Abstract The length of judicial proceedings is an important subject on the agenda of social researchers, policy-makers, politicians, legal practitioners, and court administrators in several countries. Whether the court disposition time in a country is reasonable or not is a matter of debate. Brazilian courts are usually perceived to be slow. This study investigates whether court delay is a real problem or merely a perception. The duration of civil cases in Brazil is measured by international standards and then compared to those in European courts. The disposition time in Brazilian first-instance courts takes 600 days, almost three times longer than the European average (232 days). In Brazilian second-instance courts, it takes 320 days, 50% longer than in Europe (215 days). However, the number of cases decided in those courts exceeds the number of new incoming cases, which means that the backlog and the disposition time in Brazilian courts are decreasing. These data are discussed in this paper and a research agenda and management recommendations are proposed later on this document.

Resumo O tempo do processo judicial é um assunto relevante na agenda de pesquisadores sociais, gestores de políticas públicas, políticos, profissionais do Direito e administradores do sistema de justiça. Se o tempo de processos judiciais em países específicos deve ser considerado razoável ou não, isso permanece uma questão em aberto. Os tribunais brasileiros são percebidos como lentos. Esse estudo investiga se o atraso judicial é um problema real ou apenas uma percepção enviesada. A duração de processos cíveis no Brasil é mensurada com o uso de padrões internacionais e, então, comparada com a duração em tribunais europeus. O tempo dos processos judiciais em tribunais de primeira instância é de 600 dias, quase três vezes maior que a média na Europa (232 dias). Nos tribunais brasileiros de segunda instância, o tempo de duração (320 dias) é 50% maior que na Europa (215 dias). No entanto, o número de processos decididos nos tribunais brasileiros é maior que o número de novos casos, o que significa que o estoque de processos e o seu tempo de duração têm uma tendência de queda. Esses dados são discutidos neste artigo, e também são propostas recomendações gerenciais e uma agenda de pesquisa.

ABSTRACT The interdependence between governance and legitimacy of the courts is a subject that has not been much studied by scholars, especially those from the fields of public administration and organizational studies. Taking into account the importance of these topics for the functioning of these organizations, the purpose of this essay is twofold: to enrich the debate on the contribution of good governance to the legitimacy of courts, and to encourage researchers to address these themes in greater depth. To this end, the main literature on governance and legitimacy of courts is analyzed. Theoretical approaches contribute to the discussion of the functioning of courts, which are highly institutionalized organizations that depend heavily on a presumption of legitimacy. Ensuring this legitimacy has been one of the challenges for these organizations, which are required to adopt governance models that contribute to better management and performance. We argue that there are managerial and substantive implications for society, since the governance and legitimacy of courts can affect the system of justice. We put forward some propositions on the influence of judicial governance on the legitimacy of the justice system and on the perception of legitimacy of the courts. These propositions provide insights for a research agenda on these issues.

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of Administration of Justice as a research field and set out an agenda for future studies that could promote the production of scientific knowledge in this area. Design/methodology/approach This paper explores the idiosyncratic features, dimensions of analysis upon the Administration of Justice, states a research agenda and discusses the main challenges on this theme. This paper conceptualizes Administration of Justice as a research field and discusses related phenomena from institutional and economic perspectives on innovation, performance, governance and legitimacy. Findings As a research field, Administration of Justice is defined as a set of theoretical concepts, research methods and techniques, aiming to investigate the management processes associated with the use and articulation of resources, knowledge and institutions, at different levels of the justice system, and their influence on the provision of justice in a given social context. As social phenomena, four levels of analysis are proper to investigate the justice system: societal, inter-organizational, organizational and operational. Innovation, performance, governance and legitimacy are central themes of the Administration of Justice and present various gaps and research opportunities. Research limitations/implications The main implications is the proposal of an agenda for future studies on the Administration of Justice field, which is an important step in raising awareness of the issue. Originality/value Administration of Justice encompasses a growing interest among academics, justice practitioners and public managers regarding managerial and political practices carried out in the justice system. Although relevant, this subject has been scarcely studied by the management community. This paper invites community to adopt an organizational and institutional perspective to Administration of Justice, setting an agenda for future research.

Resumo O presente estudo examina as relações entre recursos, inovação e desempenho em tribunais. Foram utilizados dados de 24 tribunais trabalhistas brasileiros no período entre 2003 e 2013. Foram desenvolvidos modelos teóricos/empíricos utilizando a análise envoltória de dados e a análise de fronteira estocástica. Os resultados indicam que houve melhora no desempenho dos tribunais durante o período estudado. Essa melhoria deve-se mais em função da adoção de inovações do que da variação da eficiência técnica. Os períodos críticos para a adoção do processo judicial eletrônico (em 2006 e 2012) tiveram um impacto negativo no índice relacionado com a adoção de inovação. O modelo estocástico indicou que o tamanho do tribunal e o investimento na formação de pessoal foram fatores-chave para explicar a variação na eficiência dos tribunais.

Abstract This article examines the relationships between resources, innovation, and performance in courts. Data from 24 Brazilian labor courts covering the period between 2003 and 2013 were used to develop theoretical/empirical models using Data Envelopment Analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. The results indicate that there was improvement in the performance of the courts during the period examined. This improvement owed more to the adoption of innovations than to variation in technical efficiency. Critical periods for the adoption of the electronic judicial process (in 2006 and 2012) had a negative impact on the index related to innovation adoption. The stochastic model shows that court size and investment in the training of personnel are key factors for explaining the variation in the efficiency of the courts.

Resumen El presente estudio examina las relaciones entre los recursos, la innovación y el desempeño en los tribunales. Se utilizaron datos de 24 tribunales laborales brasileños que cubrían el período comprendido entre 2003 y 2013 para desarrollar modelos teóricos/empíricos utilizando el análisis por envoltura de datos y análisis de frontera estocástica. Los resultados indican que hubo mejoras en el desempeño de los tribunales durante el período examinado. Esta mejora se debe más a la adopción de innovaciones que a la variación en la eficiencia técnica. Los períodos críticos para la adopción del proceso judicial electrónico (en 2006 y 2012) tuvieron un impacto negativo en el índice relacionado con la adopción de la innovación. El modelo estocástico muestra que el tamaño de la corte y la inversión en la formación del personal son factores clave para explicar la variación en la eficiencia de los tribunales.

Resumo A gestão do acervo de processos pendentes em tribunais é essencial para garantir que os processos serão julgados de maneira célere, e isso depende de como juízes e assistentes administrativos lidam com suas cargas de trabalho. Resultados de diversos estudos indicam que um aumento no acervo de tribunais tende a gerar um aumento na produção judicial dos juízes. Entretanto alguns autores apontam que essa relação é mais complexa do que aparenta. No intuito de desenvolver um entendimento mais aprofundado dessa relação, é testado, neste trabalho, um conjunto de hipóteses diretas e de moderação. Foram utilizados dados secundários referentes a 566 juízes que trabalham em varas de primeira instância da Justiça Estadual de São Paulo, Brasil. Os resultados indicam uma relação direta e positiva entre o acervo da vara e a produção dos juízes, mas a força dessa relação varia de acordo com a especialidade da vara. Os resultados também mostram que a quantidade de assistentes administrativos, a experiência e os locais em que o juiz atua moderam a relação entre acervo e produção judicial. Os resultados contribuem para o desenvolvimento de estratégias gerenciais a fim de enfrentar o congestionamento de tribunais brasileiros.

Abstract Court caseload management is of key importance for guaranteeing the adjudication of cases and depends on how judges and administrative assistants deal with their workload. Results from several studies indicate that an increase in court caseload tends to generate an increase in the judge’s production. However, some authors argue that this relationship is far more complex. To develop a fuller understanding of this relationship we tested an array of direct and moderating hypotheses. We used secondary data from 566 judges working in first trial courts in the State Justice System of Sao Paulo, Brazil. The results indicate a direct and positive relationship between court caseload and judge production, but the strength of this relationship depends on court specialty. The findings also indicate that the number of administrative assistants, judge experience and the number of places a judge works all moderate the caseload-production relationship. The results contribute to the development of strategies to address the delays and congestion of courts, two of the main Brazilian Judiciary problems.