Many judges and lawyers have a cadence by which courtroom activities happen in the morning, then court activities stop so that judges and lawyers can have a lunch break and finish their paperwork in the afternoon. Sometimes judges hold sessions in the afternoon, but lawyers usually expect that they will be in court for half a day maximum and can finish all of their paperwork during the other half of the day they are not in court. However, some judges seem to weaponize the threat of staying in court longer than usual to make lawyers come to agreements themselves rather than decide upon matters from the bench.

Many times lawyers appear in court, they do not know when their case will be heard by the judge or court attorneys. Usually, many cases are on the docket for a given day, and court conferences or arguments are held when the parties are present and in some kind of order involving the age of the case or the name of the plaintiff. As a result, most of the time lawyers are in court, they are simply waiting for judges and court officers to hear their cases.

In some instances, after conferencing a matter with a court attorney or judge, I have been told to work out an issue with my adversary. I have been told that the consequence of not being able to work something out would be that we would have to stay in court longer, or, sometimes, come back to court after a lunch break.

This is not an ideal situation for several reasons. Firstly, lawyers are busy professionals, and they typically schedule calls, filings, and even depositions in the afternoons since they usually expect to be in court for only half a day. Requiring lawyers to stay in court longer can apply unfair pressure to a lawyer since they may need to decide which clients to disappoint by either taking a hard stance or conceding a point.

Another reason why it is not ideal for judges to force lawyers to stay around longer to negotiate a resolution is because judges can often make a ruling when the matter is initially conferenced. Sometimes, judges require lawyers to work out matters that would be simple for courts to handle but can put the lawyers in difficult positions. For instance, many clients may want to have input about what a lawyer is agreeing to if they stipulate to matters between counsel, but if a judge decides a matter, input from the client is not required. In some cases, it can be difficult to reach clients to get permission to stipulate to a matter while in court, and judges can put counsel in a difficult position if they hold them in court to agree on something.

Of course, I understand why judges would apply pressure to counsel to encourage them to settle matters on their own. Judicial resources are limited, and time might be better spent on matters that cannot be resolved on consent. Also, judges might fear being appealed if they make the wrong decision, but if the parties agree to something themselves, it is less likely that a matter will be overturned.

However, judges should be cognizant that pressuring lawyers to resolve matters on their own can create time pressure and complicate the relationship between clients and their counsel. As a result, judges should usually only force attorneys to stay in court unless they resolve something on consent when the matter is small and there is no meaningful prejudice that could be suffered by the process.

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.

The post Judges Should Not Weaponize Delays To Force Compromises appeared first on Above the Law.