New legislation aimed at improving the judicial system has sparked intense debate among legal practitioners, who have pointed out various shortcomings in its implementation. Among others, the mandatory use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (ADR) before going to court is being widely questioned for potentially delaying proceedings rather than speeding them up. Perhaps we should value its positive impact in other countries and its ability to relieve court backlogs. Rather than discarding this tool, perhaps the key lies in ensuring its proper implementation and adaptation to reality.
Why these “Reflections”? We see information, opinions, criticism, and debates every day . This usually happens with every new development and/or legislative reform, and it is more than necessary that it be so, but precisely for this reason, it is also necessary to reflect in order to understand all points of view: (i) extracting the positive to be aware of the benefit, (ii) making the negative visible in order to, by sharing experiences , clearly reflect what fails in the system in its practical application, giving visibility to the ineffectiveness of the norm, and (iii) generating debate that can serve as an exchange of opinions that, being diverse, is undoubtedly enriching and constructive.
We will attempt to provide a general overview of both the positive aspects of the law and the criticisms it has generated.
In the following reflections, we will dissect the law and offer insights into each of the new features introduced. This will inform our opinions and allow us to comment and debate, but most importantly, it will allow us to share our experiences with the implementation of this new regulation in the future.
We start from a premise: is there any doubt that change is needed in the administration of justice? The answer is obvious.
We cannot ignore the fact that the administration of justice, as it is currently configured, is not working. Therefore, the clear conclusion is that the administration of justice must change.
In the future, we’ll see whether this law will result in a positive or negative outcome, or whether things will remain the same. But we must not forget that if we’re looking for a different outcome, we need to do things differently, and at this point, the administration of justice is at a point where change is essential.
Aim
The Procedural Efficiency Act aims to transform the justice system with ambitious goals : reducing delays in judicial proceedings and decongesting the courts, promoting ADR as a preferred means of resolving disputes, driving modernization through digitalization, and, finally, strengthening collaboration with more participatory and efficient procedures.
These measures seek to build a more agile, accessible system adapted to current needs.
Main News
- New structure of the judicial system. Creation of First Instance Courts, which in turn will be composed of sections, so that we will no longer have more than 3,000 courts but instead have 431 First Instance Courts. Creation of Justice Offices in the municipalities, which will allow for decentralization and bring the judicial system closer to citizens.
Will this serve as a means—based on a new reorganization—to optimize resources and workloads, allowing the courts to «speed up» and have lower «costs»? The mentality of our civil servants will also have to change.
Further reflection is warranted to delve deeper into this point, analyze the new structure, and question the possible outcome. - Implementation and promotion of ADRs to strengthen a culture of agreement. Admissibility Requirement. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are designed as a tool to unclog courts and promote out-of-court, consensual solutions between the parties, requiring the parties to attempt ADR prior to filing a lawsuit. Is this a problem? But didn’t these practices of attempting out-of-court dispute resolution really exist before, even though it wasn’t mandatory? The issue is clearly much more important.
Therefore, we will dedicate a necessary reflection to this controversial point and its impact on practice. - Procedural developments. Simplification of processes. The law introduces significant procedural changes that aim to achieve faster and more efficient procedures, eliminating unnecessary red tape based on three fundamental pillars: streamlining, reducing costs, and promoting out-of-court settlements.
We have much to reflect on and discuss because we will see both well-made changes and others that will lead to other problems. - Digitalization of justice and electronic access for citizens. Priority is given to the use of digital platforms to streamline notifications, document filing, and virtual hearings. Will this be achieved?
Criticisms from Legal Professionals and Reflections on Criticisms
The new legislation aimed at improving the judicial system has sparked intense debate among legal practitioners, who have pointed out various shortcomings in its implementation. These criticisms, although legitimate, seem to reveal a natural resistance to change in an area that, ironically, cries out for profound transformations to overcome current challenges and problems. Among others, the mandatory use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (ADR) before going to court is being widely criticized for potentially delaying proceedings rather than expediting them. However, perhaps we should value its positive impact in other countries and its ability to relieve court backlogs. Rather than discarding this tool, the key perhaps lies in ensuring its proper implementation and adequate training for practitioners.
Because in reality, weren’t these previous attempts at out-of-court conflict resolution already a common, though not mandatory, practice?
Perhaps we should give these mechanisms a chance and see how they develop in practice, without overlooking their risks. It’s true that by being able to refer to ADR at any point in the proceedings, the courts themselves can cause unnecessary delays if they aren’t used properly. But let’s not focus solely on the risks; let’s analyze everything as a whole.
Similarly, another fear seems to be digital exclusion, which technological modernization poses a legitimate challenge. However, blaming progress for a potential digital divide denies the possibility of a more accessible system if support measures are implemented, such as technology assistance offices and in-person options for the most vulnerable sectors.
Digitalization should not be a luxury, but a right that, with the right investment , allows all citizens to interact with the justice system more efficiently.
Finally, procedural simplification and the focus on oral proceedings, criticized by some as a threat to formality, actually represent an opportunity to guarantee swift and effective justice without compromising the rights of the parties, who must never be violated.
In conclusion, criticism of these reforms reflects a legitimate understanding of the risks, but we cannot ignore the urgent need to modernize the administration of justice.
The real threat lies not in the proposed changes, but in the immobility that perpetuates current deficiencies.
The administration of justice cannot remain immune to evolution; the challenge is not to resist change, but to do so with planning, sensitivity, and commitment.
Impact and Opportunities. Conclusion.
The Procedural Efficiency Law, despite its numerous criticisms, has the potential to change the administration of justice, with one outcome or another (better or worse), if appropriate measures are implemented to counteract its risks. Its main benefits include the decongestion of courts through MASC (Restricted Administrative Procedures), allowing judges to focus on complex cases; more accessible and transparent justice thanks to the digitalization and simplification of processes; and a significant reduction in costs and time, benefiting both legal practitioners and citizens.
With proper implementation, this law could be an opportunity to change the administration of justice so that it truly serves the public.
What is indisputable is that if the current administration of justice does not work – which it does – it must be changed .
Let us hope that the changes will serve to improve.
Vanessa M. Rodríguez de los Reyes
, Attorney | Managing Director, Tuscany Acquisitions | Chief Legal Officer, Velzia Group
