Modest Reform Would Greatly Improve Appellate Process
Here’s an apt slogan for Georgia’s appellate courts: “Hurry up and wait.”
For the most part, litigation follows strict time deadlines. When one party files for appeal, however, outdated Georgia laws impose an unreasonably delay final resolution of the controversy. Georgia law currently requires that the clerk of the court from which an appeal is sought photocopy the entire case file to be sent to the Georgia Court of Appeals. That means that before an appeal is even docketed in the Georgia Court of Appeals, someone from an office like the Fulton County Clerk’s Office must photocopy, each and every single page of pleadings, exhibits, depositions, etc. It can take months, sometimes years, and the parties still must check and supplement the copy to correct errors and omissions.
Do you ever read an appellate court opinion reviewing a 5, 7 or even 10 year old trial and wonder why it took so long for the court to review a relatively straightforward question of law? The requirement to photocopy the record is a major factor; it adds months or years of needless delay to the appellate process.
The Georgia Bar Journal published a compelling article last year proposing a number of solutions to this problem. In this article, Jeff Swart outlined a number of approaches utilized in other states to streamline the appellate process. See complete article. Potential solutions include allowing appeals to proceed on the original (not copied) record as is the case in federal appeals, allowing attorneys to designate less-than-all the record without the peril currently required, utilizing electronic records, or some combination of these methods.
I’ve had the chance to talk about this issue with a number of attorneys, including a current judge on the Georgia Court of Appeals. Everyone agrees the current approach to docketing is problematic and most attorneys have a horror story to share.
The biggest misconception is that a solution would require an expensive and complicated expansion of electronic filing in Georgia’s diverse state trial courts. Electronic filing may play some useful role in streamlining appeals, but the appellate process can be greatly approved without spending a lot of money. Most of the suggestions outlined in Mr. Swart’s article, in fact, do not require any additional government expenditures.
The State Bar of Georgia’s Appellate Law Section has recently formed a subcommittee to look into the issue. Hopefully, that committee will produce a concrete proposal for the Georgia Legislature.
One of the obstacles in making a reform like this is that the harm is very widespread and unpredictable: justice is delayed for plaintiffs and defendants alike, husbands and wives, individuals and companies so there is no one group with a special interest in this. But this political drawback is a primary virtue of making such a reform: it would benefit everyone and does not favor one group over another. Modest reforms to our appellate docketing laws would greatly improve the appellate process and help Georgia maintain a progressive and attractive legal system.
