The Ballooning Docket

As the newest wave of fresh faces or most recent splash of social and political turmoil captures the minds of the nation, another issue rears its ugly head. Those with eyes to see are aware that the courts are dealing with a far greater caseload than we are used to. Cases are becoming more complex, arguments are being briefed better, and records are turning into voluminous nightmares.

You don’t need to look very far to see what I’m talking about. The humble District Court (typically disregarded as the “training wheels” of the judiciary) has swelled to previously unimaginable levels of backlog. At current count, there are twenty-nine cases pending, and so far this year eighty-two cases have been filed. Last year, the eighty-second case was filed in early October. At this rate the District Court will hit at least 160 cases by the end of the year—and taking into account that the flood only began in the last month, we will likely see closer to 200. To put that number into context, the court saw 108 cases last year, and only forty-five the year before.

Taking a look in the other direction we can see the Supreme Court: light and unburdened on its surface, just today (as of writing) reaching its thirteenth case—barely more than the District Court has filed in the last week alone. But take a closer look and you can see cases swelling not in quantity, but in breadth. One example, [2026] SCR 7, contains an exceptionally voluminous record of over twenty-three and a half thousand words. Simply reading through these words—ignoring understanding them or comprehending their legal meaning and argumentation—takes at least ninety minutes. Is it any wonder, then, how that case took nearly two and a half months to resolve?

Since I came to Redmont fifteen months ago I have heard grumbling about the slowness of the courts and their seemingly blase attitude towards the people waiting for their verdicts. A quick survey of court cases between that year and the year before shows a marked increase in the quantity and size of cases appearing before the judiciary. This trend has very obviously continued into the new year, and the tidal wave of new players and acceleration of increasingly complex legislation (while both certainly blessing the community in their own ways) have absolutely hampered the courts. With cases piling up, legal and judicial talent remaining at a critical low, and no relief in sight, what is to be done?

The Obvious Problem

The knee-jerk reaction: There are too many cases overworking too few judges. We need less of the former and more of the latter. Simple, right? This is a perspective adopted by many, but it is somewhat unsatisfying.

Consider first that judicial officers are a rare breed of people. They need to be patient, impartial, dedicated, proficient in English, and knowledgeable in the law. They need to be active enough to understand the community and know precedent and how the legal industry operates, and also be competent enough within the law to have their orders taken seriously. Finally, they need to be of a particular disposition that lends them to sitting long-term and adjudicating disputes, voluntarily disposing of other potential opportunities, in order to maintain impartiality. When it comes down to it, there is an extremely limited number of players who meet all of these requirements.

Some of these standards can be lowered, of course. The Supreme Court, aside from creating the Junior Magistrate Program, has explicitly stated our openness to considering candidates with only a handful of cases. But there needs to be some limit. If we hired a half dozen magistrates who were, quite frankly, terrible, the end result is not cases being cleared and disposed of. Instead, what would happen is all of the cases would be handled poorly and then appealed to the Federal Court. This would put more work on the judges there, who would then have to either dispose of the entire case themselves, or remand back to the District Court to do again. This would only create more work. With this in mind, it is clear that some standards are necessary, and the Supreme Court’s hiring strategy thus far has been sound.

Second, how exactly could we reduce the raw quantity of cases without harming the citizenry? Congress could, of course, tighten the restrictions on who could file a case at all. But in this moment of playerbase upheaval, is it really so wise to make becoming a lawyer that much harder? Before the new arrivals the legal scene was the same two dozen people, most of whom were in government—why sacrifice that new perspective and long-term growth (and not to mention, potentially good litigators or judges) just for temporary ease of mind?

What if we restricted, through court rules or precedent, how one could find standing for a case? Of course this has been my personal method of reducing caseload over the last nine months. Several landmark decisions of mine have served to reduce caseload, for the better. Though some detractors have complained, the results have been clear. After all, how many cases do you see nowadays where a citizen is trying to remove a public official from office for this or that small claim? You’re welcome.

But if we continue down this path, what could we end up leaving on the table? Would we eventually be cutting out “good” cases that have some value to them? Would we be opening the door for wrongdoers to steal from our fellow citizens, leaving no legal recourse? What kind of lawless barbarism would we invite then? I find it clear that though standing may change in the future in either direction, a perpetual narrowing of our standard is not the way to go.

What, then, can we do? We seem stuck. The judicial officer question is hampered by a lack of qualified candidates, and that is inflexible. So much fat has been trimmed off standing and case submission that we may be approaching actual meat soon. What is to be done?

A Pragmatic Solution

Taking a moment to actually think about the problem reveals the most core and critical issue: There is too much work for too few people. Without taking the most obvious solutions, we need to be creative and open to bending systems we may be used to.

To begin with, it should be noted that the ball is mostly in Congress’s court (metaphorically, not literally). Congress, as the supreme legislator, must act beyond the limited levers it has already given the rest of the government. The rest of this article, then, can be seen as an attempt to point our elected officials to some potential avenues of meaningful reform.

Lubricating the Gears of Justice

The first suggestion is fairly intuitive: money! Money in and money out makes things happen, and the legal world is no different. On the backend, judicial officers need to be paid to keep the courts churning. Recently a pay cut to the judiciary was announced, but after some haggling this was modified to the more reformed and reasonable version we have today. However, it cannot be denied that for the work and effort required, judges are perhaps some of the most undercompensated government employees today. Very little routine government work requires as much diligence, effort, and reading/writing as our profession does.

While of course true that people should not seek their riches off the government, it is also a fact that the government will be competing with the private sector for talent; and expecting the best and brightest to do what essentially comes down to charity work for little thanks (or pay) is nonsensical. Famously, I have only personally litigated two cases. Combined, I made about one million dollars from those two. Today, over a year since my last case finished, a majority of my wealth is still rooted in my time in the private sector.

This is despite being one of the longest serving members of the Supreme Court, ever. Trust me, nobody is coming to find their fortune in the judiciary—would it be too much to ask for a bit more? We should be actively trying to get people to join us, not pushing them away with uncompetitive (and perhaps insulting) wages.

That is the money out portion of the suggestion. On the other side, money in can help the judiciary manage its case load as well. By implementing a simple filing fee on court filings, the court not only will generate income that can offset congressional spending, but also dissuade frivolous and meritless claims from being presented to the court. This decrease in load will result in lower wait times for other cases, increasing judicial administrability and efficiency.

Some detractors will contend that cases with merit will no longer be prosecuted due to wealth disparity. However, this argument ignores two key facts. First, if a meritorious claim exists but the would-be plaintiff lacks the money to afford a filing fee, there surely would exist a market of attorneys willing to fund and work the case in exchange for a higher fee upon victory. This risky move has huge upsides for the discerning attorney; skilled litigators sift through potential cases, ignoring those they are likely to lose (and therefore lose money on) and taking those they are likely to win (and therefore make money on). Industry-wide, the barrier would serve to self-select low quality or worthless cases, while spurring on the legal industry as a whole.

Second, detractors take for granted that every single case is worth pursuing at all, no matter the circumstances. This is obviously untrue. Without being too specific, I am sure everyone can think of cases potential or historical where a plaintiff sued on a nonsensical theory of relief, or against a nonsensical (or nonexistent) party, or for a nonsensical amount. Often the courts can dismiss these. But sometimes, the case just barely meets standing requirements, and they must be litigated fully. With filing fees, at the very least these cases would give some money back to the courts.

At best, they prevent these near-frivolous claims from being pursued at all. The detractor’s argument that the rights of the people will be ignored because of filing fees are of little merit due to the above. If a claim is truly meritorious, a lawyer would surely be willing to contract to pay for the fee and receive a higher payout, while also filtering bad claims and having an incentive against posting any and everything that comes their way.

Modest Judicial Amendments

The nation is not above tinkering with the structure of the judiciary. Look no further to the somewhat recent expansion of the Federal Court to five, or the removal of limits on the District Court. Despite this quantitative easing (no relation), the Federal Court sits at two and has yet to break three, and the same goes for the District Court.

The issue, as described earlier, is the lack of qualified and interested individuals. While some may be tempted to just hire anybody that shows vague interest, the nature of the judiciary means that it is highly important and valuable that judicial officers are consistent and stay on long-term. If Redmont had a revolving door of judges in and out and a turnover measured in weeks or single digit months, we could expect the law to shift and jumble just as rapidly. Long-term, stable, and consistent jurisprudence from likewise stable and dedicated jurists is key to legal stability.

However, it cannot be denied that the large caseload is important and should be dealt with. Even ignoring the concern of the public to get their case heard quickly, a large caseload burdening judicial officers puts strain and stress on them. The more of that they face, the more likely they are to burn out and resign. To mollify this concern, we want more judges. To this end, I propose two ideas.

First, it is clear that we require more magistrates. The District Court is the most overloaded court at the moment, and has the most small-time cases. If we only focused on hiring more magistrates, judges in the upper courts could focus on their own matters instead of going to the District Court to help shift the load. Just like that, we would be lightening the burden for all three courts, and life would be grand!

Here I can give some insider information. I have personally found it difficult to higher magistrates at an increased rate. Though I am more than happy to give non-established players a chance, I still have standards that I need fulfilled. I need people with at least a few cases under their belts, who are respectful, professional, and active and seem to care for the community. I maintain these standards rigorously, and find them important to maintain the legitimacy of the judiciary even at the expense of our workload. Of course, it does not help that very few people have expressed interest in the role—perhaps out of a level of intimidation.

But what if magistrates could side-step my perhaps daunting expectations? I propose we create one or two specific magistrate slots that are chosen outside of the usual method. These magistrates would have a “term” of one or two months, and at that time be unallowed to take on any further business. Once their remaining court affairs are wrapped up, they leave office. If that temporary magistrate has proven themselves capable, I would absolutely be more than happy to sponsor them in the judiciary.

Besides not having to deal with the potentially scary prospect of having the entire Supreme Court judge your fitness to even step foot in the door, this temporary measure would also perhaps let people feel like they aren’t trapping themselves in a job they would be obliged to stick around for. A short judicial stint could be a good way to make this happen.

Assuming you, reader, agree with me, the next step is determining how exactly these one or two slots would be picked out. The first obvious suggestion is the same way judges and justices are: President nominates, Senate confirms. This could work, but would require a judicial hopeful to be noticed by the President and trusted. This seems like something of a tall order for what is supposed to be a relatively light and time-limited job, and certainly seems more imposing than approval from the Supreme Court.

Next, direct democracy could serve us well. There are two alternatives I can see: general elections or bar association appointments. In the first, upon the conclusion of a term, a general election is held where any person with the attorney qualification may declare their intent to run for the office. Any lawyer may vote in this election, similar to how the Redmont Bar Association works, and the two winners are magistrate for a month (or two).

Second, we could just have the Redmont Bar Association, itself elected, appoint two magistrates for their term. Without commenting much between these alternatives, I think they lend themselves well to taking some of the burden and responsibility off the Supreme Court to finding new talent. Even if the two temporary magistrates are exceptionally green to the field, the Supreme Court can manage their caseload personally (as we do from time to time) and even still fire them if necessary.

Looking up a level, the Federal Court could receive a small tweak as well. In discussions with Senior Associate Justice Matthew100x, we have discussed the possibility of temporarily appointing a “visiting” judge to the Court in order to manage caseload for a time, or perhaps for a designated amount of cases, and then letting them go. How would this work? Simple. The Supreme Court may “hire” one of these visiting judges on to the Federal Court, as we do with magistrates, for a certain period of time or quantity of cases. When that criteria is met, they leave. This helps not only bypass the somewhat difficult task of receiving a presidential nomination and Senate approval, but also, as above, allows veteran judges to spend a bit of time on the Court in a moment of need without dedicating long-term efforts if they are not up to it.

This would prevent a judge from being nominated and then confirmed, the whole time intending to only do two cases and then leave. If implemented, this would be highly vetted by the Supreme Court, and perhaps each appointment should be overturned by a majority vote in the Senate.

Both of the ideas above, while somewhat against the grain of how the judiciary typically works, could help to grant much needed flexibility. The magistrate idea in particular would give more leeway to allow people to “try out” the judiciary to see if they enjoyed it, and get fresh eyes into the system. I cannot recommend Congress look into these ideas enough, nor understate how effective they could be if properly utilized by the government and potential new judges.

(Bounty) Hunting for Justice

One of the oddest and most out of place mechanics on the server is bounty hunting. We all have seen someone going on a triple digit murder spree, one of their victims getting fed up with no police action, and then enlist the private sector to take some revenge. What if we could harness this individual market action for good, and make real efforts?

First, what am I talking about? We should note that, as I am sure everyone knows, murder is absolutely out of control. As I was helping a player out the other day at the Aventura docks, the ground was positively littered with murder clues. The scene was gruesome. Though the Department of Homeland Security seems to have stepped up enforcement efforts, they are clearly not good enough. Citizens and politicians alike have expressed an interest in combatting the state of affairs; and the anti-murder belligerence has made its way to my part of the government as well, as many fresh lawyers are learning the important lesson of “you can’t prosecute criminal offenses privately” over a murdered client.

So, what to do? The main issue is there is no real cost to murder. Murder is a summary crime, and being caught will add a wanted star to the perpetrator. Upon arrest, the murderer is fined $350 as of writing. The main issue with dealing with murder is that middle step: it is difficult to have the government find a clue, report it, and then track down the murderer and arrest them.

However, the private sector can change everything. Imagine that every time the government picked up a clue and charged a murderer with the crime, the murderer also gained a bounty of perhaps $200. Ten murders later, and the murderer has a bounty of $2000. Then, when a bounty hunter tracks down and terminates the murderous bounty, the latter is either taken to jail where they await an officer to process them, or are immediately fined the full amount and sent to Revcatraz. In the above example, the bounty of $2,000 would be covered by $3,500 of fines.

This would make the government a profit, pay bounty hunters for their trouble, and reduce the backlog and overflow of murder cases. Finally, the bounty hunting plugin would have some real use, and we could start truly cutting back on the rampant murder sprees in our once peaceful Commonwealth. And, dear reader, do you want to know the best part about this suggestion?

I told this idea to Technofied (in his capacity as staff) and he liked it, saying I “cooked.” No owner veto. Congress should take a look into decriminalizing bounty hunting and helping citizens and officers work together to end the murder nuisance once and for all.

A Hopeful Conclusion

Above, I lay out several methods that we could use to make justice more accessible while keeping talent retention in the judiciary high and moving cases along faster. Doubtless there are many other ideas that could be implemented, and by no means are my ideas above flawless. I ask only that you, citizen, discuss my ideas for what they are, and talk with your local congresspeople. There is only so much I can do alone—join me and let’s make Redmont a more just society.