Appendix A

TABLES


 

 

TABLE 1

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