Abstract
Court reformers for the past 70 years have been advocating court unification. This reform has, within recent years, enjoyed amazing popularity. Dozens of states are presently considering and/or implementing structural and administrative consolidation of their judicial systems. Despite the significance of these reforms, little attention has been paid to the consequences and implications of judicial unification. The present undertaking represents an attempt to fill this void.
After discussing the underlying logic of court reform, the author assesses the utility of this "theory " relative to contemporary management thought. Because court unification was developed as a "cure-all," it suffers from overgeneralizations regarding the nature of state and local justice. Indeed, it is characterized as being in direct conflict with many of the most cherished aspects of local justice. A number of alternative reform strategies are offered as potential means of reconciling the need for competent judicial administration with a concern for local autonomy and other components of American judicial tradition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
