Appendix A

TABLES

Method of Disposition of Appeals

                                                                  Number                 Percentage
                                                                 Argued or                Argued or
                                                                 Submitted                Submitted

Treatment cases 581 57.1%

Control cases 351 68.9%

Observed difference – 11.8%

95% conﬁdence interval –16.7% to – 6.9%

68% conﬁdence interval –14.3% to – 9.3%

Note: Conﬁdence intervals were calculated using the formula for estimating the difference between two binomial parameters as presented in W. Mendenhall, Introduction to Probability and Statistics 164–65 (2d ed. 1975).

Table 1 indicates that the program diverted 12% of the conference-eligible appeals and that chances are better than nine out of ten that the true percentage is somewhere between 16.7% and 6.9% of the appeals. The chances are better than two out of three that the reduction was between 9% and 14%.

TABLE 2

Submission Rate by Type of Appeal

Percentage (Number) Submitted

Bank- Civil U.S. Federal Other
ruptcy Rights Diversity Civil Question Civil

Treatment 6.1 (36) 28.7 (167) 26.1 (152) 9.1 (53) 24.0 (140) 5.3 (32)

Control 4.5 (16) 31.3 (110) 20.7 (73) 3.1 (11) 28.2 (99) 3.1 (11)

Difference + 1.6 – 2.6 + 5.4 + 6.0 – 4.2 + 2.4

TABLE 3

Settlement Rate by Type of Appeal

Percentage (Number) Settled

Bank- Civil U.S. Federal Other

ruptcy Rights Diversity Civil Question Civil

Treatment 7.8 (34) 24.5 (107) 26.8 (117) 10.5 (46) 23.4 (102) 5.0 (22)

Control 8.2 (13) 24.0 (38) 25.9 (41) 3.1 (5) 23.4 (37) 3.1 (5)

Difference – .4 + .5 + .9 + 7.4 0.0 + 1.4

TABLE 4

Percentage (Number) of Submitted Cases in Which Brieﬁng Was
Delayed, By Type of Brief

Type of Case

Type of Brief Treatment (N=581) Control (N=351)

Appellant 44.9 (261) 3.9 (14)

Appellee 2.5 (15) 0.5 (2)

Reply 0.6 (4) —

Appendix 0.5 (3) —

Missing 1.3 (8) 0.2 (1)

Total cases brieﬁng delayed 50.0 (291) 4.8 (17)

TABLE 5

Time from Docketing to Submission for Appeals Submitted

Average Time Span for Treatment Cases 371.7 days

Average Time Span for Control Cases 359.8 days

Difference, Treatment Compared with Control + 11.9 days

Notes: Differences are between treatment cases compared with control cases.

The time from docketing to submission is affected by a number of considerations, most of which are external to the functioning of the conferencing program.

TABLE 6

Time from Docketing to Disposition for Appeals Submitted

Average Time Span for Treatment Cases 455.7 days

Average Time Span for Control Cases 444.8 days

Difference, Treatment Compared with Control + 10.9 days

Notes: We did not have sufﬁcient information on thirteen treatment cases and twenty-four control cases to include them in this table.

Differences are between treatment cases compared with control cases.

The time from docketing to disposition of cases submitted is affected by a number of considerations, most of which are external to the functioning of the conferencing program.

TABLE 7

Time from Docketing to Disposition for Cases Settled

Average Time Span for Treatment Cases 165.5 days

Average Time Span for Control Cases 170.7 days

Difference, Treatment Compared with Control – 5.2 days

Notes: We did not have sufﬁcient information on eight treatment cases and one control case to include them in this table.

Differences are between treatment cases compared with control cases.

The time from docketing to disposition for cases that settle is affected by a number of considerations, most of which are external to the functioning of the conferencing program.

TABLE 8

Time from Docketing to Disposition for All Cases

Average Time Span for Treatment Cases 331.2 days

Average Time Span for Control Cases 355.9 days

Difference, Treatment Compared with Control – 24.7 days

Notes: We did not have sufﬁcient information on twenty-one treatment cases and twenty-five control cases to include them in this table.

Differences are between treatment cases compared with control cases.

Table 8 displays data on the cumulative elapsed time from docketing to disposition for all the cases in the two study groups. It should be read as saying, for example, that 36.3% of the treatment appeals were disposed of within 270 days of docketing compared with only 27.9% of the control group cases, resulting in a difference of 8.4% more treatments than controls being disposed at the 270-day mark.

It should be noted that the time from docketing to disposition is affected by a number of considerations, most of which are external to the functioning of the conferencing program.

TABLE 9

Time from Docketing to Closing for Appeals Submitted

Average Time Span for Treatment Cases 445.8 days

Average Time Span for Control Cases 484.2 days

Difference, Treatment Compared with Control – 38.0 days

Notes: We did not have sufﬁcient information on fifty-three treatment cases and thirty-nine control cases to include them in this table.

Differences are between treatment cases compared with control cases.

The time from docketing to closing is affected by a number of considerations, most of which are external to the functioning of the conferencing program.

TABLE 10

Motions and Orders Filed by Type and Method of Disposition

A. Percentage (Number) of Motions per Case

Type of Case

Type of Motion Treatment Control Difference

Procedural 1.4 (1,426) 1.65 (839) 14.5

Substantive .29 (299) .37 (161) 21.6

Total Cases in Sample 1,016 509

Total Motions Filed 1,725 1,000

B. Breakdown of Cases with Motions

Type of Case

Cases with Motions Treatment Control

Number 765 383

Percentage 75.2 75.2

C. Percentage (Number) of Motions Disposed of by Various Methods

Type of Case

Method of Disposition Treatment Control Difference

Panel 17.3 (299) 16.1 (161) + 1.2

Single Judge 2.2 (38) 1.7 (17) + .05

Clerk’s Ofﬁce 80.4 (1,388) 82.2 (822) – 1.8

D. Percentage (Number) of Orders Issued by Type of Order

Type of Case

Type of Order Treatment Control

Panel 9.0 (144) 8.9 (82)

Single Judge 11.5 (182) 9.9 (91)

Clerk’s Ofﬁce 79.3 (1,256) 81.0 (739)

Total Orders in Sample 1,582 912

Average Number of Orders per Case 1.5 1.7

TABLE 11

Percentage (Number) of Cases with dun Notices,
by Notices Per Case

Treatment Cases Control Cases

Notices Per Case (N = 1,016) (N = 509)

1 25.5 (260) 25.7 (131)

2 10.4 (106) 12.5 (64)

3 2.1 (22) 3.7 (19)

4 1.1 (12) 1.3 (7)

5 .09 (1) .5 (3)

6 — .3 (2)

Note: Percentages are of all cases in each group with notices.

Nature of Notice Treatment Cases Control Cases

Brief late 13.3 (79) 11.5 (43)

Brief return 25.0 (148) 25.3 (94)

Appendix late 9.6 (57) 12.9 (48)

Appendix return 16.7 (95) 16.9 (63)

Jurisdiction premature 15.5 (92) 16.7 (62)

Pre-argument statement not ﬁled 2.8 (17) 2.6 (10)

Want of prosecution .5 (3) .8 (3)

Total notices 491 323

Note: Percentages are of all notices in each group.

TABLE 12

Appeals Disposed of with Written Opinion

Percentage with

Written Opinion

Treatment appeals 46.8

Number of argued or submitted appeals
disposed by written opinion 272

Total number of appeals argued or submitted 581

Control appeals 52.9

Number of argued or submitted appeals
disposed by written opinion 186

Total number of appeals argued or submitted 351

Difference, Treatment Compared with Control – 6.1

TABLE 13

Decisions Disposed of Without Written Opinion

Bench Decision Per Curiam Order

Treatments (744) 6.1 (46) 33.7 (251) 58.8 (438)

Controls (323) 7.7 (25) 39.9 (129) 51.7 (167)

Difference, Treatment
Compared with Control – 1.6 – 6.2 + 7.1

TABLE 14

Timeliness of Filing and Average Aggregate Brief Length,
by Type

A. Timeliness

Treatment Cases Control Cases

Number of briefs 2,259 1,352

Percentage ﬁled on time 59.5 61.8

Difference, Treatment Compared with Control – 2.3

B. Average Aggregate Brief Length

Average page length

Brief type Treatment Cases Control Cases

Appellant 30 29

Appellee 30 31

Note: While the data in Table 14 should be interpreted with caution, examination of the program suggests that conferencing did not appear to reduce the aggregate length of appellants’ or appellees’ briefs. However, the overall reduction in the number of appeals submitted that is attributable to the program must clearly be seen as reducing the number of briefs that the court would otherwise have to review. The brief length data shown in the table are raw page counts as reﬂected by docket entries recorded by the clerk’s ofﬁce. We encountered signiﬁcant problems in our efforts to arrive at accurate measures of supplemental and reply briefs lengths. We are therefore unable to draw any conclusions about the program’s effect, if any, on the lengths of supplemental and reply briefs.

TABLE 15

Attorney Responses About Selected Program Effects

a. Did the program assist in complying with procedures of the court?

b. Did the program reduce or eliminate procedural-type motions?

(continued)

TABLE 15, continued

c. Did the program reduce or eliminate substantive-type motions?

TABLE 16

Attorney Responses About Other Beneﬁts of
Program to Clients

a. Did the program help clarify issues on appeal?

b. Did the program help eliminate issues on appeal?

TABLE 17

Attorney Responses About Net Effect of Program
on Case Time of Submitted Cases