INITIALLY THE COST associated with transcribing the record will upset some practitioners, and perhaps deter some appeals. But, in this day and age, practitioners need to learn how to adapt. Many practitioners will quickly learn how to discern what portions of the record are critical on appeal and will designate only those portions of the record.

If practitioners hone their appellate skills, any potential barrier to filing an appeal caused by the cost associated with procuring transcripts should level out over time. Yet, a few issues arise from this supposition.

First, pro se litigants may not be able to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to pare down a record, causing a problem that would likely result in a challenge to the rule on some level.

Second, if practitioners adapt and streamline the cost of designating and transcribing the record, the court could be in for a drastic increase in filings in a year or so. In other words, any alleged "barrier to entry" created by the rule will dissipate over time-leaving the court to contend with a barrage of appeals in the future. Of course, this assumes that practitioners will indeed hone their appellate skills, which is certainly not a given. Perhaps trial attorneys will rethink whether they are suited for appellate work and choose to associate with appellate counsel on appeal. This is the trend occurring across the country.

Another issue of concern is the amount of time the court will spend to determine how the appeal will be decided (i.e., by 3JX, on the briefs, by full argument) and, then, to actually deciding it. The court seems to be adding another administrative layer to its conference calendar. Will this cut into the time necessary to properly conference cases that deserve a full opinion by the court?

The structure the court has set up is similar to that in other states, but those states have independent intermediate-level appellate courts that filter out the types of cases that warrant 3JX or submission on the brief treatment. In other words, with this rule change, the N.H. Supreme Court will basically do the work of two levels of appellate courts. It is my belief that the ultimate product of the court- published common law opinions-will suffer.

A related concern is that the court will eventually rely too heavily on staff attorneys to draft memorandum opinions and 3JX orders. Although the court is making monumental efforts to consider every appeal, if a staff attorney is deciding the case, how much "review" will the litigant receive? Any opinion of the court should be just that, an opinion, which is considered and weighed by the justices.

Despite all the efforts the court makes to ensure a just appellate process, in the end, time constraints and budgetary woes hurt the development of the common law in New Hampshire-and this hurts us all. More money should be spent on ensuring that every citizen gets his or her day in all courts and less money should be spent on frivolous attacks on the judicial branch.

Tension between judicial and legislative branches is healthy; however, action or inaction by either branch that diminishes the people's access to the court system should not be tolerated. The people deserve a healthy, well-funded judicial branch. In my opinion, this should include an intermediate-level court of appeals.

Few citizens will grace the floor of the House or the governor's office in their lifetimes-but it is a safe bet that the vast majority will have some sort of encounter with the judicial system-even if it is simply to challenge a parking ticket. Equal access and proper review of all cases in all courts is critical.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer