Editor’s Note: The following article by Corinne McCann Trainor and John C. Atkin was published as part of the Federal Practice and Procedure Section Newsletter, which is distributed to members of the Federal Practice and Procedure Section. To learn more about joining a section of the New Jersey State Bar Association, email us at [email protected].
On Jan. 24 of this year, in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968, the Federal Practice and Procedure Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association, chaired by Corinne McCann Trainor, a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, moderated a panel of judges and attorneys to review the text and import of the act and the manner in which it is relied upon and implemented in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The panel consisted of the Honorable Michael Hammer, U.S.M.J.; the Honorable Lois Goodman, U.S.M.J.; the Honorable Karen Williams, U.S.M.J.; and Fernando Pinguelo, a former partner with Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC and now associate general counsel, data privacy with Willis Towers Watson. The event was co-sponsored by the Dispute Resolution Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association.
The event began with a review of the act's text, purposes, and legislative history. The panel noted that the District of New Jersey's local civil rules supplement the act and, unlike in some other judicial districts, are intended to maximize the power afforded to magistrate judges-giving them the authority to conduct all pretrial, non-dispositive motion practice in civil matters, which frees district judges to focus on major criminal cases and dispositive motions in civil matters. Due to magistrate judges' primary role handling all aspects of pretrial practice in New Jersey, the panel advised that they do not typically encourage parties to consent to trial by magistrate judge because their tightly regimented schedule of conferences and discovery disputes does --- New Jersey State Bar Association Federal Practice and Procedure Section not necessarily lead to earlier trial dates.
Afterward, the panel offered practice pointers and tips, followed by a spirited discussion by the panel members about their differing styles and preferences for settlement conferences. Some of the more salient pieces of advice offered by the panel to practicing attorneys were:
- Keep the date for a scheduled settlement conference and avoid rescheduling, since magistrate judges have very tight schedules.
- Keep settlement memoranda succinct, focusing on significant points and realistic dollar figures (or other relief) that will accomplish resolution of the matter; they are not a summary judgment motion, an opportunity to address every single issue in dispute, or a time to focus on the poor quality of the other side's case.
- Avoid cliches. Phrases like "we don't want to bid against ourselves" or "with all due respect," are filler, and do not advance a client's position or the overarching goal of the conference-settlement.
- Ensure that clients are in a mindset to actually settle, and work on that settlement position before arriving at the conference.
The Federal Practice and Procedure Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association thanks Judges Hammer, Goodman, and Williams, and Mr. Pinguelo, for offering their experiences and insight on the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968.
Corinne McCann Trainor is with Fox Rothschild. John C. Atkin is with The Atkin Firm, LLC.