Adam Dodek’s excellent post on these pages a week ago stirred up some lively comments.
The topic deserves more attention.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that there is no political appetite for more public funding for civil justice.
The solution proposed by Adam Dodek is: setting time limits for cases, limiting expert testimony and, by default, motions in writing.
Some commentators call on the judiciary as the stakeholder with the power to impose a solution. Some warn of the tendency for rationing to increase prices. Others point to the liability issues arising from leaving out marginally relevant evidence, and . . . [more]