Four day week. Would it work for you?

A post considering the recent outcome of the Cambridge study into the four day working week, and its potential application to English courts.

A four-day week makes workers fitter, happier and more productive, as well as increasing companies’ revenue by more than a third, according to a Cambridge University study involving 61 UK organisations.

Leaving aside the significant improvement in employees’ health and outlook, productivity did not appear to fall over the six month trial, revenue appeared buoyant, and in consequence 56 of the pilots confirmed that they were to continue with the scheme.

Of particular interest was the way in which employees were willing to find efficiency gains themselves, being less inclined to kill time and actively seeking out technologies that improved their productivity.

I remain a member of a profession that mostly works under stress, with challenging caseloads that can quickly result in practitioner burn-out. Colleagues report that they rise before dawn to deal with a backlog of routine tasks, and frequently work until midnight on case preparation for the following day. It seems too that our judges are not exempt from these pressures.

Could a four day court week actually result in improved productivity of our profession and our courts whilst reducing the pressure on practitioners and court users?

Whilst court administrators and judges (including the President of the Family Courts) have reactively side-lined some of the technological/digital developments made during the pandemic, especially relating to remote hearings, Covid has revealed that there remain boundless opportunities for improved case management.

To start:

The portal. Implemented during the pandemic, the family case portal now provides real-time, up-to-date access to the evidence and orders in all public law cases involving children, and has the potential to replace most formal administrative hearings. With a little tinkering, directions could be proposed online, that information flagged by email or text, and a case not be listed unless a direction was opposed. Saving potential: a judicial day each week.

Where administrative or procedural appointments are required, much greater use could be made of the remote hearing. On average attended hearings only take between 30-60 minutes of court time, but frequently require the attendance of a minimum of three advocates with a collective travel time of a working day. Add to that waiting time wasted for advocates to be present, court rooms to be staffed, parties to be accommodated and courts available, and much wasted time could be avoided by a strict schedule of online appointments.

Experts and professional witnesses. It should now be apparent that there is very little merit in requiring expert or professional witnesses to attend court when their evidence can be efficiently received and reliably tested on video link – avoiding the necessity for doctors to leave their hospitals, or scientists to quit their laboratories. Propositions to experts constitute an entirely different class of questioning compared with other witnesses. It is inconceivable why they should be called to attend a court in person.

Sticking to the rules. Our family law procedure demands that statements be prepared and exchanged in advance of hearings, so that everyone knows what the witness will say. In a recent public law family case, an advocate sought to question their own witness for an hour, rather than tender them for cross examination. If we as advocates stick to the rules and ask pivotal questions of witnesses rather than prefacing with rambling propositions, a five day contested hearing could be contained in four.

Submissions. As advocates, we are invited by judges to make submissions following the evidence in family cases. This is where we advance arguments to persuade an outcome. What judges need are forensically sound succinct points, cross referenced to written and oral evidence. Often oral submissions ‘on the hoof’ fail to deliver. Perhaps we should question the need for prolix submissions in family cases when a simple, authoritative written offering could save time whilst providing greater and more persuasive clarity?

Court judgments. Like submissions, our tradition requires that these will be delivered at the end of a case orally in a court room with the parties present. In times gone by being present was the only option to inform court users of a decision and outcome. Today, most litigants are able to read an appropriately prepared written judgment, or alternatively sit in their solicitor’s office to have it explained to them in simple terms. Why it is appropriate or necessary to have parents sit in a court room for an hour or three whilst statute and case law is recited, and their failings as parents are promulgated?

Getting a work/life balance is increasingly problematic for many practitioners, especially in the early and middle years of their career. Were courts to assume a four day week I suspect that the life of both professionals and court users could become much simpler and more bearable; and if the Cambridge study is correct, possibly more productive.

Perhaps now is the time for the Baron Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice and Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals to meet with Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive of the Courts and Tribunals Service to discuss a proposal for a four day week that could enhance the lives of all court users?

Advertisements appearing below this post are placed by the platform, not the writer, and are neither monetarised nor endorsed.