(((:#2$83,(4&'(;%89*5,90%8*(<&#'$2( (

!"#$%&'()*+,-( 3-4+(5'6-74'80%'/$0%&1' !
!./0,($%,(*12$'*3$(&4($%,(5&3#+,6$(%,',7(.%,(*12$'*3$(82($/083*99/(*(2%&'$(2#++*'/(&4($%,(3&6$,6$2(&4( $%,(5&3#+,6$7-(

!"#$%&'$(')*+,-.",#*+-'/$0%&12' !"#$"$%&'('#)*#+,$%(-$-(./#$"0#+,$"-(-$-(./#0$-$#)"#-1/# +,$%(-&#)*#2,'-(3/#$04("('-/5/0#6&#71(%$0/%81($#9),5-'#

'

!<&+0*6/("55',22-(

' 9:' 3-4+(5'6-74'80%'/$0%&1' ;'#%$<"7&'$='>":1&$("')%$5%"11' ;#%+,?'@AB@'

<Intentionally Left Blank For Printing Purposes>

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 2

Table of Contents
Introduction The Current State of Philadelphia Courts......................................................4 Executive Summary Data Highlights.......7 Data On Philadelphia Courts Philadelphia vs. Pennsylvania Courts......................................9 Philadelphia vs. Courts Nation-Wide..14 Official Reports On Philadelphia Courts Philadelphias Complex Litigation Center (CLC)........................................17 Pennsylvania Courts Recognized for Efficiency..........................................19 Award-Winning Philadelphia Courts............................................................20 Fact Check: Recent Reports on Philadelphia Courts Judicial Hellholes Reports................................................21 Wright Report Uses Flawed Data on Philadelphia Courts.....24 Conclusion Summarizing the Current State of Philadelphia Courts..............................26 Appendix Courts FAQ.....................................................................................................27 Official Resources of Data on CLCs.............................................................30 Pennsylvania Courts Diagram......................................................................32 Endnotes........................................................................33 Notes.......................................................................36

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 3

INTRODUCTION
The Current State of Philadelphia Courts
The performance of the Philadelphia court system, and in particular, the Complex Litigation Center, has been the subject of great debate for years, generating extreme passion among its supporters and detractors. To its supporters and many of the attorneys who practice their craft there, the Philadelphia Court system is an efficient, balanced system that provides predictability. Independent analysts and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have routinely lauded it for its efficiency and fairness. To others, it is a place where corporations are unfairly burdened, juries provide jackpot justice to unworthy litigants, harming job growth and abandoning basic fairness. Of special focus has been the Complex Litigation Center (CLC), which has, according to well a funded national special interest group, won the dubious distinction of making Philadelphia a judicial hellhole. Both of the above simply cannot be true. And unlike some partisan debates, the one over our courts isnt about sound bites and fundraising opportunities. It has a real impactthe rights of individuals and corporations are impacted by how the courts are perceived by legislators, the public and even members of the judiciary. This is no small matter in the city where our rights and protections as Americans were first enshrined. Taking Back Our Courts, a project of Keystone Progress, is issuing this report, which for the first time looks at what is actually happening in
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 4

Philadelphias courts and compares it to other court systems both in Pennsylvania and to courts that are similar in size and scope nationally. It is critical to note that due to the complex nature of the courts in the United States, no two state court systems are exactly alike. Annual judicial reports by state courts can vary widely. Therefore, it requires a strategic and systematic approach to collect the data from each state to allow for comparison across state and county lines. For example, until now the Philadelphia courts were the only courts in the state that counted their cases from first filing as trial ready. This meant that whereas Philadelphia courts counted 100% of their civil cases, all of the other counties in Pennsylvania on average counted only 30% of their civil cases. [This is according to the most recent assessments by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (APOC)]. Starting this year, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts is changing how they collect Pennsylvania counties civil caseload data. The total civil caseload for the rest of the counties in the state is estimated to jump up to 300% because of the new, more accurate ways of counting civil cases. 1 This underlines the degree of difficulty it requires to put together comprehensive and accurate judicial reports. It is also why official government judicial data prepared by U.S. Department of Justice and the National Center for State Courts is so important. It is by including much of their work that we believe that this report is the most accurate declaration of the reality of Philadelphia courts to date. Our data comes from the most reliable sources on the matter of judicial statistics including 2012 data from the National Center for
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 5

State Courts, 2012 data from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, a 2011 report by the Court Statistics Project, a 2009 study by Cornell University Law School, a 2004 comprehensive study by the National Center for State Courts, official Capitol Hill testimony by expert witnesses, data from the First District of Philadelphia Courts, the Rand Institute for Civil Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the American Bar Foundation, the General Accounting Office, and the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. We believe the following analysis, and the conclusions it supports about the Philadelphia Court system, is unprecedented in its scope. Unlike other reports all sources are cited so others can verify our data and our conclusions.

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 6

Executive Summary
The most recent official reports comparing Philadelphia courts to other civil and complex litigation courts in the United States paints a far different picture than the portrait constructed by national lobbying and advocacy groups. Far from being a judicial hellhole overrun by frivolous cases, the data shows that Philadelphias court system not only has an appropriate number of cases relative to its size, but it handles them quickly and efficiently with no apparent favoritism towards plaintiffs. The following are some of the highlights:
!

The NCSC recognizes that the Philadelphia court's handling of civil jury cases is now better than that of any large urban trial court in the United States. 2 Furthermore, the NCSC praised the Philadelphias Complex Litigation Center (CLC) due to its high levels of success in accuracy and fairness of a large number of complex cases in its courts. Comparing the plaintiff median amounts awarded in tort trials to other courts in the most populous counties in the United States, Philadelphia courts are significantly below the national median. For example, the median award amount of winners in New York, NY was $227,000, in Miami (Dade), FL it was $128,000 and in Los Angeles, CA it was $106,000. Philadelphia tort trial plaintiffs won a median amount of $20,000. 3

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 7

Philadelphia ranks in the bottom 30% of major metropolitan areas in terms of median final damage amounts awarded to plaintiffs in tort trials. 5 According to the two most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report on the matter, Philadelphia dropped 40% in tort trial median amounts awarded from 2001 to 2005. The total median amount awarded in 2001 was $49,000. The total in 2005 was $20,000.14, 15 In regards to the Philadelphia CLC, "there was consensus that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas was able to dispose of mass tort cases far more expeditiously than the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or any federal 'Multidistrict Litigation' (MDL) court." 29

The Philadelphia courts have been one of the most awarded courts in the country. On page 19, the list highlights only a sampling of the awards that the First District Court has won over the past 7 years. Some of the awards included the National Association of Court Managements 2009 Justice Achievement Award and the Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent VIPs Government Participation Award.4
!

An independent analysis of the Judicial Hellhole report titled, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Liability Survey: Inaccurate, Unfair, and Bad for Business outlines the reasons why the Judicial Hellholes report is biased towards large corporations and their attorneys. The study specifically states the Judicial Hellholes report as presenting evidence that the survey is substantively inaccurate and methodologically flawed.35

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 8

Data on Philadelphias Courts

The following data compares Philadelphia to other Pennsylvania courts as well as to courts nation-wide. The data comes from several official reports and offers a clear-eyed perspective of the nature of Philadelphia courts. The facts below are taken from the 2010 United States Census, 2010 Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (APOC), Caseload Statistics report, the 2009 Court Statistics Project (CSP) Caseloads report, the 2009 CSP Tort Trend in General Jurisdiction Courts 2000 - 2009 report, the 2009 CSP Total Civil Caseloads, the 2009 CSP Drop in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice report, the 2007 National Center for State Courts Analysis of State Courts Caseloads report, and the 2005 U.S. Dept. of Justice* Tort Bench and Jury Trial Stats report.
[*The 2005 U.S. Department of Justice reports on the majority, but not all, of the most populous counties in
the United States. A limited number of counties were unable to be compared evenly across various statistical categories.] 6

Philadelphia vs. Pennsylvania Courts

Plaintiff Winners in Philadelphia Tort Trials Won Less on Average Than in Other Pennsylvania Courts According to the most recent official report, the total median plaintiff awards from tort trials places Philadelphia 3rd out the 4 Pennsylvania counties surveyed*.7 Despite some reports claiming that when compared to other Pennsylvania county courts Philadelphia is extreme. This actually places Philadelphia courts behind much smaller courts in terms of total median awards in tort trials.
(Appendix, Table 5, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf & from data provided by Cornell University Law School)
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 9

Total Civil Caseloads in Philadelphia Courts are Proportionate To Its Population; Even When Compared to Other Counties Though recent reports have attempted to frame Philadelphia courts as extreme, they are actually well within the bell curve for total civil caseload in respect to population when compared to other counties.8, 9 The following charts on pages 12 & 13 reflect the ratio of each Pennsylvania County to the total population reported in the 2010 Census. The data comes from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts and the 2010 Census website. Specifically, the graphs use 2010 total incoming civil caseload by county in Pennsylvania and the 2010 total population by county in Pennsylvania. 11, 12 The ratio indicates that Philadelphia courts are right where they ought to be (2.24%) in terms of total civil caseload. When one compares Philadelphia courts to other counties its civil caseload ratio is actually lower than smaller in size Monroe (2.68%) and Pike (2.49%) counties. This must mean that though Philadelphia County stands at 12.2% of the states population (not including metropolitan population) the largest city by far in the state of Pennsylvania it still maintains a ratio of civil cases to population that is well within the normal ratio of civil cases to population for Pennsylvania. Furthermore, until now the Philadelphia courts were the only courts in the state that counted their cases from first filing as trial ready. This meant that whereas Philadelphia courts counted 100% of their civil cases, all of the other counties in Pennsylvania on average counted only 30% of their civil cases. With data collection changes being
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 10

implemented this year, the total civil caseload for the rest of the state is estimated to jump up to 300%. [This is according to the most recent assessments by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts].10

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 11

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 12

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 13

Philadelphia vs. Courts Nation-Wide

The following data uses the most recent comprehensive information available comparing Philadelphia to courts nation-wide. The comparison includes plaintiff award amounts, winner percentage rates and rate of medial malpractice cases. Philadelphia Ranks In the Lowest 30% in Total Damages Awarded in Tort Trial Cases Philadelphia ranks in the lower 30% of all major metropolitan areas in terms of median final damage amounts awarded to plaintiffs in tort trials. The range of median plaintiff awards in the top 70% across the most populous counties are from $21,000 to $227,000. For example, the median award amount of winners in New York, NY was $227,000, in Miami (Dade), FL it was $128,000 and in Los Angeles, CA it was $106,000. The median total in Philadelphia was $20,000*. 13
(Appendix, Table 5, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf)

Median Amount of Total Trial Awards Decrease 40% in 4 years in Philadelphia Courts According to the two most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report on the matter, Philadelphia dropped 40% in tort trial median amounts awarded from 2001 to 2005. The total median amount awarded in 2001 was $49,000. The total in 2005 was $20,000*. 14, 15
(2005, Appendix, Table 5 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf & 2001, Appendix F http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ctcvlc01.pdf)

Plaintiff Winners in Philadelphia Tort Trials Received Less Than the Top 50% of Tort Trial Plaintiff Winners When Compared to Most Populous Counties Despite some claiming Philadelphia as plaintiff-biased, Philadelphias tort awards are well below other counties nation-wide. Comparing the median amount awarded to other courts the most populous
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 14

counties, plaintiff award amounts in Philadelphia courts are significantly smaller than the national median. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 60% of all tort plaintiff winners win on average $50,000 or less*. 16 Philadelphia tort trial plaintiffs won a median amount of $20,000 or less.17
(Appendix, Table 5, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf & http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/cbjtsc05.txt)

Philadelphia Ranks Outside Top 12 Metropolitan Areas per Rate of Tort Trial Plaintiff Winners Philadelphia tort trial plaintiffs winning percentage ranks outside the top 12 metropolitan areas surveyed. According to the most recent comprehensive official government study, the total percent of plaintiff winners in Philadelphia courts was at 57.5%. 18 This number is significantly lower than other courts where plaintiffs winning rates rise as high as 83.3% (Mecklenburg, NC) and 71.9% (Franklin, OH)*. 19 Furthermore, this places plaintiffs in Philadelphia courts as nearly splitting the decisions with the defense in tort trial cases. This is establishes Philadelphia courts as far from the extreme that some try to illustrate them to be.
(Appendix, Table 4, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf)

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 15

Philadelphia Ranks Significantly Lower In Percentage of Medical Malpractice Cases When Compared to Others; Rate of Such Cases Dropping According to the most recent data compiled by the Bureau of Judicial Statistics, Philadelphia medical malpractice cases account for only 11.7% of the total tort cases. This is in comparison to the highest percentage, found in Wayne, Michigan - in which medical malpractice cases account for 37.5% of its total tort cases. This actually puts Philadelphia in the bottom 20% of the most populous counties in America in terms of the ratio of medical malpractice cases to total tort cases. 20
(Appendix, Table 3, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf)

In fact, Pennsylvania as a whole dropped 42% over the last decade in the total amount of medical malpractice cases. This is the highest drop in states surveyed by the 2009 Court Statistics Project report. 21
(http://www.courtstatistics.org/Civil/CivilMedicalMalpractice.aspx) [*The 2005 U.S. Department of Justice reports on the majority, but not all, of the most populous counties in
the United States. A limited number of counties were unable to be compared evenly across various statistical categories.]

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 16

Official Acclaim & Recognition for Philadelphia

National Center for State Courts Describes Philadelphias Complex Litigation Center (CLC) as Impressive
In one of the most recent comprehensive studies of civil courts, the NCSC focused on Philadelphias Complex Litigation Center (CLC), reporting on its high levels of success in accuracy and fairness of a large number of complex cases. The NCSC concluded that, during the past 12 years, the (Philadelphia) Civil Section has undertaken an impressive effort to eliminate its case backlog and improve the flow of cases. This effort has met with considerable success in reducing the size of its pending civil inventory and the age of cases at disposition. 22 The NCSC pointed to the Philadelphia CLC as a court system as an example that other courts could model. Some of the key findings are as follows:
!

"The Court's handling of civil jury cases is now better than that of any large urban trial court in the United States." 23

The Philadelphia "Civil Section of the Trial Division in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas one of the finest and most successful urban trial courts in the country." 24
! Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 17

"The CLC has justifiably garnered national attention for its ability to fairly and quickly dispose of large numbers of mass tort cases." 25 "Members of the mass tort bar commented that they strongly prefer filing in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas because of the procedures that have been established and the prompt and firm trial dates." 26 "The creation and operation of the Complex Litigation Center (CLC) is clearly one of the Court's major achievements and a substantial service to the citizens of Philadelphia, the bar, and the nation, given the scope of mass tort litigation and class actions." 27 To the greatest extent possible, the groupings consolidate cases in which the plaintiffs are represented by the same law firm, the location of the alleged tort is the same, and the resulting disease is the same." 28 In regards to the Philadelphia CLC, "there was consensus that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas was able to dispose of mass tort cases far more expeditiously than the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or any federal 'Multidistrict Litigation' (MDL) court." 29 The 2004 NCSC report recognizes the Philadelphia CLC by underlining the fair and efficient manner it has treated complex civil cases. As the official clearinghouse for government data on state courts, the NCSC carries the legitimacy of reporting on our courts that most other organizations cannot claim.

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 18

Pennsylvania Courts Recognized for Work To Increase Efficiency Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Helped Set Standard
As recent as December 2011, the Pennsylvania courts were recognized by the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Center for State Courts for their work to increase efficiency in the court system. The civil cover sheet that the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (APOC) created has had a direct impact on increasing the efficiency in the First District Courts in Philadelphia. 30 The sheet increases efficiency for judges, litigants, and attorneys involved in the case by consolidating the key facts related to the civil cases coming before the courts. The data gained from the civil cover sheets will allow for Pennsylvania courts to continue leading the country in the most up-to-date court reporting practices. The work to make this happen took over three years and APOC had to collaborate with judges, litigants, and attorneys closely to make accomplish this. The end product has made the courts even more appealing for all those involved in trying civil court cases in Pennsylvania. This is only the most recent example of how the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia court systems lead the nation in innovative ideas to make the justice system a better place to obtain fair access to justice for everyone.

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 19

Award-Winning Philadelphia Courts

The Philadelphia courts have been awarded a number of accolades. The list below highlights only a sampling of the awards that the courts have won over the past 7 years. National Association of Court Managements 2009 Justice Achievement Award The First Judicial District was awarded the National Association of Court Managements Justice Achievement Award for Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Pilot Program. 31 2009 Philadelphia VIPs Government Participation Award by Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent Presented by the Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent, Awarded to the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Program. 32 2008 John Neufeld Court Achievement Award The First Judicial District was awarded the Mid-Atlantic Association for Court Managements 2008 John Neufeld Court Achievement Award for Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Pilot Program. 33

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 20

Fact Check: Recent Reports on Philadelphia Courts

Lobbying Groups Judicial Hellholes Reports Inherently Flawed and Biased
Objective reviewers have dismissed the Judicial Hellholes report that is funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as mere propaganda. The consensus is that it is riddled with flaws and inaccuracies. To these reviewers, the Judicial Hellholes report is nothing more than a story constructed to achieve leverage for lobbying efforts.
So it may turn out that our perceptions about the tort system have little to do with reality and much more to do with the rhetoric we are fed by tort reform advocates who rarely base it on systematic study of the system. - Cornell Law Professor Theodore Eisenberg 34

In 2009, an empirical study completed by Cornell Law Professor Theodore Eisenberg titled, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Liability Survey: Inaccurate, Unfair, and Bad for Business outlines the reasons why the U.S. Chamber of Commerces Judicial Hellholes is biased towards large corporations and their attorneys. The study specifically states the Judicial Hellholes report as presenting evidence that the survey is substantively inaccurate and methodologically flawed. 35 In the report, evidence points out a number of substantively inaccurate and methodological flaws including, the failure to account for disproportionate sampling, failure to account for multiple observations by a subject, the failure to account for varying familiarity with a state, and the failure to account for industry of those surveyed. In the studys conclusion, it outlines the motivating factors behind the U.S. Chamber of Commerces backing of the Judicial Hellholes reports as follows:
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 21

The Chambers willingness to vilify states and counties to promote both itself and legislation may be the product of the same mentality that has led to shocking business failures. Companies, such as General Motors, with once seemingly impregnable market positions, spent excess time and effort lobbying for and against laws rather than seeking to improve their products. 36 The U.S. Chamber may be leading other members down a similar path. A credible argument exists that the Chamber harms business by irrationally discouraging investment. Based on the views of risk managers and those who seriously study the effect of the tort system, the Chamber may also unnecessarily endanger the public safety by decreasing tort laws deterrent effect. 37 Additionally, official testimony on Capitol Hill in 2004, supports the Cornell Law School study pointing out the inherent flaws in the U.S. Chamber of Commerces Judicial Hellholes report. Key findings presented in the testimony are explicated from work provided by the Rand Institute for Civil Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the American Bar Foundation, and the General Accounting Office. The highlights are as follows:
!

The notion of awards increasing and lawsuits increasing is not supported by the facts. The Rand Institute of Civil Justice researchers in a recent article in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies did a 40-year longterm study of awards. They found, ''the growth or decline in awards does not appear to be substantial enough to support claims of radically changing jury behavior over the past 40 years.'' 38

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 22

The Government's Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms a 10year decline in median tort awards. 39 The National Center for State Courts, which is the leading clearinghouse for State court statistics, shows tort filings have declined in recent years, over the last decade. 40 Americans are far from the most litigious large industrialized nation. All serious studies of punitive damages find they are rarely awarded. They are awarded largely in cases of intentional misbehavior. They are modest, and they are strongly correlated with the harm done by the defendants. 41

In reference specifically to the U.S. Chamber of Commerces Judicial Hellholes Report: ! We've been told that the Bronx is a crazy jurisdiction for plaintiffs. In fact, Professors Vidmar and Roe have studied the Bronx and found no unusual damage patterns. 42
!

We were told that Alabama was crazy on punitives. The Rand Institute of Civil Justice studied that and found no unusual pattern of punitive awards in Alabama. We just don't have the evidence to back up the behavior. 43

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 23

Wright Report Skews Data on Philadelphia Courts

Another fact chect was completed on a report authored by Joshua D. Wright, an author from George Mason University. The report, which looked to confirm bias in Philadelphia courts is titled, Are Plaintiffs Drawn to Philadelphia Courts? Several statistics were skewed to frame Philadelphia courts as extreme. As mentioned above until now the Philadelphia courts were the only courts in the state that counted their cases from first filing as trial ready. This meant that whereas Philadelphia courts counted 100% Joshua D. Wright of their civil cases, all of the other counties in Pennsylvania on average counted only 30% of their civil cases. With data collection changes being implemented this year, the total civil caseload for the rest of the counties in the state is estimated to jump up to 300% because of the new, more accurate ways to count cases. 44 This meant Mr. Wright made a fundamental mistake in trying to show Philadelphia courts as having a significantly higher degree of cases than the rest of the state. Additionally, Mr. Wright claims an exceptionally high rate of win percentage in Philadelphia when compared elsewhere. In the study, Mr. Wright shows a chart in his report (Figure 6 on page 22) that shows in 2010 less than 24% of plaintiffs won their medical malpractice cases. For Mr. Wright to claim that less than a quarter of the time plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases win their cases and
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 24

yet this data shows a bias towards plaintiffs shows a fundamentally flawed logic. If anything this data shows a plaintiff to the defense side, in effect the defense has won 76% of the cases. 45 The Wright report was inherently flawed, because the statistics he used were not evenly comparable data. The data that will be coming out in the 2012 Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts annual report will be significantly more useful for more accurate analysis.

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 25

Conclusion
Now that a comprehensive analysis of all the most recent official reports has been completed, it seems safe to say that Philadelphia courts are well respected by many national judicial watchdogs and even has been found to be a model for other large urban courts. Judging from the data we found when comparing Philadelphia to both other counties in Pennsylvania and across the country, Philadelphia is by far from extreme. Much of the civil caseload data points to Philadelphia being within the norm in total caseload. As new civil caseload data comes in this year, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts will have its most accurate totals yet. These totals will likely place the ratio of Philadelphias population to total civil caseload even lower. Additionally, much of both the tort trial plaintiff winner rate percentage and median plaintiff awards capture an image of Philadelphia as actually on the much lower end than other counties similar in size and scope. When we discovered this, we were amazed that recent reports did not include this data in their estimation of fairness and accuracy of Philadelphia courts. Much of what we found in our report is eye-opening and seems to strongly suggest that Philadelphia courts has been largely unfairly painted as extreme. With this new data, there is an opportunity to correct this image and provide balance to the scales of justice.

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 26

Appendix
Key Concepts
What is a class action? The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) defines a class action as a lawsuit in which a single person, or a small group of people, represents the interests of a larger group that is similarly situated. 11 What is a tort? A tort is a civil wrong that. It is something a person, an organization, or a business unfairly does to harm your physical health, emotional health, or lose out financially due to negligence. What is mass tort? The NCSC defines a mass tort as a civil action involving numerous plaintiffs suing a few, common corporate defendants in state or federal court for an action arising from a single accident or exposure to some product or substance. 46 What models have worked best for complex litigation cases like class action or mass tort? The NCSC describes preferable models as those courts that focus on improved efficiency, improved quality of judgments, predictability, better-prepared parties and judges, and judges who are experienced in the subject matter. Philadelphia, PA courts use the method of complex litigation dockets which includes jurisdiction over business and non-business cases alike. The NCSC has recognized the Philadelphia courts for their method for dealing with mass tort and class action suits as their method has
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 27

been evaluated favorably amongst other courts across the country. 46 What is the Philadelphia Complex Litigation Center? The Complex Litigation Center was the first courthouse in the United States designed exclusively for complex, multi-filed Mass Tort cases when it opened on February 10, 1992. For example, as of March 2012, thousands of women have banded together under the label of mass tort implicating that after using Bayers Yaz and Yasmin drugs they caused significant and severe to their health. Cases like these are how many consumers harmed by the same negligence file their case. Who is the National Center for State Courts? The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) is an independent, nonprofit court improvement organization. The NCSC is the organization courts turn to for authoritative knowledge and information, because its efforts are directed by collaborative work with the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and other associations of judicial leaders. What is the Court Statistics Project? The Court Statistics Project (CSP) is a collaborative effort by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the National Center for State Courts. The CSP provides a systematic means to develop a valid, uniform, and complete statistical database that details the operation of state court systems. It provides high-quality, baseline information on state court structure, jurisdiction, reporting practices, and caseload volume and trends. What is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is not a department of the United States government. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a lobbying
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 28

group. The Chamber of Commerces main efforts focus on protecting the interest of businesses. It is the largest lobbying firm in the country and some estimates suggest they spend 5 times as much on lobbying ($145,000,000) than its next closest competitor, Exxon Mobil. What is the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA)? The American Tort Reform Association is a lobbying group that works closely with groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to influence citizens understanding of the judicial system, judicial elections, and tort law. For example, as recent as 2011, the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) spent millions in judicial campaigns (With Pennsylvania leading the country). ATRA has been very successful in electing judicial candidates of its choosing, who support their hyper pro-corporate interests.

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 29

Resources on Business Courts and Complex Litigation Centers

(( Applebaum, Lee The Steady Growth of Business Courts. Future Trends in State Courts 2011. This article reviews the two-decade evolution in the creation of business or complex litigation courts or dockets within state trial courts. Tennille, Hon. Ben F. and Corinne B. Jones. Developments at the North Carolina Business Court. Future Trends in State Courts 2010. This article provides an update on the North Carolina Business Court, which was first established in 1996. Hannaford-Agor, Paula. "Comment: Federal MCL Fourth and Suggestions for State Court Management of Mass Litigation."(2006). This article provides general ideas and suggestions for caseload management in the context of the most common types of procedural environments in state courts. "Managing Complexities in Civil Cases." NCSC, National Association of State Judicial Educators, and National Judicial College. (2006). This curriculum was designed to assist state trial judges in developing and presenting educational programs for their colleagues. Hannaford-Agor, Paula. "Complex Litigation: Key Findings from the California Pilot Program." Civil Action Vol. 3 No.1 (2004). This article covers the NCSC's evaluation of the California Complex Litigation Program. It traces the improvements in the three
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 30

years since the program's inception and provides guidelines for future improvement and evaluation. Hannaford-Agor, Paula, Nicole Mott, and Timothy Faulsko. "Evaluation of the Centers for Complex Civil Litigation Pilot Program." NCSC and the California Administrative Office of the Courts (June 2003). This pilot program required a report evaluating the effectiveness of the program, including the number of complex cases filed, the impact of the pilot program on case and calendar management, and their impact on the trial courts, the attorneys, and the parties. Hannaford, Paula, David Rottman, and Roxana Gonzalez. "Focus on Business and Complex Litigation Courts." Civil Action: Vol 1 No 1 (August 2000). This issue addresses commercial courts, business courts, Aikman, Alexander B. Managing Mass Tort Cases: A Resource Book for State Trial Court Judges. (December 1995).Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts This resource book for state court trial judges was created from the discussion at the first National Mass Tort Conference. The following statelink provides information on specific programs in 26 states including the Philadelphia programs: http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Specialty-Courts/BusinessSpecialty-Courts/State-Links.aspx?cat=Business Courts and Complex Litigation

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 31

Pennsylvania Courts Diagram

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 32

Endnotes
1 This assessment was given by calling the Court Administrator at the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. 2 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report. 3 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005. 4 List was obtained by contacting the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. 5 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005. 6 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005. 7 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005. 8 This assessment was given by calling the Court Administrator at the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. 9 Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, 2010, Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania. 10 Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, 2010, Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania. 11 The United States Census, 2010, Data, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 12 The United States Census, 2010, Data, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 13 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005. 14 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005. 15 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 2004, Civil Justice Survey of State Courts in 2001 16 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005. 17 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005. 18 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005.
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 33

19 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005. 20 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2009, Tort Bench and Jury Trials in 2005. 21 Court Statistics Project, Tort Reforms Can Shape Medical Malpractice Caseload Trends, 2000 2009, 2009. 22 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report. 23 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report. 24 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report. 25 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report. 26 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report. 27 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report. 28 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report. 29 National Center for State Courts, September 2004, Civil Programs in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Final Report. 30 National Center for State Courts, December 2011, Caseload Highlights, Implementing a Civil Cover Sheet, The Pennsylvania Experience. 31 List was obtained by contacting the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. 32 Obtained by contacting the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. 33 Obtained by contacting the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. 34 United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 108th Congress, June 22, 2004, Safeguarding Americans From a Legal Culture of Fear: Approaches To Limiting Lawsuit Abuse, Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell University School of Law. 35 Cornell University, School of Law, September 2009, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Liability Survey: Inaccurate, Unfair, and Bad for Business. 36 Cornell University, School of Law, September 2009, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Liability Survey: Inaccurate, Unfair, and Bad for Business.
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 34

37 Cornell University, School of Law, September 2009, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Liability Survey: Inaccurate, Unfair, and Bad for Business. 38 United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 108th Congress, June 22, 2004, Safeguarding Americans From a Legal Culture of Fear: Approaches To Limiting Lawsuit Abuse, Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell University School of Law. 39 United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 108th Congress, June 22, 2004, Safeguarding Americans From a Legal Culture of Fear: Approaches To Limiting Lawsuit Abuse, Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell University School of Law. 40 United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 108th Congress, June 22, 2004, Safeguarding Americans From a Legal Culture of Fear: Approaches To Limiting Lawsuit Abuse, Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell University School of Law. 41 United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 108th Congress, June 22, 2004, Safeguarding Americans From a Legal Culture of Fear: Approaches To Limiting Lawsuit Abuse, Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell University School of Law. 42 United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 108th Congress, June 22, 2004, Safeguarding Americans From a Legal Culture of Fear: Approaches To Limiting Lawsuit Abuse, Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell University School of Law. 43 United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 108th Congress, June 22, 2004, Safeguarding Americans From a Legal Culture of Fear: Approaches To Limiting Lawsuit Abuse, Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell University School of Law. 44 This assessment was given by calling the Court Administrator at the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. 45 International Center for Law and Economics, Are Plaintiffs Drawn to Philadelphias Civil Courts?, Joshua D. Wright 46 National Center for State Courts, 2012, Complex Litigation FAQs.
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 35

NOTES ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________
Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 36

3-4+(5'6-74'80%'/$0%&1'C'DDDE&-4+(59-74$0%7$0%&1E$%5''C''
;'#%$<"7&'$='>":1&$("')%$5%"11'
BFAA'GE'@(.'H&E?'H&"E'BB?'I-%%+190%5?');'

:0(-/0#6&;# <$.(0#=$50#>#?(31$/%#?)55(%%#

Justice for Philadelphia Courts: Report on Philadelphia Courts Taking Back Our Courts 37