Small-Claims Backlog, Vacant Judgeships, and a Capped Overtime Budget
You are the court administrator for a district court with 14 authorized judgeships, two of which have been vacant for seven months. At the end of the third quarter, the small-claims calendar shows 1,850 pending cases, up 31% year over year, and median time from filing to disposition has risen from 2.1 to 3.4 months. The clerk's office has already spent 92% of its annual overtime budget, and the presiding judge has asked you to present a plan before the next judicial council meeting. Two options are on the table: (a) temporarily reassign two civil judges to hear small-claims calendars two afternoons per week, which would reduce civil calendar capacity by about 12%, or (b) contract with two retired judges at $650 per session, up to 40 sessions, funded from a limited contingency account of $30,000. Mediation providers report a 70% settlement rate but only 15 slots per month. The county has also offered one-time funds for technology, not personnel. The judicial council wants measurable improvement within 90 days without increasing net spending.
1. Recommend a 90-day operational plan. Show the financial and capacity calculations that support your choice, and explain how you would combine the available options rather than choosing only one.
Read the worked answer
The plan should be a mixed intervention, because neither option alone addresses 1,850 pending cases and a rising median time to disposition.
Financial check. The contingency account is $30,000. At $650 per session, that buys 46 sessions, but the proposal caps retired-judge use at 40 sessions, or $26,000. That leaves $4,000 for incidental costs such as interpreter coverage or scheduling support. The reassignment option has no direct cash cost, but it removes roughly 12% of civil calendar capacity, so it is not free; it shifts delay to civil cases.
Recommended package. Use 30 retired-judge sessions over 90 days, not all 40, and reserve 10 sessions for surge weeks. Schedule those sessions to hear only small-claims cases that are already ripe for hearing, not new filings. Reassign one civil judge, not two, for one afternoon per week; two judges would overcorrect and create a civil backlog that is harder to unwind. Expand mediation referrals for the 15 monthly slots by screening cases at filing and setting a mediation deadline before the first hearing. Use the technology funds only for self-help kiosks, online scheduling, or text reminders, not personnel, because the county restriction is explicit.
Targets. Reduce pending small-claims cases by at least 250 in 90 days, hold median disposition time below 3.0 months, and keep clerk overtime below 100% of the annual cap. Track clearance rate, aged cases over 120 days, mediation uptake, and civil calendar delay as a balancing measure. Report weekly to the presiding judge and monthly to the judicial council.
2. The judicial council asks how you will prevent the plan from simply moving the backlog from small claims to civil. Identify the performance measures and safeguard you would build into the plan.
Read the worked answer
The safeguard is to treat civil delay as a constraint, not an afterthought. Before reassigning any civil judge, establish a baseline for civil pending cases, median time to disposition, and the number of civil cases over 180 days. Set a trigger: if civil median time rises by more than 10% or civil cases over 180 days increase by more than 5%, the reassignment stops or is reduced.
Use four categories of measures. First, flow measures: small-claims filings, dispositions, and clearance rate. Second, age measures: median and 90th-percentile time from filing to disposition, plus cases over 120 days. Third, capacity measures: judicial hours devoted to small claims, clerk overtime hours, and session utilization. Fourth, quality and access measures: mediation settlement rate, no-show rate, and self-represented litigant completion rate.
Operationally, create a single triage queue so the retired judges hear the oldest, simplest cases first. Do not let the small-claims calendar absorb all mediation slots; require a mediation referral within 14 days for eligible cases. Publish a weekly dashboard to the presiding judge, and schedule a 45-day review. If the data show civil delay rising faster than small-claims delay falls, rebalance toward retired-judge sessions because they do not consume civil judicial capacity.
3. A county board member argues that contracting with retired judges is wasteful because the vacancies will eventually be filled. How would you respond, and what decision rule would you propose for ending the contracts?
Read the worked answer
The response should separate the temporary capacity gap from the permanent staffing solution. The vacancies have lasted seven months, and the backlog is already producing measurable delay. Retired-judge sessions cost $650 each and are capped at 40 sessions, so the maximum exposure is $26,000, not an open-ended personnel commitment. That is a short-term bridge, not a substitute for filling judgeships.
Propose a written decision rule. The contracts end when any of the following occurs: both vacancies are filled and the new judges have completed onboarding; small-claims pending cases fall below 1,500 and median disposition time falls below 2.5 months for two consecutive months; or the 40-session cap is reached, whichever comes first. Require a 30-day notice provision and schedule sessions in two-week blocks so unused sessions can be released.
Also explain the counterfactual. Without the contracts, the court would either continue clerk overtime, which is already at 92% of budget, or reassign more civil judges and shift delay to civil litigants. The contract is the lower-cost, reversible option. Commit to reporting actual sessions used, cost per disposition, and the vacancy status monthly so the board can verify that the measure is temporary.