Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    July 01, 2004

    Practice

    Concerned with the number of probate matters pending beyond 12 months - the benchmark for completion - the chief judges approved a case management review to examine and improve current probate case processes.

    John Roethe; Kerry Connelly

    Wisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 77, No. 7, July 2004

    Chief Judges Approve Probate Case Management Review

    Concerned with the number of probate matters pending beyond 12 months - the benchmark for completion - the chief judges approved a case management review to examine and improve current probate case processes.

    by John W. Roethe & Kerry M. Connelly

    In August 2002 the Committee of Chief Judges established a subcommittee to review probate benchmarks and case processing techniques. A major concern of the Chief Judge Subcommittee on Probate was the age of formal and informal estates pending in the circuit courts of Wisconsin. In 2002 there were more than 14,000 pending estates. Of the formal estates pending, 52 percent were more than 12 months old and 38 percent were more than 18 months old. Of the informal estates, 40 percent were more than 12 months old and 24 percent were more than 18 months old.

    Of further concern was that formal and informal estates opened for at least 18 months showed no court activity for a six-month period in 30 percent and 35 percent, respectively, of cases pending. Of the formal and informal estates pending for at least 12 months, more than 41 percent and more than 55 percent, respectively, showed no court activity for three months.

    Subcommittee Recommendations

    The subcommittee consisted of a circuit court judge, two district court administrators, four registers in probate, a clerk of circuit court, and a technical specialist from the Circuit Court Automation Program (CCAP) of the Director of State Courts office.

    In December 2003 the subcommittee submitted its report to the Committee of Chief Judges. The chief

    judges approved the following recommendations:

    • The registers in probate should conduct a case review of all estates pending more than 18 months.
    • All registers in probate should be provided the ability to view and use case management statistical reports related to probate matters.
    • The Scheduling Notice and Request and Estate Administration Progress Report, a new form, should be approved for use in all counties, and may be adopted either on a district or county-by-county basis. This report form is expected to be available on the court Web site by July 1.
    • The Records Management Committee, Forms Subcommittee ultimately approved three forms:

      Notice of Estate Administration Deadlines
      Petition for Extension of Time
      Order for Extension of Time

    The Benefits of Case Processing Standards

    In 1987 the chief judges adopted case processing benchmarks for completing all the major case types. The case processing time for estates was set at 12 months. The conference of state court administrators, the conference of chief justices, and the American Bar Association also have established benchmarks for the timely processing of cases filed with the court.

    The review of estates pending in Wisconsin circuit courts establishes that there is a need for case processing standards in probate. According to Caseflow Management: The Heart of Case Management in the New Millenium1:

    "The adoption of case processing standards reflects a commitment to timely completion of cases as an important goal. In operation, time standards serve four important ends:

    "Motivation. By providing goals for judges and other participants in the court process to seek to achieve, both in managing caseloads and with regard to individual cases, time standards are motivators.

    "Measurement. Time standards provide a starting point for developing specific procedures to meet the goals set forth.

    "Management. Time standards provide a starting point for developing specific procedures to meet the goals set forth.

    "Information System Development. Time standards are useful only if judges and other participants in the court process receive information on the extent to which they are being achieved; such standards should lead to the development of systems for monitoring caseload status and progress toward case flow management goals."2

    National Probate Court Standards

    The Commission on National Probate Court Standards and Advisory Committee on Interstate Guardianships reiterate the above standards related to expedition and timeliness and public trust and confidence when they state, "A court should have guidelines for the timely and expeditious completion of proceedings. Unnecessary delay may cause injustice, hardship, and diminished public trust and confidence in the court."3 According to the Commission's report:

    Status of Changes

    According to the Director of State Courts office, the current status of changes is as follows:

    • Registers in probate are currently reviewing their case management practices, and some already may be implementing changes. Check with your county register in probate for changes that may affect your practice.
    • In June, the court Web site added new forms to be used to prompt action with cases. Continue to watch the "Legal News & Trends" column in Wisconsin Lawyer for updates of new and revised mandatory court forms.
    • By July, CCAP will make changes to codes that are used to track probate cases in order to determine the reasons for lagging cases.

    "The probate court should establish and maintain guidelines for timely case processing. The court should provide mandated reports and requested information on time and respond to requests for information and other services on a schedule established by the court to ensure their effective use."4

    Other states have begun using time standards for probate cases. The Michigan Supreme Court called for courts to develop caseflow management plans including case processing goals:

    "75% of all contested probate matters should be resolved within 6 months from the time the issue is joined; 90% within 9 months and 100% within 12 months except for individual cases in which the court determines exceptional circumstances exist and for which a continuing review should occur."5

    In Washington state in 1988, the Court Management Council recommended to the Bureau of Judicial Administration that "90% of all probate cases should be settled, tried, or otherwise concluded within 8 months (240 days) of filing, 98% within 18 months (540 days) of filing, and 100% within 36 months (1,080 days) of filing."6 These states have adopted standards that the majority of estate administrations be concluded within one year.

    Summary

    It was clear to the chief judges' subcommittee that the number of estates pending in Wisconsin needed to be addressed and that registers in probate and judges assigned to estates could use some assistance when they try to move troublesome estates to conclusion. The chief judges believed that the review of current cases pending, better access to statistical data, and forms to provide better case control were some good first steps for addressing a growing problem in the Wisconsin court system. The Committee of Chief Judges will review the findings of the case load cleanup to determine if the 12-month benchmark for completion should be increased and to determine the factors that contribute to the aging of cases.

    Paraphrasing Robert Knoll, a subcommittee member and Milwaukee Register in Probate, "Alternatives to probate have been increasing as people plan to avoid probate. Probate isn't a bad thing in itself, but poorly managed probate proceedings reflect not only on the courts and staff, but also upon the bar."

    In our view, public confidence in the probate process will be enhanced by the adoption of time management standards. Time management standards are an integral part of case flow management in almost every other area of judicial administration. Time management standards promote prompt conclusion of probate matters. The citizens of Wisconsin deserve no less.

    Endnotes

    1David C. Steelman, John A. Goerdt, & James E. McMillian, Caseflow Management: The Heart of Caseflow Management in the New Millennium.

    2Id. at 106.

    3National Probate Standards. A Project of the National College of Probate Judges and the National Center for State Courts, at 13 (National Center for State Courts, 1993).

    4Id.

    5Michigan Supreme Court Caseflow Management Coordinating Committee, "Time Guidelines for Case Processing," as referenced in Administrative Order 1991-4, at 26.

    6Id. at 27.

    John W. Roethe, U.W. 1966, is a Rock County Circuit Court judge, Branch 5. Kerry M. Connelly is administrator of the Second Judicial District.


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY