The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, Senior Judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, shared tips with the BYU–Hawaii Prelaw Society on May 2 to help them make the judicial systems in their home countries effective. He said this includes increasing the number of judges, moving cases out of the courtroom, and making the courtroom more efficient.
Wallace said, “The idea of coming here and going back and serving in your communities is a terrific idea. The future is dictated by those who prepare. You're doing just that ... What I teach is how to make the machine run better.”
Terrence Dela Peña, a junior from the Philippines majoring in political science and the Prelaw Society President, said, “We are honored and blessed to have Judge Wallace be our speaker for this Legal Studies Forum ... He was a major law firm partner.
“He was sworn in in 1970 as a United States District judge for the southern district of California. He was elevated in July 1972 to the 9th Circuit. He was the chief judge from February 1991 to March 1996. He achieved senior status in April 1996.”
Wallace began by explaining the difference between civil law and common law. “Civil law came out of France and is largely used in Europe. It primarily was restricted to British domination at the time they were dominating.
“The other law is common law which came out of England. It is practiced in the United States. Is there a big difference? No … Civil jurisdictions have seen things in common law they like and vice versa.”
Quoting Justice [Antonin] Scalia, Wallace joked, “We are essentially a civil law country. If you don’t believe me, look at the number of statutes we have.”
Describing how it can take 25 years for a case to be heard in places such as India and Pakistan, Wallace said, “It cannot be an effective judicial system if it takes that long ... My interest is to get countries to become more effective by having machinery that works. It’s a matter of process. I’m going to tell you a little bit of how it works so you can see how it could be done.
“Think of a pipe. Assume all the cases in a country have to go through that pipe. If you get too much stuff into a pipe, it plugs up. Essentially, we have a plumbing problem in the judiciary. You have too much stuff coming in to the pipe. It gets stuck, so nothing gets out. It is fundamentally important this works effectively.
“There are only three things you can do if you have this plumbing problem. One thing is you can take stuff out of the pipe. By taking stuff out, what is remaining will move through better. The second thing you can do is get a bigger pipe. If you have a bigger pipe, more stuff can go through.
“The other thing you can do is get something and cram stuff through the pipe so it goes through faster. Those are the only three plumbing alternatives, and those are the only alternatives for judiciaries. If they're too slow, it’s because they're not responding. It’s the only solution for India [and] Pakistan.”
The solution of making the pipe bigger, Wallace explained, “Means getting more judges. This means you have to come up with more money. To get more judges you need more money and courtrooms. The legislature has other things to pay for rather than judges.
“People need a lot of goods and services. It’s not high on the level of politicians and you don’t get any votes if you give money to the judiciary. So, although this is helpful in some instances, it is impractical as a solution.
“That leaves us the other two methods. One is called alternative dispute resolution. Within alternative dispute resolution you have things like mediation and any part of process that takes cases out of the court and solves them so people can go forward.”
The last solution, Wallace shared, “Is called case dispute management. It makes things more efficient. It makes the machine work better. If you look in to courts today, they largely are the same as they have been. They are largely traditional. In our system, precedent is important.
“Precedent is important to the law because you get stability, but precedent is irrelevant when you're talking about making the machine work better. Judges generally don’t think that way. They don’t think in terms of this is the law, and this is where we get our answers. We get a lot of pushback from judges and lawyers.”
Following the event, students reached out on social media to express their appreciation for Judge Wallace, saying they loved every minute of the forum and were thankful for the opportunity to grow. Dela Peña said on his Facebook page Wallace’s experience made the event more meaningful. “I am amazed at how much public service he has done to help the United States and other countries like the Philippines. He has been working with the judiciary around the world to make the system work efficiently.”
Writer: Haeley van der Werf