Conversatorio Magistrado Vicepresidente de la CSJ Olmedo Arrocha y presidenta del CNA Maritza Cedeño

Introduction to Judicial Transparency

Overview of the Meeting

• Olmedo Arrocha, president of the Civil Chamber and coordinator for civil process modernization, introduces the meeting format aimed at transparency.

• The meeting is held with Marixa Cedeño, president of the Bar Association, to discuss concerns regarding the functioning of civil courts.

Purpose of the Meeting

• The session aims to demonstrate active engagement from both parties: Cedeño representing lawyers and Arrocha representing the judiciary.

• Emphasis on effective communication between judges and legal professionals to enhance civil jurisdiction and justice delivery.

Concerns Regarding New Civil Procedure Code

Feedback from Legal Professionals

• Cedeño expresses gratitude for being received and highlights concerns raised by lawyers across Panama about implementing the new Civil Procedure Code.

• She seeks insights into how the judicial system has adapted since its implementation five months ago.

Judicial Response

• Arrocha shares optimism based on monitoring performance over five months; processes are reportedly progressing as expected under new regulations.

• He notes that first-instance cases should not exceed one year in duration, aligning with promises made by the new law for timely justice delivery.

Challenges Faced by Judiciary

Ongoing Workload Issues

• Despite progress with the new code, existing workloads from previous systems continue to pose challenges for timely case resolution.

• Arrocha acknowledges difficulties stemming from capacity constraints within current judicial resources while addressing ongoing cases under older regulations.

Plans for Improvement

• Discussion includes plans to strengthen intervention strategies in response to workload issues, particularly through a liquidation plan aimed at enhancing efficiency in handling cases.

• Acknowledgment that insolvency jurisdiction operates independently from the new Civil Procedure Code but remains critical due to its significant impact on civil court demands.

Judicial System Performance Metrics

Monitoring Progress

• Arrocha emphasizes ongoing measurement efforts since September regarding case management effectiveness under both old and new systems, indicating a proactive approach towards improvement.

• He presents data showing approximately 200 new cases have entered circuit civil courts in Panama as part of their tracking efforts post-code implementation.

Access to Justice and Judicial Corrections

Increasing Jurisdictional Limits

• The jurisdictional limit has been increased from 5,000 to 10,000 to enhance access to justice. Municipal courts are now more accessible with judges stationed in each of the 77 municipalities.

Challenges in Circuit Courts

• Circuit courts have jurisdiction across the province but must be located in provincial capitals, requiring individuals outside these areas, including lawyers, to travel for legal matters.

Demand for Corrections

• Approximately 60% of cases filed require corrections. This raises questions about whether attorneys are failing to present demands correctly or if judges are becoming overly stringent in their correction requests.

Statistics on Corrections

• Out of every ten demands submitted, six require corrections while four do not. Of those corrected demands, only 35% were ultimately accepted by the court.

Reasons for Corrections

• A breakdown reveals that out of eleven reasons for mandated corrections, only two are new under the Civil Procedural Code; the remaining nine should have already been addressed under previous judicial codes.

Implications of Correction Practices

• Flexibility in correction practices may lead to issues such as improper notifications and extended delays due to insufficient information provided by attorneys regarding powers of attorney and contact details.

Common Issues Identified

• Frequent problems include irregularities in power documents, insufficient addresses for plaintiffs and defendants, vague claims lacking clarity on primary versus subsidiary intentions, and missing legal foundations necessary for claims.

Rescuing Legal Argumentation Methodology

Importance of Legal Foundations in Demands

• The legislator aims to recover the methodology of legal argumentation, emphasizing that demands should include a preliminary description of the legal basis for the judge's approval.

• It is crucial to specify whether transactions are governed by the Commercial Code or Civil Code, as this distinction impacts the demand's content.

Clarity and Precision in Legal Documentation

• The demand must clearly outline details such as the judicial representative's address, omitted amounts, and electronic data regarding communication preferences.

• Article 384 emphasizes that facts in a demand should be presented clearly and chronologically; however, it allows for flexibility with "preferably," which may lead to varied interpretations.

Challenges in Legal Interpretation

• The interpretation of what constitutes clarity can differ between the drafter and reader, highlighting a need for better alignment in understanding legal documents.

• On average, there are about 3.8 corrections per demand document due to issues like unclear fact presentation.

Evidence Presentation Requirements

• Article 384 also mandates that evidence must be linked explicitly to specific facts within the demand to avoid placing undue burden on judges during preliminary hearings.

• Historically, presenting evidence without clear connections forced judges into roles akin to lawyers, complicating their decision-making process.

Judicial Decision-Making Process

• Judges assess admissibility based on relevance (inconducencia), pertinence (impertinencia), and legality; thus, clear linkage of evidence is essential for informed decisions.

• The system requires all materials to be submitted at least five days before preliminary hearings so that all parties are adequately prepared.

Implications for Legal Practice

• A well-prepared judge relies on prior submissions to determine which evidence is admissible; ambiguity leads to misinterpretations and potential errors in judgment.

• Lawyers must articulate how each piece of evidence relates to specific claims so judges can make informed decisions without guessing.

Conclusion: Need for Improved Practices

• There is an evident need for improved practices surrounding legal documentation and argumentation methodologies as indicated by high correction rates.

• Emphasizing proper linkages between claims and supporting evidence could reduce procedural complications and enhance judicial efficiency.

Discussion on Judicial Communication and Process Adaptation

Importance of Proper Judicial Communication

• The risk of judicial evidence being rejected if not properly corrected is highlighted, emphasizing the judge's role in evaluating evidence.

• Reference to Article 410, which states that only evidence related to disputed facts is admissible, stressing the lawyer's responsibility to adhere to this guideline.

Technological Adaptation in Legal Processes

• Discussion on the necessity for lawyers to have an email address for receiving judicial communications, reflecting modern technological standards.

• Mention of Law 75 from 2015 establishing electronic judicial files prior to the Civil Procedural Code, indicating a shift towards digital processes.

Integration of Electronic Communication

• The Civil Procedural Code incorporates existing laws for easier access and understanding by lawyers regarding electronic communication methods.

• Emphasis on the prevalence of mobile devices as a means for legal notifications, suggesting that most lawyers can communicate effectively through these channels.

Challenges and Exceptions in Digital Access

• Acknowledgment of digital divide issues in certain regions where internet access may be limited, impacting justice accessibility.

• Clarification that while some areas face challenges, most lawyers are equipped with necessary communication tools.

Cultural Shift in Judicial Procedures

• Recognition that adapting to new procedures requires cultural change within the legal community due to long-standing habits over decades.

• The transition from traditional court interactions (e.g., secretaries assisting lawyers) reflects broader changes mandated by new codes.

Training and Support for Legal Professionals

• Importance of ongoing education and training for legal professionals to adapt successfully to procedural changes introduced by new legislation.

• Offer from legal associations to organize training events aimed at helping practitioners navigate these changes effectively.

New Paradigms in Judicial Operations

• Introduction of judicial offices instead of individual secretaries signifies a structural change in how courts operate under the new code.

• In larger circuits with multiple judges, teams will replace individual assistants, promoting collaborative work environments within courts.

Judicial System Changes and Challenges

Transition from Judicial Secretaries to Judicial Offices

• The role of judicial secretaries has been eliminated, with a new judicial office established to provide information and support to lawyers.

• Ethical guidelines prevent judges from meeting with one party, maintaining impartiality in communication through official channels.

• Judges now have assistants for logistical support, but the focus is on collective assistance rather than individual attention.

Quality of Information and Communication

• The responsibility of the judicial office includes providing quality and effective information to users, emphasizing the importance of clear communication.

• Recent meetings highlighted the need for judges to adopt a more pedagogical approach in their decisions, ensuring that legal explanations are accessible and understandable.

Training and Capacity Building

• There is an ongoing effort to organize training sessions for legal professionals to enhance understanding of procedural codes.

• Lawyers are encouraged to ask questions about content they are familiar with, fostering a collaborative learning environment.

Performance of Liquidation Courts

• Observations indicate that liquidation courts face challenges due to a backlog of cases; there is a mix between traditional paper-based processes and virtual systems.

• The first circuit court in Panama inherited over 10,000 cases, highlighting significant operational pressures within the judiciary.

Case Resolution Statistics

• In five months, only 10% of cases have been resolved in liquidation courts; projections suggest it may take 3–4 years for complete resolution.

• Historical data shows civil processes previously took around 900 days (2.5–3 years), indicating that current timelines may align with past norms despite being unsatisfactory.

Judicial Reforms and Capacity Expansion

Overview of Judicial Agreements

• The discussion revolves around a draft agreement aimed at reinforcing the liquidation plan, focusing on enhancing judicial capacity without increasing human resources.

• Plans to incorporate 14 new judges in the first judicial circuit, with a phased approach: nine initially followed by five more for liquidation purposes.

Impact on Case Processing

• The goal is to reduce case processing time from three or four years to approximately two years by increasing judicial output; current judges are issuing nearly 40 rulings per month.

• The implementation timeline hinges on finalizing agreements and selecting personnel, anticipated to begin in early April.

Challenges in Judicial Operations

• There are logistical challenges related to moving case files and normalizing electronic systems after relocation.

• Current facilities are inadequate for the number of judges; efforts are underway to secure new locations that can centralize operations effectively.

Bureaucratic Hurdles

• Securing new facilities involves navigating bureaucratic processes, including evaluations by Contraloría and MEF, which can take months.

• Centralized operations would improve user experience by allowing all services under one roof.

Superior Court Dynamics

• Discussion highlights the distinction between liquidating courts and the Superior Court's role in handling appeals from civil cases and limited criminal matters.

• Historical context provided regarding the structure of Superior Courts; previously had five magistrates due to workload but now has been adjusted.

Future Projections for Appeals Handling

• Plans to increase magistrate numbers from seven to ten will enhance capacity for managing both old and new appeal systems effectively.

• New legislation mandates that appeals under the updated system must be resolved within six months, emphasizing accountability in judicial response times.

Addressing Insolvency Cases

• Acknowledgment of the need for additional support in insolvency courts due to an influx of cases; plans are underway to appoint more judges specifically for this area.

Discussion on Judicial Workload and Legal Reforms

Overview of Judicial Workload

• The judicial system is currently handling a backlog of 23,000 cases with only four judges managing the workload.

• Many of these cases involve active garnishments that do not require ongoing court activity, as they are simply waiting for deductions to conclude.

• There are numerous simple executive processes pending where creditors file claims without actual assets from debtors due to insolvency issues.

Strategies for Managing Case Load

• A plan is being developed to address the massive workload by meeting with judges to implement strategies for better case management.

• The need for additional judges is emphasized, as current resources are insufficient to handle both old and new cases effectively.

Court Facilities and Infrastructure Concerns

• There is a call for visits to courts to observe conditions firsthand and understand the challenges faced by legal professionals in overcrowded environments.

• Issues regarding inadequate facilities have been highlighted, particularly in insolvency courts where space constraints hinder operations.

Legislative Changes Impacting Legal Professionals

• Concerns were raised about recent reforms in legal practice laws (Law 350 from 2022), which some believe may negatively impact the quality of legal representation available.

• The speaker expresses a commitment to advocate for solutions that support lawyers facing challenges due to legislative changes affecting their professional standing.

Call for Reform and Support Mechanisms

• Emphasis on the responsibility lawyers have towards citizens rather than just their peers; there’s a need for quality representation amidst changing laws.

• A plea was made for mechanisms that can help those affected by outdated or newly ineffective regulations, ensuring access to justice remains intact.

Examination Requirements for Graduates

Overview of New Examination Regulations

• The new examination regulations will apply to students who begin their careers after the law is enacted, specifically those starting after November 25.

• Graduates must either complete a thesis or undertake practical training; however, those already graduated face challenges as they cannot retroactively fulfill thesis requirements.

Challenges Faced by Recent Graduates

• Many graduates are currently employed and would need to take three months off work to complete required practical training, which is not yet established in judicial or legal institutions.

• There is uncertainty regarding the availability of practical training opportunities for recent graduates, complicating their transition into professional roles.

Delays in Diploma Issuance

• Universities typically take at least six months to issue diplomas post-graduation. This delay affects graduates who have completed their coursework but lack formal certification.

Discussion on Professional Qualification

• The necessity of a bar exam stems from the need for professional qualification (idoneidad), which certifies that individuals are prepared to practice their profession beyond just holding a diploma.

• Various professions require additional qualifications beyond academic degrees; this ensures that practitioners meet necessary standards before entering the workforce.

Examination Process and Critiques

• Concerns were raised about whether the same entity that provides education should also be responsible for accreditation; independence in assessment is crucial.

• In Panama, there has been tension between academia and professional bodies regarding who administers qualifying exams. Historically, these responsibilities were assigned to judicial entities rather than professional associations.

Adjustments Made in Examination Administration

• Acknowledgment of previous confusion over exam content and administration led to reforms where universities provide input on exam material while maintaining independence from direct involvement in teaching courses.

Current Trends and Feedback on Examinations

• Approximately 90% pass rates indicate general satisfaction with both course content and examination structure among candidates preparing for licensure.

• Candidates express interest in understanding contemporary topics such as non-financial subject supervision, highlighting gaps in traditional university curricula.

Discussion on Legal Norms and Professional Practice

Overview of Current Legal Challenges

• The speaker reflects on their experience with legal norms and the challenges faced by lawyers who cannot practice due to lack of idoneity, emphasizing that the system is flawed but acknowledges the ideal nature of courses and exams.

• A question arises regarding how to address individuals who are unable to progress in their profession, highlighting limitations imposed by the law's temporal application.

• Clarification is made that no one is left in a "limbo" state; however, those who have diplomas but did not start required courses before new laws took effect face restrictions.

Legislative Limitations and Practical Solutions

• Discussion centers around legislative constraints that prevent expanding opportunities for professionals, stressing that existing laws must be adhered to despite their inconvenience.

• The judicial body has issued Agreement 417 outlining evaluation methods for practical training within the judicial system, which can also extend to other public entities.

Certification and Practical Training Issues

• Institutions providing practical training must establish regulations ensuring compliance with standards set forth by the judicial body when certifying candidates.

• The current law restrictively allows only professional practice for certain individuals, complicating matters for those already employed or engaged in public service roles seeking certification.

Complications in Professional Development

• Concerns are raised about verifying voluntary and unpaid work experiences necessary for certification amidst existing employment obligations.

• Questions arise regarding how to manage licenses for graduates working within the judicial system while balancing salary considerations during their training period.

Legislative Advocacy and Future Considerations

• There’s a call for intervention from legislative bodies to amend laws affecting over 1000 students currently unable to take necessary examinations due to recent changes.

• The speaker suggests allowing students nearing graduation or those who have completed studies an opportunity to take exams previously available before legislative changes were enacted.

Academic Rigor vs. Practical Application

• A distinction is made between thesis writing and article publication requirements, noting difficulties faced by students in meeting academic standards necessary for indexing their work.

• Challenges include limited availability of indexed journals in Panama, making it difficult for students to publish articles derived from theses as required by current academic protocols.

This structured summary captures key discussions surrounding legal education challenges, legislative constraints on professional practice, and potential pathways forward while linking directly back to specific timestamps for further exploration.

Discussion on Professional Certification and Judicial Practices

Importance of Distinguishing Academic Certification from Professional Practice

• The speaker emphasizes the need to differentiate between academic certification and the certification required to practice a profession, highlighting that merely allowing individuals to practice does not ensure they are adequately qualified.

• It is noted that professional practice should be an extension of academic training, suggesting that practical experience should complement formal education rather than serve as a substitute for it.

• The discussion points out potential confusion in Law 500 regarding the requirements for professional suitability, indicating a need for clarity and possible revisions in legislation.

Addressing Injustice in Legal Practicum Opportunities

• The speaker expresses commitment to exploring mechanisms to assist those who have completed their studies but face barriers in obtaining practical experience, citing statistics on graduates awaiting opportunities.

• Concerns are raised about the capacity of judicial bodies to accommodate numerous interns, with acknowledgment of existing limitations within the Ministry of Public Affairs and other legal institutions.

Navigating Conflicts of Interest in Legal Internships

• Acknowledgment is made regarding conflicts of interest when law firms certify their own interns, raising ethical concerns about impartiality in evaluations.

Commitment to Judicial Improvement and Training Initiatives

• The conversation reflects optimism about appointing more judges and advancing justice while recognizing ongoing efforts for improvement within the judicial system.

• Plans are discussed for organizing training sessions with local bar associations, aiming to enhance understanding among lawyers through practical exercises and documentation reviews.

Enhancing User Experience in Justice System

• There is a strong emphasis on improving user experiences within the justice system, acknowledging frustrations faced by users and expressing a desire for actionable improvements.

• Suggestions are made for comprehensive reviews of the accusatory penal system after years of implementation, indicating readiness to address identified shortcomings collaboratively.