Delaying Legal Proceedings: Who, Why and How

Legal proceedings are not always about seeking the truth. Sometimes, it's a battle where time becomes the main weapon. Delaying a process can be advantageous for the side that wants to avoid a decision, exhaust the opponent, wait for a change in circumstances, or simply gain time. Although the judicial system is built on the principle of a reasonable time limit, there are many loopholes that allow for manipulation of time. They are used by plaintiffs, defendants, lawyers, judges, and even court workers. How does it happen and what can be done about it?

Why Delays Are Advantageous

Delaying a legal proceeding rarely occurs by chance. It is often part of a strategy. If the defendant knows that the decision will not be in their favor, they are interested in delaying it as long as possible. The longer the process, the greater the chance that the plaintiff will grow weary, lose interest, face financial difficulties, or even die. Delays also provide time for the destruction of evidence, the search for new witnesses, or changes in the legal situation.

For the plaintiff, delays can be advantageous if they want to exert pressure on the defendant through legal costs. Lawyers can use time to increase their fees — the longer the process, the more hours of work. Judges may delay proceedings to avoid difficult decisions or to give parties time to reach a settlement. However, sometimes delays occur simply due to system overload, which opens up opportunities for abuse.

Loopholes for Plaintiffs and Defendants

One of the simplest ways to delay a process is to file endless motions. Motions for recusal of the judge, for obtaining new evidence, for conducting an expert examination, for involving third parties — each such application requires time for consideration. If a party regularly files them, the process may drag on for years. Moreover, the refusal to grant a motion can be appealed, which also takes time.

Another method is to clarify the claims. The plaintiff can constantly change the amount of the claim, add new claims, or change the grounds for the claim. Each such clarification requires time from the defendant to prepare a new position and from the court to re-examine the materials. In some cases, this may lead to the return of the case for a new hearing.

Defendants often use non-appearance in court. If a party does not appear at a hearing without a valid reason, the court may consider the case in their absence. However, if the defendant provides a medical certificate or sends a representative, the hearing is postponed. And this can be done repeatedly, simulating illness or business travel. There are cases in legal practice where proceedings have lasted for decades due to constant postponements.

Also, a party may file counterclaims or claim the falsification of evidence. This automatically entails additional checks, expert examinations, and accordingly, time. It is important that a counterclaim can be filed simply by stating that it is related to the main case, even if the connection is tenuous.

Strategies of Lawyers

Lawyers are the main strategists of delay. They know how to use every procedural rule to win time. One of the classic tactics is to file complaints about the judge's actions or violations of procedural deadlines. Even if the complaint is unfounded, it must be considered, and the consideration delays the main hearing. Moreover, lawyers often file identical complaints, hoping that at least one of them will be accepted for consideration.

Another tactic is to change lawyers. When a new defender enters the case, they may claim that they need time to familiarize themselves with the materials. This right is guaranteed by law, and the court cannot ignore it. The change of lawyer can happen several times, each time extending the process. Moreover, some lawyers deliberately file incomplete documents so that the court returns them for revision.

Lawyers may also use the institution of \"legal uncertainty\" by sending requests to the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court on issues of interpreting the law. Such requests suspend the proceedings until an answer is received, and the answer can take years.

The Role of Judges and Their Role in Delaying

A judge is the main manager of time in the process. They can speed up or slow down the process at their own discretion within the law. Some judges intentionally delay proceedings to avoid conflicts or pressure. Others do so because they are overloaded, but this can also be used by the parties as a reason for postponing hearings.

A judge may order an examination, although it may not always be necessary. Examinations require time, especially if they are conducted in several institutions. The judge may also grant motions for recusal, even if the grounds for recusal are groundless. In some cases, a judge may declare an indefinite recess, citing the need for additional study of the materials.

Often, judges allow parties to present new evidence indefinitely, even if it should have been presented earlier. This creates a situation where the process never ends because something can always be added. The judge may also not schedule the next hearing in a timely manner, leaving the parties in the dark about the date, which also delays the trial.

Sometimes judges take vacation or sick leave, and their replacement is not made quickly. In such cases, the case may be suspended for months. This is not always abuse, but such situations can be artificially induced if a judge reports illness at a convenient time for one of the parties.

The Role of Court Workers

Court secretaries, judicial assistants, and employees of the chancelleries — they can also influence the duration of the process. For example, the late dispatch of notifications to the parties involved leads to the postponement of hearings. If the secretary \"forgets\" to inform about the date of the hearing or sends the notification late, it gives the party the right to request a postponement.

Delays in preparing protocols and judgments also slow down the process. If the hearing protocol is not ready on time, the next hearing is postponed. In some cases, court workers may intentionally lose documents or delay their registration to give one of the parties an advantage.

Moreover, court workers themselves may become targets of pressure. For example, people may come to them, posing as \"friends of the judge,\" and asking for \"settling the issue.\" The employees of the chancellery may inform one party about the adopted decisions earlier than the other, giving them the opportunity to prepare a complaint before the official notification.

Systemic Reasons and Solutions

Delaying legal proceedings is not only about dishonest participants but also about systemic problems. Overload of courts, lack of judges, outdated procedures — all this creates a favorable ground for abuse. To combat this, reforms are needed: digitalization, simplification of procedures, strictening deadlines and responsibility for their violation.

Many countries are introducing electronic legal proceedings that allow for real-time tracking of the case and reduce the influence of human factors. Systems for automatic distribution of cases are being introduced to exclude the possibility of \"choosing\" a judge. Requirements for the justification of motions are also being tightened, and fines may be imposed for unjustified statements.

However, the fight against delays requires not only technical changes but also a change in the legal culture. Lawyers should understand that abuse harms not only their clients but the entire system. Judges should be independent and ready to strictly apply procedural norms. Citizens should know their rights and be able to demand their observance.

Conclusion

Delaying legal proceedings is not just an annoying feature of the legal system. It is a tool that can be used both for protection and for abuse. Loopholes exist, and they are used. However, the fight against them is possible if all participants in the process are interested in it. Justice should not be endless. It should be effective. And every step towards speeding up the process is a step towards trust in the court.

Permanent link to this publication: