Ohio R. Superi. Ct. 36
A court may require by local rule that the trial attorney individually responsible for trying a case be designated as trial attorney in the pleadings or by separate notice or entry.
Ohio. R. Superi. Ct. 36
Commentary (November 1, 2006)
Rule 36(C)(1)(h)
This amendment specifies that if a judge is assigned cases as a result of a specialized docket, that judge may request that the administrative judge of the court assign similar cases to another judge in order to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of cases within a court.
Commentary (July 1, 1997)
This rule merges the provisions of former C.P. Sup. R. 4 and M.C. Sup. R. 3 into a single rule governing the assignment of cases pursuant to the individual assignment system.
Rule 36(A) Designation of trial attorney.
Rule 36(A) requires attorneys who are to serve as trial counsel in either civil or criminal cases to notify the court of that fact. Notification in civil cases is accomplished by designation of the trial attorney on all pleadings. In criminal cases, immediately upon being retained or appointed, the trial attorney is required to file a written notification of the attorney's retention or appointment with the clerk of court.
Rule 36(B)(1) Individual assignment.
The individual assignment system is defined by the rule as a system whereby, upon the filing or transfer of a civil case, or upon arraignment in a criminal case, the case is immediately assigned to a judge of the court. The rule sets forth three purposes of the individual assignment system. All multi-judge divisions of the court of common pleas and all multi-judge municipal and county courts, except as provided in division (C)(2) of the rule, are required to adopt the individual assignment system. Courts or divisions are permitted to deviate from the individual assignment system only if the modifications satisfy the three stated purposes of the system and are adopted by local rule of court pursuant to Rule 5. Permissible modifications include the assignment and consideration of cases involving the same criminal defendant, parties, family members, or subject-matter.
The distinguishing feature of the individual assignment system is that it places responsibility upon one judge for the disposition of cases. Once a case is assigned to a judge under this system, all matters pertaining to the case are to be submitted to that judge for determination. An exception is made where that judge is unavailable. In that instance, the administrative judge may act in the assigned judge's absence.
Under Rule 36(B), the administrative judge is responsible for the assignment of cases to the individual judges of the court. Assignment may be made by the administrative judge personally or by court personnel at the administrative judge's direction. All assignments of cases to individual judges must be made by lot.
The purpose of the random assignment, by lot, of cases is to avoid judge-shopping on the part of counsel and to distribute the cases equitably among the judges. "Lot" mandates an assignment arbitrated by chance; the determination must be fortuitous, wholly uncontrolled.
Assignment to the judges of the division in an established order of rotation does not comply with the rule, even if the order of rotation is altered periodically.
An acceptable method of assignment is a form of drawing from a pool of the names of the judges, using paper, balls, or other objects as lots or counter. The pea pool system or the bingo cage are examples. To be an assignment by lot, the entire base of the number of judges in the division must be utilized in each assignment.
A computer may be used for lot selection as long as random assignment is maintained.
Assignment by lot can be systematized. Judges can be identified by number. Those numbers can then be arranged in random order by chance over any given range of numbers. The greater the range, the greater the validity of the arrangement. The range of numbers might well represent the total of three years or so of filings. Slips of paper are then printed with serial control numbers on the front and a line for writing in a case number upon assignment. The judges' numbers are printed in the order of their lot determination on the back of the serially arranged slips. The slips are then padded so that the judges' numbers may not be seen. The evidence of the selection or printing list shall not be revealed. When a case is to be assigned, a slip is removed, the case number written on it, the code number of an individual judge is revealed, and a control sheet maintained.
The practice of making no assignment until "X" number of cases have accumulated when there are "X" number of judges, merely provides for assignment by lot within a very small control and the operation of chance is minimized. That method is only a modified form of rotation and is not assignment by lot.
Once a case is assigned to an individual judge, by lot, it may be reassigned or transferred to another judge by order of the administrative judge. See the Instructions for Preparation concerning the proper use and reporting of transfers.
Although many ancillary matters, and in fact the entire case, frequently may be handled by a magistrate, the assignment system mandates responsibility for every case be affixed to a judge. The assigned judge's report form will reflect action taken by the magistrate.
See Rule 43(E) and its commentary concerning how the numbering system is geared to the record keeping requirements of the individual assignment system.
Rule 36(C) Assignment system.
In multi-judge municipal and county courts, Rule 36(C) establishes a dual system for the assignment of cases. Under this system, certain types of cases are processed in a court session, designated particular session, presided over by a judge or magistrate for a specified period of time. Other types of cases are assigned to an individual judge pursuant to the individual assignment system.
Rule 36(C)(1) and (2) Particular session; assignment.
The types of cases designated in division (C)(1) for disposition in particular sessions of court are high volume cases that may be processed by a judge or magistrate at a single session. The rule does not preclude the processing of types of cases, other than those listed, that are susceptible to disposition in particular sessions.
Cases that may not be processed by particular session are civil cases where an answer is filed or a motion, other than one for default judgment, is filed and criminal cases in which a plea of not guilty is entered. These cases are to be assigned pursuant to the individual assignment system at the time the answer, motion, or plea is filed or made.
Rule 36(C)(3) Duration of assignment to particular session
Assignments to particular session are to be equally divided among the judges of the court and are to be limited to two-week periods. The two week limitation accommodates the individual assignment system, and allows each judge adequate time to work on the cases individually assigned to the judge. Judges should not be assigned to a particular session or a series of particular sessions for more than two consecutive weeks.
Rule 36(D) Assignment of refiled cases
To promote judicial economy and discourage judge-shopping, this division mandates that all dismissed and subsequently refiled cases be reassigned to the originally assigned judge. An exception exists for circumstances in which the original judge is barred from hearing the refiled case.
Rule 36(E) Assignment-new judicial positions
This provision governs the reassignment of pending cases where a new judicial position is added to the court or division. Reassignment of cases must be random, equitable, and accomplished in a manner consistent with the principles set forth in division (B)(1) of the rule. In effect, a random selection system must be used, rather than culling cases from pending dockets. Certain dockets or portions of dockets may be created through the individual assignment system. This method may be particularly useful in assigning criminal cases. The process set forth in division (E) should facilitate the creation of a balanced docket with a minimum disruption of the pending caseload of the court or division.