“Justice
delayed
is
justice
denied.”
If
a
party
needs
to
wait
an
unduly
long
time
to
reach
a
just
outcome,
this
undermines
the
benefit
of
the
judicial
determination.
However,
even
though
delay
may
frustrate
litigants
and
attorneys
alike,
it
is
often
advantageous
and
necessary
to
the
judicial
process.
Indeed,
courts
often
benefit
from
delays.
Earlier
in
my
career,
I
litigated
a
complex
case
in
a
busy
jurisdiction.
Several
motions
were
filed,
and
the
court
almost
always
rendered
a
decision
six
months
or
so
after
the
motions
were
fully
submitted.
I
am
willing
to
bet
that
some
kind
of
standard
in
that
jurisdiction
required
judges
to
file
decisions
within
six
months
of
motions
being
fully
submitted,
and
this
court
would
wait
until
right
before
that
deadline
to
render
a
decision.
At
one
point
in
the
case,
two
extremely
complicated
motions
were
pending.
It
was
hard
enough
for
the
lawyers
to
get
their
minds
around
the
issues
and
facts
involved
in
this
case,
and
it
would
certainly
be
difficult
for
court
staff
to
unpack
all
of
the
information
needed
to
render
a
decision
in
this
matter.
We
did
not
receive
a
response
from
the
court
for
months
after
the
motion
was
fully
submitted,
and
I
expected
that
the
court
would
probably
wait
until
six
months
after
the
motion
was
fully
submitted
to
render
a
decision.
While
these
two
motions
were
pending,
and
months
after
the
motions
were
fully
submitted,
the
case
settled.
After
the
settlement
agreement
was
signed,
the
parties
filed
a
stipulation
of
discontinuance
formally
dismissing
the
case.
Within
hours,
the
court
issued
decisions
denying
the
outstanding
motions
as
moot
since
the
case
had
settled.
Since
the
court
waited
to
render
decisions
on
the
outstanding
motions,
the
court
was
able
to
save
judicial
resources
by
not
having
to
adjudicate
disputes
before
the
final
resolution
of
a
case.
In
other
instances,
judges
are
more
overt
when
they
try
to
delay
making
a
decision
so
that
the
parties
might
have
a
chance
to
talk
about
their
dispute
and,
hopefully,
settle
the
case.
A
few
times
in
my
career,
I
have
tried
to
vacate
default
judgments
that
were
entered
against
my
clients
who
did
not
know
about
lawsuits.
Although
default
judgments
can
usually
be
vacated
since
courts
like
to
decide
matters
on
the
merits,
when
there
is
opposition
by
the
party
seeking
to
maintain
the
default,
the
decision
can
be
tricky
and
fact-intensive.
In
addition,
courts
may
consider
establishing
a
bond
or
conditioning
their
order
to
vacate
a
default
on
various
terms.
In
multiple
instances,
courts
have
adjourned
their
decision
to
vacate
the
default
judgment
and
requested
that
the
parties
attempt
to
reach
a
settlement
among
themselves.
Having
a
default
hanging
over
a
party’s
head
is
a
good
motivator
to
resolve
a
matter
without
court
intervention,
since
they
might
be
able
to
reach
a
settlement
they
can
live
with
rather
than
having
their
assets
seized
under
a
default
judgment.
The
party
to
which
the
default
judgment
was
awarded
might
also
want
to
ensure
they
get
something
from
a
settlement
than
risk
as
default
judgment
being
vacated
and
needing
to
litigate
a
case
from
scratch
with
an
uncertain
outcome.
In
multiple
instances,
by
kicking
the
can
down
the
road,
the
court
was
able
to
conserve
resources
since
the
cases
settled
on
their
own
during
the
delay.
In
sum,
although
delay
in
the
administration
of
justice
can
be
a
burden
for
some
litigants,
it
can
also
be
a
powerful
tool.
Courts
may
be
able
to
conserve
resources
by
delaying
decisions
and
establishing
conditions
for
the
parties
to
voluntarily
resolve
a
case.
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
[email protected].