Court Television: Are They Serious?

I have a huge confession to make: I absolutely love court reality television shows!  This is no secret to my staff, friends and certainly not my wife.

I found out the other day that I am not alone. I was reading a 2004 Trial Lawyer’s magazine at a mediation the other day and it said that attorneys are one the biggest consumers of television lawyer shows from dramas to reality shows. I know I should cite my source, but I simply did not write it down. It is in a mediation room in Orlando on the first floor under a phone and very dusty. 

My favorite court show by far is “The People’s Court.”  Judge Milian is a former circuit court judge in Florida and brings a lot of her Florida law background into her show. I also really like “Judge Judy,” but, then again, who doesn’t?  I consider it (well, I guess justify my time watching the shows) as an educational process into a litigant’s thought process. I know this is a weak excuse to justify my simple entertainment gained by watching some pretty crazy cases. 

But are reality court television shows actually court proceedings? For most of them, the answer is yes and no at the same time. There are some shows that use actors and therefore the results are nothing more than an extended dramatization. I refuse to watch those shows. You can read the fine print at the end of the show to determine which shows those are.

However, for the cases that use real litigants with real controversies, the “judge’s” ruling is generally final and, SURPRISE, may be more binding than a normal courtroom.  WHAT?

The Secret You Need to Know

Here is the inside secret: the television judges are actually arbitrators. The television show is an arbitration proceeding. The arbitration ruling, at least in Florida, is then submitted to the trial court for confirmation and is very, very difficult to overturn. 

Arbitration is a type of alternative dispute process. It is a process where the parties agree that a decision-maker who is not an elected judge decides the outcome of the case.  

One can use arbitration for very complex international disputes – for example using the International Court of Arbitration. A lot of complex commercial disputes in the United States are resolved under the guidance and procedures of the American Arbitration Association.  

The American Industry of Architects has its own arbitration rules and provisions that show up in many construction contracts. We know that even some family law issues can go to arbitration. Certainly most people who sign contracts with large companies do not even realize they agreed to go through arbitration rather than through a formal court proceeding. 

What Makes Arbitration Different?

Some arbitration proceedings have multiple people serving as arbitrators and the arbitrators are not always lawyers. If you recall the short-lived life of Nancy Grace’s court show (you may know her better from “Dancing with the Stars”), she always had to put on the record that the litigants agreed to be bound by her decision and she never has been an elected or appointed judge.   

One of the main differences between using arbitration to resolve a case and using a trial court to resolve a case is the ability for the losing party to appeal the result.  Generally, when an arbitrator makes a decision in a binding arbitration, the losing party can only contest scriveners’ errors (mathematical mistakes in adding up the damages).  There are some exceptions that include attacking the arbitrator for completely ignoring the law or for ruling on issues that he or she did not have jurisdiction over. However, generally the court confirming the decision will take the position of, “you agreed to arbitration rather than using the court, so deal with it.” 

In short, in a normal court case with a sitting trial judge, you have the right to appeal the decision based on the merits. In arbitration, you essentially lose that right for almost all intents and purposes. The grounds to appeal a trial court judgment is very broad and the grounds to appeal an arbitration decision is extremely limited.

So, getting back to my favorite judge, I mean arbitrator, Judge Milian, she is absolutely a decision maker when she rules on a case. The parties agreed to “The People’s Court” hearing the case, knew the risk, and agreed to be bound by the decision. 

When the parties agree to real court reality television appearances, they agree to be bound by the decision of the “judge” more so than if they were in an actual state courthouse. Real television courtroom arbitrators like “The People’s Court” and “Judge Judy” are more powerful than actual trial judges in my opinion. 

Next time you watch one of the shows, remember three things: (1) there is a statistically high percentage that your lawyer might also watch the same show; (2) the parties actually are bound by the decision; and (3) it is great television in my opinion.   

Do real court reality television shows accurately reflect how judges go about their business? In general, I would say no. However, if you have time to go to a domestic violence docket calendar or watch a final hearing in a small claim’s court where neither party is represented by an attorney, you will see remarkable similarities.