Case Weights for the
Assessment of Judicial
Workloads in Israel
Keren Weinshall-Margel,
Inbal Galon &
Ifat Taraboulos
Israeli Courts
Research Division
What Are Case Weights?
The burden on the judiciary is at the focus of public debate and
plays an influential role on socio-legal trends - and yet, the concept
of judicial burden has remained obscure.
The case weight measurement is an objective tool which enables
quantification of the judiciary burden.
Case weights serve to assess and to compare the judicial
workload resulting from different case types in the judiciary. In
a system without case weights, workloads are estimated based on
the number of cases (in fact, case weights = 1 for every case type).
What Are the Uses of Case Weights?

Allocation of judicial resources (cases, judicial manpower, or
legal staff), and appointment of judges with expertise in the
various legal fields, in accordance with the weighted caseloads;

Standardization of the judicial needs of the judiciary;

Foreseeing future managerial challenges and identification of
trends;

Case weights as a basis for informed normative discourse;

Case weights as a tool for planning reforms and for evidencebased decision making.
How are Case Weights Determined in
Judiciaries around the World?

Case weights are calculated by comparing the varying amounts of
judicial time needed to process different case types.

We identify three generations of case weight methodologies:
1.
A general and relative comparison of broad categories of cases: the
U.S. Federal Judicial System in the late 70s; Switzerland in the 2000s, etc.
2.
Time reports: the U.S. State Courts in the 90s; the Israeli Military Courts,
etc.
3.
Event-based case weighting - an accurate method of time
evaluation based on the average occurrence of events: the U.S.
Federal Judicial System since the 2000s; the method recommended today by
the U.S. National Center for State Courts.
Computation of Case Weights in Israel

Our study developed and refined prevalent case-weight
methodologies, thus leading to a higher resolution of case
weights.

Event-based case weights - An “event” is defined as any
stage of the proceeding which requires judicial time.
Case weights are modeled based on the interaction of:
1.
2.
Event frequency - how often a specific event is likely to occur, on
average, in a particular case type (number);
Event complexity - the average amount of judicial time required to
accomplish each of the case events.
Case Events in the Israeli Judiciary
Preparation for the First Pretrial/ Preliminary Hearing
First Pretrial Hearing
Preparation for Additional Pretrial Hearings
Additional Pretrial Hearings
Preparation for the First Main Hearing/ Trial
First Main Hearing
Preparation for Additional Main Hearings
Additional Main Hearings
Decisions re Written Motions (at any point in the proceedings)
Decision re the Resolution/ Disposition of the Case
Judgement on
the Merits
Section 79a(a)
of the Courts Act
Default
Judgement
Consent/ Agreed
Judgement
Technical;
Voluntary
Withdrawal etc.
In Criminal Proceedings: Preparation for the Sentencing Hearings
In Criminal Proceedings: Sentencing Hearings
In Criminal Proceedings: Decision re Sentencing
Sentencing without Agreement
Sentencing with Agreement
Decision re Written Motions after Case Disposition
Legend:
Preparation of the Case
Court Hearings
Writing Judicial Decisions
Computation of Case Weights in Israel

1.
2.
Our study developed and refined prevalent case-weight
methodologies, thus leading to a higher resolution of case
weights.
Event-based case weights - An “event” is defined as any
stage of the proceeding which requires judicial time.
Case weights are modeled based on the interaction of:
Event frequency - how often a specific event is likely to occur, on
average, in a particular case type (number);
Event complexity - the average amount of judicial time required to
accomplish each of the case events.
Average Case Time
Case Weights = For each Case Type, the Case Time Normalized into the Base Unit
Case Time Computation an Illustration for a Specific Case Type
Calculation of the average judicial time invested in a regular civil
procedure case in the magistrate courts (not including auto accident
personal injury cases):
Pretrial Proceedings
Trial
Preparation
Preparation
Preparation
Preliminary
First
First
for
Additional
for First
for First
Written
Main
Case Event
Pretrial Additional Pretrials
Main
Pretrial
Motions
Hearing
Pretrials
Hearing
After
Disposition
Written Decision re Case Resolution
Preparation
Written
Decision
Technical/
for
Additional
Motions
Judgement
according
Default
Agreed Withdrawal/
Additional
Main
after(
on the
to Section Judgement Judgement
Lack of
Main
Hearings preliminary
Merits
79a(a)
Prosecution
Hearings
)proceedings
Written
Motions
Following
Case
Disposition
Judicial
Time
Invested
(min.)
23
17
14
22
20
35
162
15
145
17
591
34
11
8
6
13
Event
Frequency
(or
probability,
for
disposition
events)
0.7
0.7
0.55
0.55
4.3
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
0.14
0.046
0.08
0.41
0.32
0.5
Methodology
We planned and carried out four independent studies:
1. Court data reports - frequency of hearings and written motions;
2. Representative samples of cases - distribution of case resolutions;
3. Regression analysis - length of hearings;
4. Delphi method.
Case Preparation Events
Designs for
Computation
of Judicial
Time Spent
on an Event
Designs for
Computation
of Event
Frequency
Delphi
Technique
(including
log)
Court
Databases
Samples of
Cases
+
Court Hearings Events
Writing Judicial Decisions
Regression
Delphi
Technique
(including
log)
Court
Databases
Court
Databases
Samples of
Cases
+
The Delphi Method
Time Assessments (by Judges) of Written Decisions and Preparation



Overview of the technique
Delphi groups
Delphi day
The Delphic Oracle. Kylix by the Kodros painter, c.
440-430 BCE. From the Collection of Joan Cadden.
Methodology: Validation of the
Research Designs
The outputs of the four independent studies were combined during the
final stages of the research, providing us with the total time required,
on average, to process a case of each type.
The results were validated in several ways:
 Data obtained from each of the research designs was corroborated
with data from at least one other research design.
The final case weight results were verified with numeric data and
trends regarding dispositions of common case types in the judiciary.


Review by judicial group.
Average Hours Invested
in 22 Case Types
(Partial Results)
Magistrate-Arrests-Search/Entry Warrant
Magistrate-Traffic-Traffic Case
Magistrate-Arrests-Before Indictment
Magistrate-Traffic-Car Accident
Magistrate-Small Claims-Small Claims
Magistrate-Civil-Shortened Track
Magistrate-Civil-Fast Track
Magistrate-Arrests-Until the End of Procedures
Magistrate-Criminal-Criminal Offense
Magistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure (Paltad)
District-Civil Appeals-Civil Appeal
Magistrate-Youth-Criminal Offense
Magistrate-Family-Family Case
Labor-Civil-Labor Dispute
Magistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure (w/o Paltad)
District-Arrests-Until the End of Procedures
District-Bankruptcy&Liquidation-Liquidation
District-Civil-Shortened Track
District-Criminal-Criminal Offence
Labor-Civil-Industrial Dispute
District-Civil-Regular Procedure
District-Criminal-Serious Criminal Offence
40
35
30
25
20
Overall Preparation Time
15
10
5
Overall Hearings Time
0
Overall Time for Written Decisions
Case Weights (partial list)
Case Type
(instance-proceedings-type)
Case
Weights
Case Weights Judicial Panel
Cases Cases
Cases
Filed Closed Pending
Magistrate-Arrests-Search/Entry Warrant
1
39464
37738
2893
Magistrate-Small Claims-Small Claims
21
40580
44968
20471
Magistrate-Civil-Fast Track
34
56862
55821
59523
Magistrate-Arrests-Until the End of Procedures
52
12593
12355
1244
Magistrate-Criminal-Criminal Offense
56
37102
43223
44765
Magistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure (Paltad)
74
20868
22179
29333
Magistrate-Youth-Criminal Offense
86
4444
5475
6151
Labor-Civil-Labor Dispute
118
14577
17626
17970
Magistrate-Civil-Regular Procedure (w/o
Paltad)
District-Bankruptcy & Liquidation-Liquidation
122
32934
36844
58859
139
1069
984
589
District-Criminal-Criminal Offense
242
1494
1426
1333
District-Civil-Regular Procedure
460
3931
4009
8480
District-Civil-Class Action
527
663
416
921
355
413
484
District-Criminal-Serious Criminal Offense
weight for panel chair - 770
weight for other judges - 528
weight for entire panel -1826
Distribution of Caseload
Versus Weight
Number
of
Cases
1826
Severe
Criminal
Offenses
Weight
Case Weights as a Tool for
Court Management 1
Allocation of Resources in Accordance
with the Workloads (the Weighted Caseloads)
Actual Workload of Closed Cases
Number of Closed Cases
District-Civil
MagistrateTraffic
DistrictCriminal
MagistrateCivil-w/o
Regular
Procedure
MagistrateTraffic
District-Civil
DistrictCriminal
MagistrateFamily
MagistrateCivil-Regular
Procedure
MagistrateArrests
MagistrateFamily
MagistrateCivil-Regular
Procedure
MagistrateArrests
MagistrateCivil-w/o
Regular
Procedure
Case Weights as a Tool for
Court Management 2
Standardizing the Judicial Needs of the Judiciary
Given the current number of judges and the time currently
invested in court cases, a judge works, on average, more than
10 hours a day only on cases.
Foreseeing Future
Managerial Challenges
Workloads have increased at a greater rate than caseloads. This means
that in the near future, we should expect a rise in the overall burden on the
courts, as the cases processed are becoming “heavier” and more complex:
Caseload of Opened Cases
Workload of Opened Cases
Case Weights as a Basis for
Informed Normative Discourse
Significant Relationship between the Average Time for Writing a
Judgment, and the Probability of Writing a Judgment:
y = -0.001x + 0.419
R² = 0.191
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
600
500
400
300
200
100
Average Time (in minutes) for Writing a Judgment on the Merits in Magistrate Courts
0
Probability of Writing a Judgment on the Merits
1
Case Weights as a Tool for
Planning Reforms
Average Judicial Time for Processing Criminal Cases
in Magistrate Courts, With and Without Plea Bargains:
Judicial Time for a Criminal Case (in min.)
Without
Plea
Bargain
(or‫ללא‬
a Confession)
)‫הודאה‬a‫או‬
( ‫טיעון‬
‫הסדר‬
‫זמן שיפוטי לתיק פלילי‬
With a‫בהסדר‬
Plea Bargain
‫טיעון‬
‫זמן שיפוטי לתיק פלילי הנסגר‬
450
400
350
‫התיק‬
Case ‫הכנת‬
Preparation
300
250
200
150
‫באולם‬
‫דיונים‬
Hearings
100
50
0
‫בכתב‬
‫בבקשות‬
‫כתיבת‬
Writing
Interim ‫החלטת‬
Decisions
‫סוגרת‬
Writing‫החלטה‬
Closing‫כתיבת‬
Decision
Limitations of Case Weights
Case weights are derived from the current and average judicial
time invested in different case types:

The weights are subject to the Law of Large Numbers;

Case weights were computed based solely on judicial time;

Case weights are a static snapshot of the current situation;

The weights assess the workload of an average case
processed by an average judge, from filing to disposition.
Conclusion

Case weights are a valuable tool for the management of the courts
- allocation of resources and evidence-based decision making;

Case weights are also a research tool - contribution to the
academic discourse on both empirical and normative levels;

We recommend creating normative case weights - to reflect the
optimal combination between efficiency and justice in the Israeli
judiciary;

Thank you for your attention!
The Israeli Courts Research Division