial Board of The Philadelphia Lawyer magazine.
Return to News
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
Web site developed by Pedrera.